Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 11

Book of Mormon GA problem

I'm having a bit of a problem here. Someone promoted this article to GA status without going through any sort of process, wikiproject or otherwise. I changed it back, explaining that it needed to go through the process, but was reverted. What do I do now? Wrad 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:GAR. Geometry guy 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've got a good dialogue going there now. Seems to be sorting out. Wrad 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life GA review

the page was nominated on 27 august 2007 and its been a month now; nobody stood for reviewing it. i started up the article and have added up the whole content to the article. it means i can't review it. but i promise you guys that i will follow an unbiased approach in reviewing. if any body has a problem then it is henceforth requested to review the article without hesitating. rather i request you guys to review since i am waiting to move on to other articles. thanks, Sushant gupta 11:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll review it. Give me today to begin and until Friday to finish. I'll post as I go so that any changes can be worked on while I continue to go over it. LaraLove 12:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

How about adding The Good article symbol into the top of every Good article . such as Featured articles, they have a brown star on the top of the article . Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 10:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There have been multiple discussions over the topic, but no consensus on the matter. Homestarmy 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy also basically covered the essentials, but I should add that proposals of this nature should be discussed at WikiProject Good Articles instead of here, since that is the wikiproject that oversees the GA program as a whole. Dr. Cash 18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

GA's, that anyone can promote, are not so suitable for such a symbol. A possibility is to create a class between GA and FA (or use the already existing A-class), that would be used by voting on GA:s. Other Wikipedias (German, Swedish..) have two vote-classes. This class could use a symbol, as those Wikipedias have. / Fred-J 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What would be different from FA, then? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Lower requirements. / Fred-J 15:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need any more classes. We've already got too many. And we certainly don't need another class that requires reviews, we already have more reviews than participation can keep up with in FA, GA and PR. Lara❤Love 16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he's saying to add a class, just to add a symbol for a class. Wikipedias in other languages are already putting the GA symbol in the corner (and they aren't imploding because of it, either :P ). Wrad 16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion isn't as radical as Lara thinks. It is basically just a screening of GAs, to sort out GAs that aren't really GAs. A dedicated group of GA reviewers could go through recently promoted GAs and add the GA symbol to them if they appear properly reviewed.

Fred-J 16:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We're already doing that. T Rex | talk 18:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And expect to finish by 2012. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper limits of GA reviewing?

Hi, I recently took on my first GA review, Harold Pinter, but I may have transgressed the proper etiquette and would appreciate some guidance. My main criticism was that the article was written in complex sentences that were sometimes very difficult to parse for lay-people who lack the background of a Pinter scholar. Unfortunately, the chief author is a long-time Pinter scholar who naturally finds his own prose transparent. We have worked out a mutually agreeable way of me clarifying some of the more complex constructions, and him checking that the accuracy has not been impugned. But we're wondering whether this violates the separation of reviewer and editor, and whether another should take over as GA reviewer? Fortunately, another has, Jay Henry, so this is a real possibility. Any advice would be very welcome! :) Willow 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The GA guidelines only require that the reviewer has not substantially edited the article before they review it. Once reviewing begins (either at WP:GAN or WP:GAR) it is not regarded as a conflict of interest to both review and edit the article. Indeed, in my view, the more that reviewers contribute to the article, the better, as the GA process is primarily about improving articles. One of the reasons this is not a concern is that any uninvolved editor can delist the article if they believe the review was in error. Geometry guy 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dividing the categories

Would anyone object to dividing some of the larger top-level categories into smaller top level categories? (eg:Separating the "Media" section into "Films" and "Television and journalism") --Tarret ^talk 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Lara❤Love 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I like that specific example. What else do you have in mind? Wrad 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For other examples I was thinking about seperating recreation into "Sports and recreation" and "Computer and video games". If anyone else has anymore suggestions feel free to say so. Tarret ^talk 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No place for Miscellaneous GA? It's a given Topic when placing passed GA tags but then when you come to add it to the list here, there's no place for it. Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) is the article and I can't find in the current cats where to put him/the article. Nevermind, I figured it out. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think such a division is a good idea. Note that any changes here need to be matched by corresponding changes at WP:GAN. Geometry guy 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, and the one below on Physics and Astronomy, there is now a workshop on the current categorization, which aims in particular to harmonize the GA and WP1.0 lists. Further details at WT:WGA. As for the split of "recreation", if there are no objections, I will do it in a day or two. Geometry guy 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A-class good articles

All good articles seem to be categorized automatically as GA-Class Good articles. How can a good article be categorized as a A-Class Good article instead? – Ilse@ 09:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that category is only used for maintenance purposes by the 1.0 bot. Homestarmy 11:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Guyball

Anybody have any idea what this should be categorised under? I've added it, but I'm really not sure where it should go. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would put it under recreation since people are actually playing it. --Bloodzombie 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Batman (1989 film)

This article was promoted without going through the proper process. I'm not sure how to fix it. Wrad 17:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It passed after review almost a year ago. You can see the review here. If you believe it fails to meet the criteria, list the problems on the talk page and give a week for them to be fixed. If you think there's too many issues for that, nom it at GAR unless it clearly fails on many aspects, in which case, just boldly delist it and leave a note. Lara❤Love 17:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Then why did someone just add it on this page? Wrad 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Perhaps someone just came upon the AH template on another page and decided to add it. But it's all linked in the archives. Lara❤Love 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It just threw me off, because the review itself had been archived and I couldn't see it. Oh well, glad I brought it here before doing anything rash. Wrad 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, there's a big confussion going on. Batman Begins IS NOT the same thing as Batman (1989 film). User:LaraLove passed BATMAN BEGINS and i am still reviewing the other one. Today a heavy editor of Batman (1989 film) (User:Wildroot) passed the article and added to the GA list using a sock puppet (User:lightbulbinspector, proof of sockpuppetry in the userpage history). He even left me a message in my talk page telling me that "another user" had reviewed the article for me. I undid the listing (that's why it's not on the list anymore but still on the "recent adds to the list" box) and another user removed the GA tag of the talk page. I am still reviewing the article. Yamanbaiia 19:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. The whole thing really did seem fishy to me, with a new user adding an article to GA without any real review on the talk page. Yes, we are talking about something different from Batman Begins. Wrad 20:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

How the Hell did I end up at Batman Begins from Batman (1989 film)? It wasn't even in the wee hours of the morning! I must be losing it. o.O I didn't pass that article, however. It was passed back in my IP editor days. Lara❤Love 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The user used fake links to throw us off. T Rex | talk 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Signpost

Should we alert them to the news that we've hit 3000? How does that work? Wrad 01:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we did before when we reached 3,000 back a couple of months back, but I don't think they mentioned it. I think since it's happened before the may not mention it, but if you want to give it a try, leave a message at their tip line. --Nehrams2020 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, according to the GA statistics, 3000 is a new milestone. We hit 2000 back in March, but not 3000. Dr. Cash 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes you're definitely right. I was trying to find the 3,000 figure everywhere in the archives, so I can now see why I wasn't having too much success. Thanks for correcting me. --Nehrams2020 06:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the edit history, it looks like the 3,000th article is New York State Route 9A, promoted to GA status by NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} at 23:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC). Dr. Cash 06:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:ContentReviewMedal alternative to GAMedal

People were talking about the need for an award for Peer Review, so I made Template:ContentReviewMedal. However, it's not only for PR; can be used for FA GA PR etc. --Ling.Nut 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's wonderful. I have a perfect use for that. Thank you, Ling.Nut. Beautiful work. Lara❤Love 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I stand ready to serve, ma'am. --Ling.Nut 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GA citation debate

I believe I am one of the most productive WP:GA authors. At last count I had 38 current GA credits plus two that have been promoted to WP:FA. For some time, I have constantly had WP:GACs in the queue for review. In the month of October at one time I had 9 GACs, as shown here, in the in the queue. In October, I had at least 7 GA promotions: including Rush Street (Chicago), Ricky Powers, Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood), Chicago Marathon, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Haystacks (Monet), Prairie Avenue, and Rainbow/PUSH.

Last month I posted Gilbert Perreault at WP:GAR (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault) because I felt it was being destroyed by another editor who was removing citations. The GAR was headed to a consensus to keep the article with the citations replaced. Then, User:Geometry guy closed the discussion as inappropriate for GAR and suggested I take it to WP:RFC.

You may recall that I had first taken the article to the talk pages of both WP:HOCKEY and WP:WPBIO without reply and then requested help at WP:PR after much back and forth editing and arguing.

Much to my surprise the RFC is headed toward a consensus to allow the removal of my citations and essentially authorizing people to remove citations at will if they are in the mood as has been pointed out in the debate. However, it is my opinion that I am being baited in the debate especially by User:Djasso who is making it appear that I am doing some unscrupulous. My most serious concern is that the way the debate is going, it seems to authorize citation removal from WP:GA beyond what I believe is appropriate and I feel I have a good sense of what is appropriate for a good article. Furthermore, the way debate is going it appears I will be handcuffed to sit by. I am very fearful that the persons I am debating with intend to tear the citations out of the GAs I have contributed and sort of need some backup so it does not happen. I had been thinking my work at finding citations was valued, but I am not so sure.

I am hoping that others here are concerned about protecting good articles will help reverse the debate back in line with the direction it was headed while at GAR. Please see Talk:Gilbert_Perreault#RFC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Repartitioning of Physics and astronomy

The current structure is a bit illogical. For instance, extrasolar planets share the same subsection with some Solar System (SS) planets (Planets, dwarf planets and moons). However some of the SS bodies are in Astronomy subsection now. I propose instead to divided Physics and astronomy into following subsections:

• Astronomers and physicists
• Astronomy
• Extrasolar planets
• Physics
• Solar System
• Space Missions, projects and organizations
• Stars, constellations and clusters

Ruslik 13:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the current structure is rather awkward: I also like your idea to move organizations and projects together with missions. I would further propose to separate astronomy from cosmology and astrophysics, and merge constellations into astronomy. This would allow the extrasolar planets (a rather specialist topic) to be merged with stars to give something like...

• Astronomers and physicists
• Astronomy
• Astrophysics and cosmology
• Physics
• Solar System
• Space organizations, projects and missions
• Stars, galaxies and extrasolar objects

Geometry guy 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Astrophysics is too broad. It is almost a synonym for Astronomy. I think the better variant is:

• Astronomers and physicists
• Astronomy
• Galaxies and cosmology
• Physics
• Solar System
• Space organizations, projects and missions
• Stars and extrasolar planets

Ruslik 19:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that according to Wikipedia, astrophysics is a synonym for astronomy. This is not the impression I have either as a lay person or a mathematician/scientist: to me, "astrophysics" explicitly excludes aspects of astronomy which are concerned with how we view the universe from our location on the Earth. Thus constellations, telescopes, observatories, planetariums and heliocentrism are not part of astrophysics, but they are astronomy. That was the distinction I was trying to make: can you make it in a better way? Also, where do extrasolar objects like nebulae fit into your version? Anyway, I'm happy to go along with the views of experts, and we seem to be converging! Geometry guy 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I said 'almost'. In fact many articles can be classified either astronomy or astrophysics and this will be the source of confusion. The second your concern is actually valid, but 'extrasolar objects' sound a bit strange, for me at least. So the last item can be named like 'Milky Way galaxy' meaning any object inside it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I think the main issue is to agree on how to subdivide the articles: we can get the names right afterwards. Here we seem to disagree on two minor points: whether to group galaxies with stars or with cosmology, and whether to group things like telescopes with things like dark matter. I had a go at regrouping the articles along the lines we have been suggesting, and I realised that the "Space organizations, projects and missions" is still very small, so why not have a subdivision on "Observational astronomy and space exploration" (or something like that)? The corresponding splitting can be found on a user subpage of mine. Geometry guy 17:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I only renamed 'Astronomy and cosmology' to 'Astronomy and astrophysics' and reclassified one article. Ruslik 08:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just implemented this new division. Ruslik 08:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. So on this vital issue ;-) we have a clear consensus among all (2) contributing editors. More seriously, many thanks for suggesting and implementing this re-division: it is a big improvement. Geometry guy 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

European Islands

European islands have their own section in Geography Good Articles rather than being included in Places - Europe Is this useful or is it a section too many? I have no opinion one way or the other, I just want to see waht other people here think. Lurker (said · done) 19:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GA at AfD

As information, a GA has been nominated for deletion. Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (second nomination). Dhaluza (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Some articles are categorised as GA on the talk pages, even when they're not

For example, see Talk:Ottoman Empire.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean the project ratings? If so, someone should change them, but it's not in Category:Wikipedia good articles. Gimmetrow 06:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

putting places in parentheses with date of birth or death

.. is fast becoming my new pet peeve. It is verboten, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death. For an example of a GA (until a few minutes ago) that trespassed against this fair rule, see Seymour H. Knox I...Thanks Ling.Nut (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct section?

I just passed Mon Calamari cruiser and added it to the Television and journalism section because that's where TIE fighter was. This doesn't seem quite right to me, is it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an artifact of the recent split of "Media" into "Films" and "Television and journalism". Most of the section on "Fictional characters and technology" should probably be moved to "Film". Anime is also a form of film, and should be moved there, probably broadening it to "Animation". Although Manga can refer to film, it is primarily a type of comic, and would be better placed under "literature" (indeed Golden Boy (manga) is listed twice on the GA page).

In any case, the organisation here needs a bit of a rethink: most film, and some television, is primarily a creative art, and would be much more at home if it were united with "Theatre" as a subtopic of "Arts". Geometry guy 09:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course such a move requires a bit of work (changing topic parameters), but I'm happy to do it, and there seem to be no objections. Geometry guy 18:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good?

Wow, so less than 0.2% of wikipedia articles are good??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.178.182 (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

By whose standard? GA is just a nominal thing. An article can be good and not be GA. It can also, though we try to avoid it, not be good and still be GA. Good is such a vague term. The correct way to say it would be: 0.2% of articles are rated as GA quality. Wrad (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jean Charles de Menezes

was not a politician. Can somebody who's more familiar with the categorization scheme suggest where this article should be listed instead?P4k 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation: make GA less process-oriented

I don't know about anybody else, but GA processes are now so extremely complicated that I cannot figure them out. It's easier to nominate an article for FA than it is to figure out the weird process of nominations/renominations/reassessments etc. found at this project. Can't we streamline the whole thing? For example, let's get rid of the reassessment page and just allow users to renominate articles with prejudice.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. I don't understand the need for anything more than a nomination and review process, akin to FA and as it stood for a long time. Renominating could be handled by simply relisting the article using the second opinion tags. Vassyana (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Disagree. The reassessment page has precedent; it is equivalent to WP:FAR. It is extremely valuable because it places several eyes on one article. Although it has evolved through time, it has served an extremely valuable purpose throught its history. The process as a whole is may be styreamlined slightly, but only slightly! It has become more complicated than its original incarnation because, over time, there have been shrill, vociferous, painful arguments (which I assume the two editors above weren't around to see) about the process being too simple and not providing various options, warnings, etc. to the dedicated editors of an article. I suggest that it is not difficult to understand; I do not share the opposing opinion. It may be a bit too tedious to implement (too many steps). There has been some talk of automating or perhaps eliminating a few of the more minor steps in the process, but sweeping statements that "it's too complicated" are unwarranted. 'Nuff said. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly comparable to FA. FA has two processes , nomination and review. GA, as it stands, has five. An article has three chances for listing (nom review, second opinion, reassessment) and two for delisting (delisting reassessment, delisting "appeal" reassessment). Let's get back to basics. If an "appeals" process is really needed, it's nothing asking for a second opinion can't handle. I really fail to see the need for all these layers of reassessments. I also don't see why delisting cannot be handled in the same way as nominations. Are a small but vocal handful of contributors going to bitch, whine and complain when "their" article is failed or delisted? Of course. But, that's no reason to make additional layers and if they want a !vote style review, they're welcome to take the article to FA. Vassyana (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You make a good case (somewhat more concisely than I do below!) and I've also been wondering whether we can combine nominations for listing with nominations for delisting in some way. On the other hand, GAR has proved useful in handling controversial article assessments and articles on controversial topics. One advantage is that it involves editors with no particular interest in the article, whereas GA reviewers often pick articles of interest to them. Geometry guy 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, there is no process. Nominate it. If someone reviews it and passes it, then its a GA. If they fail it, then fix the problems they note. What is the problem??? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Vassyana (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What Jayron32 said, except that second opinions and the reassment process are used to settle disputes about whether an article deserves GA status. The GA process is far simpler and less bureaucratic than the FA process - did I forget to mention that the GA criteria are less demanding? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some sympathy here. Even though I'm much involved in GAR, I think it is over-used. Most articles brought there are uncontroversial delistings which should just be done. I'd like GAR to be unnecessary, but sometimes it disagreements arise about whether an article meets the criteria, and then it is invaluable to have several editors look at the article at the same time to reach a consensus. This is not possible within the one nominator one reviewer model.

As for process, yes, it needs to be streamlined, and automation of some parts of it is on my agenda. GA is marvellously simple in conception (one nominator, one reviewer), but I think that those who have been with the project for some time can be a bit blind to just how complex it is for the newcomer. Let me flesh out the "no process" described by Jayron for nominating and reviewing articles.

1. Nominator adds the article at the bottom of the relevant section of WP:GAN using the syntax: "# {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~" with an edit summary of "Nominating ArticleName".
2. Nominator adds {{GAnominee}} with the date to the top of the article's talk page.

   Comment redundant. Choose one of the above two steps for the reviewer to do; automate the other. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

3. At some point, a editor previously uninvolved with the article may come along and offer to review the article, but there are about 200 articles listed on the GAN page, so this may take a while.
4. Reviewer adds "#:{{tl|GAReview}} ~~~~" under the article listing at WP:GAN.

   Comment Eliminate the template. Actively discourages other editors from joining in the review. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Reviewer may "quick-fail" the article if it clearly doesn't meet the criteria, for one of several reasons listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles, a guideline consisting of 13KB of text (about the same length as WP:V).
6. Reviewer checks the article against the criteria. (Only 5KB, but still longer than the featured article criteria.)
7. If the article meets the criteria, the reviewer will pass the article.
   • Reviewer removes the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Passed ArticleName".
   • Reviewer replaces the {{GAnominee}} template on the article's talk page and either adds a {{GA}} template including an oldid and a topic, or updates the {{ArticleHistory}} template, with a GAN action, date, oldid, result and topic.
   • Reviewer and/or nominator updates WikiProject ratings where appropriate.
   • Reviewer adds the article in alphabetical order to the appropriate place on the list at WP:GA, updating the number of articles in that section.
   • Reviewer adds the article to "recently listed good articles".
   • Reviewer updates the GA count (actually this is essentially pointless, because the count is maintained by a bot).

   Comment Redundant. Choose one of the above six (or five) steps for the reviewer to do; automate the rest. Can the ArticleHist template be automated? Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   • Reviewer leaves a review on the talk page, possibly using a template such as {{GAList}}, explaining why the article passes and making suggestions for improvements.

   Comment Keep. Useful. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

8. If the article does not meet the criteria, but might do with a bit of work, the reviewer puts the article "on hold"
   • Reviewer adds "#: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~" under the article listing at WP:GAN.
   • Reviewer replaces the {{GAnominee}} template with {{GAonhold}} (note the cunningly different capitalization) and the date.
   • Reviewer leaves a review on the talk page, possibly using a template such as {{GAList}}, explaining what needs to be done to meet the criteria.
9. If the article does not meet the criteria, and will not in the near future, even with the reviewer's help, or has been left on hold for more than a week without sufficient improvement, the reviewer may fail the article.

   Comment The On Hold scenario could be avoided if there were a standardized, readily accessible method for reviewers to indicate in their review that the article is near GA, and a corresponding way for re-nominees to refer to that fact in the re-nomination. This could also be tricky, but it seems like it might be made less so than the On Hold scenario. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   • Reviewer removes the article from the nominations list using the edit summary "Failed Article Name".

     Comment Keep this or some other similarly quick step.

   • Reviewer replaces {{GAnominee}} from the article's talk page and either adds {{FailedGA}} with the date, or updates the {{ArticleHistory}} template, with a GAN action, date, oldid, result and topic.

     Comment Automate; see comments elsewhere above. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   • Reviewer leaves a review on the talk page, possibly using a template such as {{GAList}}, explaining why the article does not meet the criteria.

     Comment Keep; useful. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   • If the article is simply lacking in references, the reviewer adds the article to the Unreferenced GA Nominations list.

     Comment: Could this be automated? Maybe a template with yes/no boxes for "near pass" (see the On Hold scenario above) or "needs refs"? Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

10. If the reviewer is not sure whether the article meets the criteria, a second opinion may be sought.

    Comment Keep; useful. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Reviewer adds " {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~" under the article listing at WP:GAN.
    • Reviewer replaces {{GAnominee}} with {{GA2ndoptalk}} (no capitalization trick here) and the date on the article talk page.

      Comment Unneccessary second template. Delete. TfD. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    • Reviewer leaves a review on the talk page, possibly using a template such as {{GAList}}, detailing how the article compares to the criteria.
    • With luck another reviewer comes along and starts doing most of the things listed above.
11. If an article is on {{GAReview}} or {{GAOnHold}} for too long, this status may be reversed.

    Comments See above. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    • The template at WP:GAN is removed.
    • The template on the article talk page is replaced by {{GAnominee}} again.
    • The process starts over.
12. Notice that the poor reviewer does most of the work. To compensate, nominators are asked to consider choosing another article from the WP:GAN list to review. For some reason, not many nominators take up this kind invitation.
13. If the nominator disagrees with a GAN fail, and has not yet lost the will the live, the article can be taken to WP:GAR.
    • Ex-nominator substitutes the template {{GAR}} to the top of the list at WP:GAR, with the article name and the reason for the listing, e.g., "User:ToughReviewer failed my lovely article and it's not fair".
    • Ex-nominator adds a link to the discussion from the article talk page.
    • Loads of nice people ;-) comment on the article to try to find a consensus about whether it should be listed or not.
    • Eventually, the discussion gets closed, which involves another tedious list of chores:
      • Removing the discussion from the WP:GAR page.
      • Adding the discussion to the latest archive.
      • Updating the GAR backlog if necessary.
      • Updating the articles GA status if necessary, including WikiProject ratings where appropriate.
      • Adding the GAR event to the article history, starting the article history if there isn't one, searching the edit history for previous events, listing all events with actions, oldids, results, dates, links, topic. For some reason, many editors omit this step.
      • Adding a link to the GAR archived discussion on the article talk page.
      • Updating the GA page if necessary, including the counts.

        Comment Automate as many of the above steps as possible. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

    • GAR regulars (well, I know at least one ;-) ) have been known to hold off closing a discussion which needs to be closed because they just can't face doing it.

      Comment Did i do that? My sins, if any, were closing noms too early.Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

      I was, of course, referring to myself. I hate archiving GAR discussions! Geometry guy 19:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

14. Okay, all done, and we have a GA, so are we in the clear? No, because any previously uninvolved editor can also delist an article at any time.
    • Delister leaves a message on the talk page explaining why the article doesn't meet the criteria anymore (which may be simply because the criteria have changed).
    • Delister attempts to fix some of the problems.
    • If nothing happens in a week or so, the delister delists the article.
      • Delister replaces {{GA}} with {{DelistedGA}} and the date; or
      • Delister updates the article history with a GAR action (if they realise that delisting is a GAR even though the GAR page was not used, and if they can bear filling in the oldid, date, etc.).
      • Delister updates WikiProject ratings where appropriate.
      • Delister removes the article from WP:GA, updating the counts.
    • If you disagree with a delisting, you can either renominate the article, or take it to GAR. Please bear in mind that the latter action will mean that at some point in the future someone will have to close a GAR discussion, which may spoil their day.
15. Are we done now? Well, almost. There is also a task force that combs through the current GA's checking if they meet the criteria, a task force that handles those Unreferenced GA Nominations. Oh yes, and if a GA is promoted to FA, then it gets removed from the GA list, updating the counts etc. etc.

There we are. As Jayron says, there is no process: you just nominate an article, it gets reviewed, and either passes or fails.

Okay, to be a bit more serious, I know I'm just repeating the instructions on various pages, but if seeing them altogether causes a few more editors to question whether GA really is "far simpler and less bureaucratic" than other processes, then it will have been worth it. In reply to Ling's remarks that the instructions are not as simple as they used to be because of "shrill, vociferous, painful arguments", well, I'm not sure that I care. This really needs a rethink Geometry guy 13:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations or WT:WGA. This page is for the discussion of the GA list itself. Ruslik (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Geometry guy 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, but it's here now, and copy/pasting the whole thing elsewhere seems impractical. I added some comments. My initial strong object tion the point of this thread was that the initial post suggest eliminating WP:GAR. I see GAR as being the most valuable part of the process.... G-Guy, you have won me over to the cause of Autamation. Reviewers should need to do only one step (or concevably two, but that should be avoided if possible) to maove an article from one stus to the next. Please not the one comment above: a required template which has yes/no ticks for "near GA" (to fail articles without putting them On Hold; eliminating the On Hold option) and for "needs refs only" etc.? can the ArticleHist thing be automated? It requires no thought; only following a mechanical process....Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• PS But steps that give Fair Warning (such as notification of GAR on several talk pages) probably cannot and should not be automated, and should not be elided. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• PPS Back in the days when i was a programmer (surprise!) we would have specially formatted files that stroed the kind of info used in the ArticleHist template. Imagine a comma delimited file with headers etc. as a subpage of the article's talk. One automated process writes to that that file (not the talk page); another reads that file and writes to the template in the talk page. The two run independently. The worst that could could happen is a one-day overlap, since only one writes to the info file. Can do-ish? Or would a bette way involve a template that transcludes info from the subpage? I dunno which is relatively more evil: transclusion or automation... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• PPPS Or simply use cats... one template for pass/fail GA with parameters such as "nearpass=yes" to add to a nearpass cat (to avoid the OnHold scenario) "refsonly=yes" adds a cat to take care of only the needs refs scenario; one cat for "pass" and an automated process to do all the cleanup... etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved the following comments that were interspersed in Geometry Guy's comment above. They broke the numbering, and made it hard to read. It might be worthwhile to number them or add other backreferences, but I will leave that for Ling.Nut. Adding new comments between others like this really should be avoided. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• (undent) Yes I did mess up the formatting horribly. Sorry. I think I have now refactored correctly., including retaining Carl's comments.. Carl's refactoring solution left my comments unattached and therefore impossibly cryptic. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I realized it would need more work, but I didn't know how you would want to fix it (by adding pointers, or refactoring some other way). At the time, I was referring some other people to the comments, but the broken numbering lowered their impact and made it hard for me to point people at the latest version of the talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Certainly automation will help, but there needs to be an accompanying change in mindset, along the lines of kissing. The automation I have in mind is to autogenerate the entire GAN page, so that no one ever needs to edit it: I have been thinking about this for some time now, and should be able to propose something concrete in the New Year. This is slightly different from the automation suggested by your comments. Geometry guy 09:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That list really is rather horrendous when one sees it all at once. G'guy, you've already convinced me regarding your automation proposal for generating the GA page (with a minor reservation regarding tracking). I was wondering what had happened with that... I'm glad to hear you haven't shelved it ;) EyeSerene^TALK 15:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The technology for some automation is now operational at WP:PR. I'm now asking whether WP:GAN wants to adopt it. Geometry guy 00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The header and the recently listed good articles

I've only just noticed that Snowmanradio, updated the introductory passage a week ago. I'm not objecting: in fact, I think it is a step in the right direction. However, it prompted me to move the header to a separate page Wikipedia:Good articles/header to make it easier to make and track changes. This also means that the "recently listed good articles" list is now on a subpage, but I've provided an "update list" link in the bottom right corner to access it. I hope that editors will find this easier to use than when the list was buried amongst all the junk in the header. Geometry guy 15:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes editors add passes to the "recently listed good articles", but don't add them to the rest of the page. A few days later the article drops off the recent list but the talk page remains in CAT:GA. Could the list be done away with entirely? Also, editors don't need either to update the section counts, or to alphabetize the articles correctly. Those get tidied up a couple times a week. Gimmetrow 05:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this change at all. It's actually adding more complexity to the passing process -- now, when we pass a new GA, we not only have to edit WP:GA, but also to add the article to the new GAs list as well as updating the count page (a total of three edits, instead of editing just one page). Previously, when I added an article to the page, I'd scroll down to the new articles list and add it there, then use the search function to search for the category in that page and scroll down and add it there -- still only a single edit to one page. I'd like it even better if I didn't have to do the second edit to the count page, but this was added some time ago, so I just put up with that. I suspect now, though, that many editors will simply forget to update the new articles listing. I urge you to please reconsider reverting this new page. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that making several changes to a long and complicated page is easier than making one change to two or three short sections/pages, especially for newcomers. Anyway, I agree with Gimmetrow that we could just scrap the "recently listed good articles". It is not used reliably and serves little purpose. As for the count, I urge other editors to ignore it. Updating it is a complete waste of time: it is maintained regularly by GimmeBot, and inbetween GimmeBot's edits it is usually incorrect anyway. Leave to a bot what a bot does well: counting. Geometry guy 09:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, come to think of it, since GimmeBot is updating everything, I wonder if the bot could just get the dates/times of the 10 or 20 most recently added GAs directly from the history, and update the "recently listed good articles" itself? If it's running every day, that way the list would be kept up to date,... I do kind of like the list, as it does make things easier when writing updates for the GA newsletter. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the bot runs based on FA promotions/archives, and it doesn't have any code easily adapted to generating a "recently listed" list. But it does have code to remove delisted GAs from WP:GA, so editors (and GA/R closers) could just update the article talk page when delisting. Gimmetrow 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this list in connection with the GA newsletter. I'm not convinced that this is a very "fair" section to include. Over 100 GAs get promoted per month, so showcasing the 15 that happened to be listed last in the month seems somewhat arbitrary to me. Comments? Geometry guy 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure fair/unfair is an issue, unless we make it one. We would have to either drop the list altogether, or list every single newly-promoted GA... On a related note, there is no GA version of the front-page FA-of-the-day; if listing is not felt to be worthwhile maybe we could run something on these lines instead? EyeSerene^TALK 12:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reclassification of some articles

I found that some articles are wrongly classified. So I propose to move:

 Done1) Apollo 11, International Space Station, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Space Interferometry Mission and STS-74 from the current location in 'Engineering/Engineering technology' to 'Physics and Astronomy/Astronomical observation and space exploration'.

2) Space Shuttle Columbia disaster from the current location in 'Engineering/Engineering failures and Disasters' to 'Physics and astronomy/Astronomical observation and space exploration'.

3) Swissair Flight 111 from the current location in 'Engineering/Engineering failures and Disasters' to 'Transport/Air transport'.

 Done4) Surface tension from the current location in 'Chemistry and materials science/Chemistry and Atoms' to 'Physics and Astronomy/Physics'.

 Done5) Optical fiber from the current location in 'Chemistry and materials science/Materials science' to 'Engineering/Engineering technology'.

 Done6) Renewable energy commercialisation in Australia from the current location in 'Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy/Geology and geophysics' to 'Engineering/Engineering technology'.

 Done7) Material properties of diamond from the current location in 'Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy/Mineralogy' to 'Chemistry and materials science/Materials science'.

 Done8) Wind power in South Australia from the current location in 'Meteorology and atmospheric sciences/Wind and winter storms' to 'Engineering/Engineering technology'.

 Done9) Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics from the current location in 'Physics and Astronomy/Physics' to 'Engineering/Engineering technology'.

 Done10) Liquid crystal from the current location in 'Physics and Astronomy/Physics' to 'Chemistry and materials science/Materials science'.

Ruslik (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I broadly agree: 1) Yes to all; 2) No, this is notable primarily as an engineering failure; 3) Possibly, although again the notability comes from the engineering failure; 4) Yes; 5) Yes; 6) Possibly, but I think a better place would be 'Geography/Geography'; 7) Probably yes; 8) Probably yes; 9) Probably yes; 10) Yes. There are some judgement calls here, but as long as the talk page GA topic is aligned with the GA listing, moving things around is not a big deal. Geometry guy 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that Swissair Flight 111 is already listed in 'Transport/Air transport' so I removed a duplicate from 'Engineering/Engineering failures and Disasters'. The former subsection contains other articles about flight accidents. As to wind power (and other renewables) articles, I think it is logical to put them into 'Engineering/Engineering technology' because this subsection already has some articles about renewables like solar power. Currently artilces about renewables are scattered over several subsections. Ruslik (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree in general that we should be logical about our organisation, and not scatter articles unnecessarily. However, articles about renewables vary in their content, and sometimes need to be in separate sections. In the above 8) clearly focuses on the industry and the technology, whereas 6) focuses on the issue and the politics. There is no reason why these need to be in the same section. Geometry guy 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

May it be reasonable to create a separate subsection for renewables? Ruslik (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just implemented changes that are not under dispute. Ruslik (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think a separate subsection is needed: 'Engineering/Engineering technology' is a good enough place for most of these articles. I just wanted to suggest that Geography/Geography might be a better place for the ones which are not focussed on the technology. Geometry guy 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved but Wind power in South Australia but still not sure about Renewable energy commercialisation in Australia. 'Engineering/Engineering technology' already has Renewable energy commercialization article. So should it also be moved to 'Geography/Geography'? Ruslik (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the articles which I think are primarily human geography to that section. I've also updated the talk page templates for these and the above. Geometry guy 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion is closed now. Ruslik (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Films

Why are film listed with the social sciences rather than with the arts? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that films should be listed under Arts. This issue has been raised already here. Further comments can be found here. Geometry guy 01:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Film and television

Okay, here's the difficulty. Film, like Theatre, should certainly be listed under Arts not Social sciences, but what about television (and radio)? Some television, such as TV films, TV drama, soaps and sitcoms, is creative fiction very much akin to film, and therefore ought to be listed under Arts too. Indeed, there is already a subsubtopic on "Fictional characters and technologies" which has examples from both film and television. On the other hand, television has a major role as a communications medium, and this role would seem to belong with journalism, under media, in social sciences and society. In between there are non-fictional TV shows such as game shows, problem solving shows and documentaries, which have a creative component, but also a cultural and/or journalistic component. It seems to me that we have three options.

1. List all TV under Social sciences and society, and live with the artificial split between film-related fiction and TV related fiction.
2. List some TV with film, under Arts, but keep the rest under "media" in Social sciences and society, and live with the fact that TV is not all in one place.
3. List all TV under Arts, and live with the artificial split between print and TV journalism.

I lean towards option 2, but drawing the line is difficult, and there isn't really a perfect solution. I know it isn't a big deal, but what do others think? Geometry guy 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of comments, I will try to implement option 2, although it will not be easy to split the TV articles. Geometry guy 21:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This has now been done. Geometry guy 14:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

3,296 GA's?

I'm wondering if the count has gotten a little out of synch by people forgetting to up the number when they add an article. I did a quick count by simply transferring the text - from Canons of page construction to Upsilon Andromedae d - to a word document and remove all occurrences of "[[" (after first removing every "[[Image:", as these are only icons). That gave me a total of 3,296 removals, while the official count (on December 26) says 3,256. If anybody wants to double-check please do, maybe I forgot something. Lampman (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It will always be out of sync until the sweeps are finished because we never change the # when we delist articles in sweep. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

5000 milestone

I just noticed in the last week that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000. I believe the milestone was crossed on 20th December. It seems appropriate to celebrate this joint success in this season of goodwill and harmony, so congratulations to all those who have helped to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles both by working on content, and through involvement in the good and featured article projects! Cheers - Geometry guy 16:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

GA passes

Can someone please complete the GA templates at Talk:Europa (moon). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sort order

Noting this edit summary, the entries are sorted by the piped form if it exists, otherwise by the link as given. To avoid making links like Reputation, The just for sorting, any initial "The", "A" or "An" is ignored, with an exception built in for An Khe. A fair effort is made to sort unicode: Édifice Price is with the Es. If there are any quirks in the sorting, say something. Gimmetrow 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delisting without asking

I just noticed that Argentina has been delisted as a GA, i wanted to read the GAR but then i noticed that User:Coloane did not follow procedure and that he had delisted Lithuania as well. In both cases users cuestioned his reasons but he hasn't replied (Arg., Lith.). Argentina is in a terrible shape (unstable, MOS, unsourced), but appart from some MOS issues, i don't see Lithuania being that far of being a GA; those minors could have been fixed if the editors had been warned. Opinions?--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that there was a procedure violation. WP:RGA states "If you come across an article which no longer meets the criteria feel free to be bold and remove it". The WP:GAR procedure, which I assume is the one you're concerned Coloane didn't follow, could been seen as contradictory to the WP:RGA statement, although I'm more apt to just consider it the more polite procedure. Although certainly a breach of etiquette, Coloane was not technically obligated by policy to assert the reasons for the delisting or utilize the reassessment procedure.

A cursory glance reveals that Lithuania has numerous issues including, among others, insufficient lead, insufficient culture section and WP:NOR violations. My thoughts on Argentina mirror your own. If you believe the delisting(s) to be inappropriate, just list the article(s) on the WP:GAR and let the process take its course. I would recommend, however, working on the articles and re-nominating them at WP:GAN once you think they're ready. If you want to discuss the possibility of policy conflicts, the talk page at WP:GAN might be a good - although not technically appropriate - place, as it sees the most traffic from active reviewers. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 18:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's it, the whole be bold and delist, doesn't really work. Lithuania has many active users who apparently care about keeping the article as a GA and could have fixed the MOS and OR issues if they had been warned. Actually, i just noticed, an admin RElisted Lithuania! (rv; the reviewer did not follow the procedure.) I guess what i'm asking here is, how important is the GAR process?. A good example about reassessing instead of just delisting are Batman (1989 film) and Batman Forever. They were both delisted without a reassessment, i pointed out the process to the delister and he relisted as GA and asked for a reassessment. In the end, after substantial changes, both articles were kept (not because of consensus but because of +5 weeks in GAR). It just doesn't seem fair for the articles to be months on the GAN list for then to have someone delisting the article in a blink without even a warning or an explanation. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone would disagree that WP:GAR is the preferable procedure. That fact of the matter, however, is that there are currently two policies (WP:RGA and WP:GAR), and editors get to pick between them. If you genuinely care about the article, worry about its content, not whether it has a green plus on its talk page. Further, if your assertion that “Lithuania has many active users who … could have fixed the MOS and OR issues” is indeed true, list the article on WP:GAR to flush out concerns, as has been requested since 12.14.07. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I read your message from my talk page. I carefully read your article and didn't think it meets GA criteria at the moment and that is why I delisted right away. For the article Denmark, I put it on the GAR assessment and let every one vote it. It finally delisted. Many paragraphs from the article of Argentina, just like even what you discovered, are basically without sources and I wish you could fix them ASAP. Thanks!! Coloane (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

These are not my articles, i had never even edited before in neither of them, i just happened to notice they were delisted. I am not going to be able to fix the problems ASAP, a) because i know nothing about Lithuania and there are waaaaay too many POV issues i wouldn't know how to handle; and b) Argentina needs a lot of sourcing work, and i'm all about writing and sourcing, but sourcing an entire already written 110 kilobytes long article, would probably take a lot of time i just prefer spending elsewhere. I will however leave reasons of why they were delisted in the article's talk pages.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 20:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is strongly encouraged to follow the delisting guidelines. These guidelines help to avoid situations such as this arising. Geometry guy 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

While most of the time GAs go thru GAR prior to delist, we do have quite a number of articles that are boldly delisted. I gone over the talk page history and found that Argentina is nominated on April 26, 2006.[1] A day later, another user listed it as good article.[2] As one of the sweep participant, I can tell you that a large amount of articles being delisted by the sweeps are listed as GA before mid 2006. Since mid 2006 the good article criteria was introduced, hence all articles listed before that are not checked against any critiera, and any user may feel free to list them.

Going back to the argument of bold delisting this article, I would have done the same thing. Right at the beginning of the article, there's a tag for unvertified claims. Half a page down and I found a "citation needed" tag. In this article, there're a total of 10 "citation needed" tag. Any of these tags can be quick failed according to quick-fail critieria. If every single GA that requires delisting must go throuh GAR then it will be too burecratic and overload the GAR. Therefore, this delist is reasonable. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 08:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish people would not use the term "bold delist". Please please read the delisting guidelines. They do not say that articles should usually be delisted via GAR; quite the opposite. Instead they advise editors to leave a message on the talk page, and then give other editors time to respond before delisting. There is nothing "bold" about this: it is a straightforward process that is underused and rarely used properly.

I've no idea where this perception comes from that you either use GAR or "boldly delist". As a result of this false dichotomy, GAR is overused. Most delistings can be done by a single editor by following the guidelines. Geometry guy 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

GA count is out

The GA article count needs to be reconciled.

Source	Count
GA page total count (as of 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC))	3,385
Sum of all 176 section counts	3,426
Actual number of articles on GA page	3,455

That is, there are 70 articles where the GA reviewer forgot to up the total page count, and 29 articles where the GA reviewer forgot to up the section count. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in GA reviewers updating any of these counts: they are maintained by a bot. If the bot is not counting correctly, please report to User:Gimmetrow. Geometry guy 07:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember articles may be listed more than once on the page. That's reflected in the section counts but the article is only counted once for the overall count. Also the following are in the GA category without being listed here:

• • Talk:2007 Hawaii Bowl
  • Talk:Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami
  • Talk:Flag of Germany
  • Talk:Le Père Goriot
  • Talk:Westroads Mall shooting

Thanks. Gimmetrow 07:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If the counts are maintaind by a bot, then manual update instructions should be removed. This is just one more thing to confuse people, like myself. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that articles should not be listed in more than one section. Geometry guy 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see how people have jumped to categorize these articles. Gimmetrow 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot is still counting incorrectly and is also miscounting WP:FA too. Just check the number of articles in Category:Wikipedia good articles. Note that category contains the definitive list of articles and GimmeBot is always out by n, where n is the number of pages the category spans over - 2. If you notice if you reach the very end of Category:Wikipedia good articles and then count backwards you get GimmeBot's count. But check closely you will notice that it's missing articles that were being counted when you count forwards. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you still don't believe GimmeBot's counting error, go here [3]. Look at that top number - there are 14 subcategories but all the remainder (3460) are good articles.. Also look here [4] Centy – reply• contribs – 17:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC).

Multiple people have verified that the count of WP:FA and WP:FFA is exactly correct. I haven't verified WP:GA recently, but it uses the same methodology and I have seen no specific reason to doubt its accuracy. The category is not the definitive list - the WP:FA, WP:FFA and WP:GA pages are. Gimmetrow 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof Centy – reply• contribs – 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my point. That version lists 3460 good articles *from the category*. The current G-Bot count is 3452, and there are 8 articles in the category not listed on WP:GA. So G-bot appears to be 100% correct. Gimmetrow 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please could you then give me the list of the 8 articles in my sandbox that are not Good Articles then. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Five of them are listed above. Others are:

• • Talk:Battle of the Little Bighorn
  • Talk:No free lunch in search and optimization
  • Talk:Whitey Wistert

Please categorize them appropriately. Gimmetrow 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is here I would like to point out Talk:2007 Hawai'i Bowl, Talk:Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami, Talk:Flag of Germany, Talk:Le Père Goriot, Talk:Westroads Mall shooting, Talk:No free lunch in search and optimization and Talk:Whitey Wistert have all (read their talks pages) been passed as Good Articles and your bot has assessed and approved them! You bot has even updated their talk pages! All that has happened is the reviewer has neglected to add the article to WP:GA.

In fact the only problem article is Talk:Battle of the Little Bighorn where your bot appears to have listed it as a GA without an actual review...I have now reverted that. So in fact my count WAS correct. Gimmetrow, I think the category of Good articles SHOULD be the definitive list given your bot updates the article history banner which then affects the Good article list. Your bot could then check if that said article has been listed - a forgetful human reviewer is more likely to forget to update WP:GA than your bot is to fail to update the Article history banner. I think you should compare you G-bot count with the category count every now and then. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Centy, are you suggesting Gimmetrow should alert the GA project to discrepancies between the GA-Cat and Gimmebot GA page counts? Like this, for example? Geometry guy 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Battle of the Little Bighorn: The bot didn't put the template up first, this editor did: [5]. If there was a mistake, please explain to them how to fix whatever error was made. NJGW (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the editor passed the article but forgot to list it. I'll ask them to fix that. NJGW (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your own page agreed with G-bot. The count has always been what is on this page, as the page says, "of the X Wikipedia articles, Y are listed below'". Furthermore, I'm offended by the suggestion that I should compare with the category "now and then". Excuse me? Who do you think routinely syncs this page with the category? The list above has been there for a week and nobody touched it. Gimmetrow 18:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave another example of Gimmetrow's excellent work. Geometry guy 18:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, our counts agree... Let's end it here. Centy – reply• contribs – 18:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, and after tracking it for over a year and manually checking it many times, GimmeBot has never miscounted FAs or FFAs. That number is and has always been solid. If there are GA issues that need to be resolved, please keep in mind the good and thankless work Gimmetrow does. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvement the review procedure

I think we should improve the procedure of reviewing the article. Many reviewers prefer to review the fields which they don't expert in it. This may lead to some problems. They can't judge whether the article has reached GA status or not. They can't judge about "Factual accuracy", "Broadness in coverage" and "Neutrality" correctly. For example Islamic astronomy had some problems but has been chosen as a GA article. I don't want to reassess the article and now I'm co-working with the other wikipedians to improve it. But this was just an example. I think there are wikipedians in this project who are knowledgeable in some fields and it's good idea to ask them to review or add their viewpoint about the issues which they know well. It may slow the procedure of reviewing but this is the cost of improvement.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the whole review thing is a bit objective and depends on where you stand. I saw the article to be fairly broad in its coverage. We can not just add words to articles because there is some little aspect that we want to see there. length is inversely proportional to readability beyond a certain limit, and Islamic astronomy is already above that limit. Also, It was NPOV, views from all sides were present, if there is a statement here or there that someone might not like, it does not mean POV , it just means a balanced view of the article; because that someone will find a statement that he likes. Anyway, please remember that this is GA article, not A-class or FA; that it must have flaws , otherwise what is the point of having all the above mentioned classes? Ergo, problems will (and in fact should to a certain extent) exist in GA articles, otherwise , we have ourselves an FA. Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 09:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A technical task force is certainly a nice idea, but the problem is; even when we are allowing anyone to review , we have a MASSIVE backlog, imagine what would happen if you restrict the review process. Regards. Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 09:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don’t agree with your logic. People knowledgeable on a given topic are likely to have a pre-existing interpretation (i.e. bias). Whether or not they consider an article neutral, therefore, is dependent upon the content matching their preexisting notions. A reviewer with no previous knowledge is better equipped (or unequipped, as the case may be) to provide an objective viewpoint on whether both sides are covered. Remember, also, that this is GA, not FA; the criterion is “broad”, not “comprehensive”. A knowledgeable person is indeed better able to determine whether coverage is complete; an “outsider”, however, is entirely able to judge whether the information present is enough to relay a “broad” understanding of the topic. Thorough reviewers – especially those looking at unfamiliar topics – look to existing GAs on similar topics to determine what information has precedent for inclusion. Finally, factual accuracy is tied to the sources; no experience in the topic is needed to examine those. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found it very helpful to have people not involved in the tropical cyclone or meteorology projects review articles I've put up for GAC or FAC during the past couple years. If you only have people who are knowledgeable within a given field give reviews on said articles, you'll never really know if it's readable to the lay person, or a broad audience, would you? Thegreatdr (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone who really knows the subject sees huge errors, they can just delist it. Wrad (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Sometimes it is helpful to have reviews by editors with some degree of expertise, sometimes it is helpful to have reviews by editors who have little expertise. It depends on the article (both its subject and its current state). The GA process does not express any preference either way, and I would not like it to. Geometry guy 19:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Auto-hide List

Shouldn't the list auto-hide itself when you go to the page? That is what it was originally supposed to do to make navigating this page easier. If it did this it would makr the page easier to navigate. Tarret ^talk 15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead sections

The quality of Wikipedia article lead sections is fairly saddening, but it's especially annoying when a lead is clearly not meeting the criteria yet the article has still been given a GA rating. I would like to think there was some way we could stop people from missing this problem. Perhaps a mention in the newsletter or something? Look at water resources, for example. I saw the problem last September and left a note. It's still no different, and it's still rated as a GA. Something that long should have a 3 or 4 paragraph lead, yet it only has 1 paragraph. I've got better things to do than run around delisting GAs all day, so please, can we do something about this? Richard001 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, all articles listed as GAs should comply with WP:LEAD. It's not so much about the length of the lead per se, but about whether or not it adequately summarises the rest of the article (the recommended lengths are based on an assessment of how much space this summary is likely to take up).

Where you see articles like this, if you don't want to delist them yourself then by all means drop a note here, and someone will get on to it. You can also take the article to WP:GAR if you're not sure if it deserves its GA status.

Thanks for the heads-up ;) EyeSerene^TALK 11:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: There are a number of significant issues with the article (other than just the lead); I have delisted it. EyeSerene^TALK 11:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead would be a great topic for a WGA newsletter main article. Our guidelines for the lead are a bit different from what many editors do when they write articles, because the lead has to be not just an introduction, but a summary. Many articles which don't meet WP:LEAD have been, and continue to be, passed as GA. I'd be happy to write and/or contribute to a piece on the subject. However, I do think it is important that newsletter articles are explicitly identified as opinion pieces. For instance, Dr Cash wrote a nice article about "On Hold" in the February newsletter, but I disagreed with some points, and if I had written it, the emphasis would have been rather different. I would have emphasised giving article editors reasonable time and opportunity to fix issues, based more on their willingness to fix them, rather than limiting the on-hold by problems or by a maximum time period.

Similarly, WP:LEAD has become one of my favourite guidelines — I've found (e.g. from experience at GAR) that following it not only improves the lead, but also the rest of the article — so if I wrote a newsletter item on it, it would very much be an opinion piece.

I'm just worried that newsletter articles will implicitly add more guidelines and bureaucracy to the GA process, which is the last thing we want to do if we want to attract more reviewers and reviewings. Geometry guy 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree, and in some ways I think the lead is the most significant (not important) section of an article, being the first thing a reader's eyes light on when they open a page. I like the rule-of-thumb that says it should be possible to delete the rest of the article, and left with only the lead, still come away with a decent - if superficial - grasp of the subject. Personally I feel it always ought to be the section of the article that's written last (I know there's lots of reasons why that wouldn't work though :P)

It's a perfect topic for the newsletter IMO. It wouldn't have to be prescriptive - as you say, it could be written as a "How I do it" rather than "How we should do it". I think a lot of reviewers would find it useful, and it gives food for thought when reviewing (and writing), even if not everyone adopts the ideas in full. WP:LEAD is "only" a guideline after all, though one I think makes good sense... and in any case we've adopted it as part of a GA criterion (which pretty much makes it non-negotiable) ;) EyeSerene^TALK 20:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Category Improvement

In working in the Religion and Philosophy section, I'm noticing that a lot of articles are miscategorized. I'll work to clean that up, but I also noticed that there is a distinct absence of a "Religious Festivals and Practices" subsection. As we have a couple of articles that would better fit in this sort of sub-category, I would like to add it. Is there any method for adding a subcategory, or should I just Be BOLD and re-arrange things as best fit? -- jackturner3 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

New How-to book on editing Wikipedia

Check out this new book about Wikipedia:

• Broughton, John. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, (2008) O'Reilly Media 0-596-51516-2

This shows newbies how to use Wikipedia, avoiding the pitfalls of trial and error, and has lots of tips for experienced editors. If you know of someplace where references like this ought to be listed, please copy this info there. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it released under the GFDL? ;) EyeSerene^TALK 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, one of my neighbourhood's bookstore has 3 copies. I'm definetely going to pay a visit to read the book (not buying though :P) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There's an ad taking up the whole of the GA section Econ and Business, subcategory "Advertising and Marketing"

this is it:

"Advertising and Marketing

Advertising and Marketing are an esssential part of every companies plans should they wish to grow and succeed in todays world. One such form of marketing is via the search engines, i.e. Google, this is called search engine optimisation or seo for short. SEO can help to increase the presence of a website via the natural or organic listings, these are generally found on the left hand side. By investing or building a website your next step is to promote it, let everyone know who you are and what you are offering, the best way to do this is via search engine optimisation, though seo itself is not an easy task. If you are serious about promoting your website to the search engines then you need to consider hiring an ethical and affordable seo company that can look at helping you to recognise the methods that you need to implement into your website. A good seo firm can also offer extra levels of services for instance off the page optimisation which means link building, content management to keep your site fresh, article writing to attract future links, search engine submission services to help index your site, blogs, directory submissions to name a few. Besides seo, there are the more traditional but less effective ways of marketing such as yellow pages or the local paper or trade magazine. If you really want to push the boat out and you have the budget for it then radio or even better television advertising can help drive new prospects through your door. So to sumarise to gain new business, buy or build a website, hire an seo firm like <link removed>"

Adding insult to injury it's full of spelling errors, too. It needs to be deleted but I'm new at this - what is the process?Harrison789 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You can read more about how to correct this in WP:VANDAL, basically you go back in the history (thought the History tab at the top of the page) and revert back to the good version. In this case, a simple revert couldn't be done, because people had added important info after the vandalism had occurred. Thanks for pointing this out! VanTucky 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the audacity of this one hilarious! Thanks VanTucky for removing the spam. I've also removed the knock on effect here! Geometry guy 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the directions to WP:VANDAL! Harrison789 (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do I put...

The recently passed Verna Fields on the list? Would she fit under "Actors, models, performers and celebrities"? Should there be a separate section for "Filmmakers"? Help? María (habla conmigo) 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject GA Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How important are images?

Is it worth submitting biographical articles of living persons that don't include images because no free ones can be found? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Images not being available will not be held against the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have been running into this issue (and misinterpretations of it) a lot recently, but it's always been a problem. Perhaps we need to make WP:WIAGA criterion 6 clearer, to explicitly state that images are not required? EyeSerene^talk 10:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that, when i first started reviewing i was under the impression a picture WAS needed. Critera 6 should be changed to ..... if pictures are used they must have the correct rational along with suitable captions. Infact i think the whole caption thing also needs clarification. Realist2 (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While images are not necessary for the article, there is a big red flag to look out for. In some biographical articles, a placeholder image is placed in the template if there is no image of the individual. I would personally be very hesitant to pass an article as a GA if it had such a placeholder image in its infobox. It's an issue with criterion #3 of the GA criteria (completeness). Dr. Cash (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since placeholders are in dispute at present, surely it's better to omit an image altogether than have the article failed for incompleteness. I've seen many bios where free images are not available, and therefore lacking from the infobox, but fair-use images have been used, with justification, in the body of the article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, an article should not fail over a damn picture if it is ok in everyother way. It would be better to just remove the picture. Im gonna say something controversial, maybe pictures good or bad shouldn't be a part of the GA critera. When people can just remove them to skip critera 6 is it even worth having? Realist2 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've boldly edited Criterion 6 to emphasize that images criteria apply only when images are available for use. VanTucky 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. Relevant free images should be used if they are available. Non-free images should have fair use rationales. Any other images should be removed. However, if it is reasonable to expect that a free or fair-use image could be found, and the article does not have one, then this is a broadness issue. Geometry guy 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks better to me, VT! I think (relevant) images bring a lot to an article and could indeed be a broadness issue, but we can gently prompt as part of a GA review while making it clear it's not a 'fail' if suitable pics can't be found. I certainly don't think we should ignore images altogether - we can't pass an article as Good if it has, for example, image copyright problems; these are policy voiolations. Next GA newsletter topic...? :) EyeSerene^talk 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, criterion 6 should be further lowered, so that images are never required for an article to attain GA status. Of course, when images are present, the two sections of criterion 6 should apply as usual. The wording should be made more explicit; something along the lines of "Articles do not need images to attain GA status".

I see no reason to hide my intense dislike of the anti-fair use brigade. Lowering criterion 6 further means I can write GAs without any images, free or otherwise, and thus not need to deal with them.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly not be my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I don't care what your view on fair use images on Wikipedia is, but if there are free images readily available, then the article is not complete without them. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 03:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Completeness is not part of the GA criteria; broadness is. Your argument would be a good reason to require images in FAs, but not GAs. Note that I focus on Singapore-related articles; finding appropriate images for them is difficult (and finding appropriate free images next to impossible). I thought GA should help fight systemic bias, not worsen it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't apply one criterion to the interpretation of another. My feeling is that the current image criteria reflect very well the requirement that all images should be free or equipped with fair use rationales, against the wish that GAs should have good images where they are available. Geometry guy 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures aren't important. WP:NOT a children's book. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, but I have not found any paragraph of WP:NOT which supports your case. Geometry guy 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Idea for sections

See WT:FA. Simply south (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this idea has now been withdrawn. Geometry guy 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Curious question

I'm just curious — how many former GA's have wound up deleted? I know Zig Zag (character) (yeah, there I go, adding yet another red link) was once ranked GA (although apparently it was totally devoid of third party sources at the time), and it has since been deleted. Have any others wound up deleted like this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Torchic (which was an FA, but still...) Sceptre ^(talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A list of both FA and GAs that have been deleted would be amusing! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Former FAs are at WP:FFA (as you can see, there are no redlinks). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Milestones

As I'm sure many editors have noticed, we crossed the 4000 good articles mark very recently. We are also about to cross the 2:1 GA to FA ratio, which I think is an important symbol of the mission of GA to get as much of the encyclopedia as possible up to a good standard, while accepting that this daunting task will always result in some imperfections. Geometry guy 07:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The 2:1 milestone should be a Signpost article ...like the 2000 FA article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is right, but I also think such an article might be a great opportunity to present some mutual respect between GA and FA. There have been disagreements in past, but there have been very few such disagreements recently. There are probably still a few editors on each side who still enjoy making snipes, but my impression is that most mainstream editors support both processes, and I would encourage those editors to make their voices heard. The two processes have different goals. GA does not attempt to define our best articles, in the way that FA does; instead it attempts to provide a way to make many articles on WP meet certain minimal requirements: it doesn't always succeed immediately in doing this, but it has a flexible process of listing and delisting that is designed to reach consensus in the end. This is a different process from FA, where it is important that the quality stamp of approval really means that the article has been approved by the community. Both processes are extremely important to the quality of Wikipedia. Lets celebrate them both. Geometry guy 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen recently, the snipes are really coming from less than a handful of editors (and they usually follow on the heels of a new editor suggesting some part of FA needs to look some part of GA, and responses to that being misunderstood or misinterpreted. A lot of it would probably stop if some editors would stop expecting FA to behave like GA.) I agree that mainstream editors support both processes, and that both have a place, but I'd add that most editors also recognize that a GA is only as good as the GA reviewer, and we all know who the good ones are. (I wish y'all would take this bull by the horns; as long as the FAC archives give you the data showing that one-third of failed FAs are GAs with non-reliable sources, you all have a hook you can use to get those reviewers to be more thorough, which will help raise standards and raise respect.) G guy, do you want to allocate a Dispatch post to the ratio issue (we're starting to get backed up on requests for space there, so you need to speak up and sign up and get a date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know how many "articles" are disambiguations and lists. The "1 in 387" claim in the header has always struck me as an incomplete picture; accounting neither the number of eligible articles or the number of FLs. --JayHenry (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, number of eligible articles might be hard to determine, but shouldn't FLs be included with the FAs and GAs, since lists are included in the total? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be a helpful tweak, although it would affect the timing of the milestone if FLs were included with FAs. Re "GA is only as good as the reviewer", no, it is as good as all the reviewers who look at an article throughout the course of its article history. Re Dispatches, see my talk page. Re Sweeps, good idea, I've commented at WT:GAPQ/S. Sweeps is an important part of making my claim (that GA is as good as all the reviewers who look at it) actually have some practical value: if only one reviewer has ever looked at the article, then its GA status is indeed only as good as that reviewer was. Geometry guy 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe stubs should also be included as they are potential articles as well. Simply south (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Lacuna re legal articles

There is a problem with articles dealing with appeal decisions in that there is usually only one source- the official Law Report itself. Hence these articles cannot have "multiple independent sources" per the usual requirement, in fact the official law report is the official source as sanctioned by statute, and is usually reported, if not in BAILII , then in offline Law Reports, which is why we cite these, to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. I've recently had a couple of articles quick-failed because of this, although they are now restored. Since these articles are of their own type, is there a case for a more focussed GA guideline? Have notified this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law for input. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there no commentary? Off hand, it sounds like the Law Report is some sort of primary source...at least a source everyone refers to. A wikipedia article ought to have commentary of some sort on the source else it is just a mirror of the Law Report. But, I might be misunderstanding. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There will be various commentaries in legal textbooks, but they are only opinions. It's rare that the press comment on the legal issued raised by these cases, because to a lay audience it's just not relevant (and doesn't sell papers). However, as I see it, the article here is meant to be a more accessible version of the law report, suitable for a non-lawyer. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But you could include those commentaries / opinions perhaps in a sub-section called commentary which would go a long way to satisfying multiple reliable sources. I'm sort of suspicious of "a more accessible version of the law report, suitable for a non-lawyer" as you say. This sounds like original research in that you are providing an interpretation - simplification - of a primary source. I think it would be best to provide those commentaries. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at the only criminal law textbook I have to hand, which cites part of a judgement and then says "The law gives the defence (of automatism) a very narrow interpretation, emphasising that there must be a total loss of voluntary control". That doesn't help, and doesn't expand the point of the judgement. So I'm not optimistic on that point. As for original research, every time we write a plot summary of a film or television episode, we are interpreting what should be important for our readers. For a law report, all we should need to do is set out the facts proved, the arguments raised, the decision reached, and the reasons (including precedent) for that decision. More would be useful, but not necessary in my view. For example, R v Hancock was a case linked to a labour dispute, but the legal issues had nothing to do with that; however, the dispute is linked from the article if the reader wants a wider context. But for most appeal decisions, that context is lacking. You see the problem? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, it is key for you to consider that you're participating in a process that is almost entirely checklist driven, as opposed to one involving contextual review or topic-minded insight. In this sense, a good article that you worked on may not be a Good Article, and only you can determine whether this matters to you. Conversations of this sort ("your overview may be original research"—down with encyclopedia articles then, I suppose) make me, for example, stay far away from the majority of "process wonkery" on wikipedia, because process wonks always get lost staring at trees in the forest. Comment from uninvolved –Outriggr § 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Wikiproject Law seems remarkably understaffed, probably because activity there is not chargeable to a client, but in terms of UK law, it's a mess of Byzantine proportions. Perhaps there is a law wiki somewhere that appreciates the need for this sort of thing. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you decide if a case is notable? "The law gives the defence (of automatism) a very narrow interpretation, emphasising that there must be a total loss of voluntary control" seems like the kind of ref you could use to show your summary is accurate and not original research as well as assert notability. You also might ask someone in Category:Wikipedian lawyers, or User talk:Newyorkbrad and User talk:Aboutmovies know a lot about law and about WP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There are clearly "leading cases" in different areas of law - indeed, one of Lord Denning's early publications as a rising junior barrister was the latest edition of Smith's Leading Cases in Contract. Ways to prove that R. v X or Smith v Jones is a leading (i.e. notable) case would be to show (a) judicial commentary in subsequent cases - important cases get mentioned, followed, distinguished, confined to their facts, disapproved or overruled depending on the circumstances, changes in legal opinion, reassessment of circumstances etc and / or (b) academic commentary in articles and textbooks. It's not just a question of saying that "various commentaries in legal textbooks... are only opinions" since for example, if Archbold for a criminal law case or Chitty on Contract (what, that's a redlink?) for a contract case says that a Court of Appeal decision is right or wrong, that may be "just" an opinion in one sense but it's a very authoritative one and one that may well be followed in later cases on the topic. By using these further sources, the notability of the case can be verified and the requirements of multiple independent sources met. (What do you mean that I can't charge this to a client? We're all paid by the Foundation for editing WP, aren't we?!) Bencherlite^Talk 23:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive never understood The point of multiple sourcing for the sack of multiple sourcing. the law report is the bible of law. It ends their, what the law report says, goes. The law report isnt disputed EVER. Besides other sources just copy whats in the Law report anyway. Realist2 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is this, in a nutshell: Wikipedia:OR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources says

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.

That's good enough for an article, but apparently not good enough for a Good Article. For an article describing a legal decision, the official Law Report (sanctioned by statute) is by definition the source for that article. We are not interpreting the law report, and nor should we, per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Any legal textbook that mentions that case uses the law report as the primary source; any opinion which the authors may offer is just that, and nothing more. If all they do is to cite passages from the law report (which very largely is all they do), there is no point citing them because they are no better than we are as secondary sources. We cite the official Law Report on BAILII; that satisfies both WP:RS and WP:V. That should be all that is needed for a GA evaluation as far as sourcing is concerned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, is not the judgement itself (now usually online in higher courts), the primary source, and the Law Reports the official secondary source? The Law Reports may point up conflicts with other cases, and further implications etc that the judgement itself does not. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For those intertested....

The voting going on above, I hunted down an article that had a GA symbol in the top right corner (And no, I didn't put it in there, rather took it out ;)) Obviously you can use the show preview button, but.... Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FA got its star on main page primary because people just snowballed to add the star to the page while GA people didn't snowball the idea. Then they just took the lack-of-interest from GA people and made it a "law" that GA can't have its + sign on front page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that was one of the articles I reviewed. :) Anyway, now that I see it for real on an article, I think even less of the idea of adding the + to an article. IMO, the FA star pretty much self-explains itself, but regular people aren't going to have any idea what that means. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not as aesthetically pleasing as the FA star. Maybe a brief italicized statement to either side of it might improve its appearance. But then, what would such a statement say? Kevin Baas^talk 14:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. I don't like the idea of a GA symbol on an article, regardless of text on either side of it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

This article has meet the good article criteria and passed through the good article nomination process successfully.

Kevin Baas^talk 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! That's way too long for the top of an article, IMO. Also, I don't like the idea, but if I did it would have to be like the FA star format. It would link to WP:GA, just as the FA star links to WP:FA. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"...has meet..."? You mean "met" ;) Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 15:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's another possibility:

^{This article has passed the good article criteria.}

designed to be smaller and less intrusive. Kevin Baas^talk 16:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a sample: [6] Kevin Baas^talk 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that having the text next to the symbol will detract from people being willing to support the implementation of the symbol all together. Clicking on the symbol should take a user to a page describing the criteria, similar to what happens when you click on the FA star. will381796 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The FA star doesn't say ^{This article has passed the Featured Article criteria}. I'm not even sure I like the FA star. As stated by many of our policies and guidelines, we are here to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, not to see who can get the most articles with the stupid + symbol or star on it. The World Book encyclopedia doesn't have stars and + signs on their articles, and neither does any other encyclopedia. How is it going to aid the reader in determining the quality of an article? This would not help the building of an encyclopedia at all. It is just for the sake of the people here who are here for their own good, and how think Wikipedia is a competition to get the most recognized content. A person how hears something on TV or the radio, or a kid doing a school report is not going to care about the symbol on the top-right corner of the article. They are just coming here to learn about the subject. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing apples with pears. A reader of the Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, will automatically expect that every article has been reviewd to some minimum standard, but that is obviously not the case with wikipedia articles. Hence the FA/GA sysmbols, to show that an article has been through some kind of independent review process. That's how it helps a reader to at least determine the relative quality of an article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand why a reader will care how high on the assessment scale an article is. As I have said before, the reader can be the only one to determine if an article is good enough for her/himself. I still stick with my opinion that we are here to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. Not to see who can get the most GAs or FAs. Also, I believe that only FAs (although I don't think the star is that necessary) are good enough to showcase on the main article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that they would care how high up it was. What I said was that they may care that it has undergone an independent assessment. The "how high up" argument also applies equally to the FA star of course. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. By "relative quality" I meant assessed vs unassessed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it applies equally to the FA star, and I don't think it adds much either. As a member of the GA project myself, I respect the GA process, but I just don't think the symbol on the main article would add much. I know I'm sounding redundant to my previous comments, but I just don't think it's a good idea. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea. We really shouldn't be taking our ideas from other encyclopedias anyhow, since wikipedia is not run in the same manner, which was previously noted. Most people who check wikipedia for information aren't checking the talk pages for article quality. A GA badge/statement/haiku might get people to further explore wikipedia, and could increase the number of people making edits as well as increased positive notice within the media, as they become more knowledgeable about wikipedia. Seems like a win-win to me. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my concern! What kind of average reader is going to recognize the + symbol, and corrolate it to good quality? People don't come to Wikipedia to look for GA symbols, they come for an encyclopediac overview of the subject they intend to learn about. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read the comment above that you are apparently relying to? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

<--Yes, of course. Thegreatdr stated that people are going to read Wikipedia and recognize the GA symbol as a symbol of good quality, and my concern is that people won't actually know what it means. I don't understand why you asked that. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thegreatdr never suggested that people won't know what it means, or that were this the case, it would be a cause for concern. Kevin Baas^talk 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said he did. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You directly implied that he did. If you responded to him: "That's my concern!", and your concern was that people won't know what it means, it logically follows that he said people won't know what it means. But, as you tacitly acknowledge, he didn't say that. This is why malleus asked that, and why i was likewise confused. Kevin Baas^talk 16:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not directly imply that he did. I may have worded that statement incorrectly, although. Also, this conversation is getting far off topic. This is a discussion about the addition of the GA symbol to the article, not trying to prove to me that I was incorrect. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, now that we're back on the same page here, let me respond to "People don't come to Wikipedia to look for GA symbols, they come for an encyclopediac overview of the subject they intend to learn about.": They don't come to wikipedia for sidebars, redirects, and NPOV tags, either. But that doesn't make them any less useful or valuable, and it's no reason to not have them. If putting a GA symbol on GA articles somehow obstructed people from getting "an encyclopedic overview of the subject they intend to learn about", then that would be an argument against having the symbol. But since it doesn't, I don't really see how its relevant; it still doesn't answer the question: what are the undesirable practical consequences of having a GA symbol in the upper right corner of GAs? Kevin Baas^talk 19:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But since it doesn't, I don't really see how its relevant... That is completely opinion. I happen to believe the exact opposite. I've answered that question several times, and I don't know how many more ways I can say it. I think that it can cause confusion, and people might find it difficult to determine whether the symbol is related to the article. Also, you are here to build an encyclopedia, right? You're not here to spend your time trying to get people to say "Oh, look at that GA symbol, that must mean the person who wrote this is better than other people", are you? You're not here to compete with other editors to get the most GAs, are you? I know I'm going slightly off topic, but I'm just trying to convince you that it's not needed, and might just cause more confusion around Wikipedia. Also, a good article just has to be passed by one person. I know that GA is a comunity process, but an article might be "good" in one person's eyes, but not another's. Wikipedia is trying to create a comprehensive, reliable overview of all human knowledge, and I don't see how we are doing that by adding decorative symbols and badges to our articles. I'm certainly not against GA, and I respect the process very much. This just shows that the majority of Wikipedians are here to prove something, not to help wrtie an encyclopedia. And as I said, my biggest concern is that nobody besides editors of Wikipedia is going to know what the symbol means. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)\

Confusion can be removed simply by having the symbol link to a page describing what it means, just like is done with the FA. Its just that simple. Also, it would be wonderful if everyone came on here with completely altruistic feelings in their heart. Yes, we're here to create an encyclopedia. Each of us should be trying to improve this encyclopedia as much as possible. But many people also want recognition for their hard work. If a little GA symbol on the article and the GA talk page header on the talk page its a GA makes people feel as though their work is being appreciated, then add the symbol. When editors feel their work is appreciated, they are more likely to continue to contribute. It doesn't matter if their reasons for contributing are to create a better encyclopedia or whether they simply want more GA articles to their name. The simple fact is that the encyclopedia would be better because they were active contributors. Here in the US people make donations sometimes for the simple reason of getting a tax deduction. It doesn't mean that because they did it for less-than altruistic reasons that the people that benefit from the donations appreciate it any less. will381796 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We already have the assessment scale on an article's talk page which lists an articles as a GA. We have a list of GAs. People can put {{User Good Article}} on their userpages. But people how aren't familiar with the workings of Wikipedia aren't going to know what a GA is, even if there is a link. IMO, regular people don't really care how well an article ranks on the assessment scale. I don't see how it is going to get more people to work on articles. I mean, everybody likes recognition via high-ranking articles. Getting a GA always puts a smile on my face. Honestly, I don't care whether people see that it is a high-quality article, I just care that people learn from an accurite, reliable article, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. I am beginning to sound redundant here, but I just want people to understand that it's not going to make a difference. I would like to here one good, valid reason as to why you think it would make a change for the better. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There can't be any confusion. I did a test to my friends who use Wikipedia but don't edit them. I presented to them 1 FA, 1 GA, and 1 B-class article with no (NPOV/vertify/citation needed, etc.) tags. I asked them to read the articles over and tell me the difference between those 3, without them knowing the different classes of articles (they don't know what FA, GA, or B stands for anyways). They couldn't tell the quality of the article until I pointed out the bronze star which means one of the best works in Wikipedia. Since they don't even know what the star stands for, if we add the + sign they still don't know what they are for, hence there will be no confusion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that it won't make a difference unless we try it? All of us that are active on WP were at one time newcomers that stumbled upon the site via a search engine or something. You have to explore to learn about everything. If someone does a "Random Page" search and pops up on an article with a strange, unknown symbol on the top right of a page, some (not all) will click on it to see what its all about. Some of those will be interested enough to participate in the process. Good article's don't have the benefit of front page advertisement like FAs do. For someone to even find out that GAs exists requires that they bump over to the talk page to see that its been rated GA (this is, in fact, how I learned about the entire GA review process). will381796 (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Very many reasons have been given above as to why including the symbol might lead to an improvement in the encyclopedia. I've yet to see a single reason why including it would be harmful though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have presented many reasons as to why I believe it would be bad, but because you are for the change you (with others) do not wish to take into account my opinions. I could continue to ramble on and on about why I think it will not be a good change, but I just don't think it's necessary, and I think it could cause unneeded confusion. Everybody says it will encourage editors to write more quality articles, and it will get more people involved in the GA process, so with GAN backlog as bad as it is, why do we want everybody in Wikipedia nominating as many articles as they can? It will just further hinder the GAN reviewing process. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And/or can also serve to bring additional editors in as reviewers as more people could become aware that the entire GA review process exists. The GA criteria, I believe, already recommend that if you nominate an article that you also review an article. We're not discounting anyone's arguments. Its just that some are making "Oppose" votes based either on 1)hypothetical statements that it will not help the project 2)that the GA status is not rigorous enough or not as "worthy" of recognition as compared to FA or 3) they're against the inclusion of anything non-encyclopedic on an article's page.. First, hypothetical statements are just that: hypothetical. Just as I believe the symbol's will help WP, you believe it will either not help or hurt. Neither of us can be proven correct on this point until it is implemented and we get some hard data. GA-equivalent articles on other language wikipedias have implemented symbols on an article's page with none of the "hypothetical" negatives that many believe will be caused. Second, whether or not a symbol is on the front page of the article will not change the fact that an article is/isn't a good article, so any comparison to the FA-review process and its rigor compared to the GA process is completely moot. If change are needed in the GA review process, then they can be implemented but this is a discussion for a separate day. Finally, I just don't get the argument about keeping symbols off of article's for the sake of aesthetics. There's alot of non-encyclopedic information (tags, templates) that are present on many articles. If this argument is to hold any water, then a discussion needs to be opened for the removal of ALL non-encylopedic information from all articles and their movement to a talk page. will381796 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not ignoring your opinions, we simply do not find their reasons compelling. Your arguments say that it's not necessary. But improvements are made based on whether they would be beneficial, not merely whether they're necessary. --erachima talk 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

To Will381796: You do raise good points. You may be right that it could help GAN, but I know that the majority of people who nominate articles either forget to review an article or just don't want to. Now, the concerns that I have are in fact just hypothetical, but hypothetical problems are what need to be taken into account before making a major project-wide change. The GA process is getting better and more widely-recognized by the month, so I just don't want to see a non-necessary change causing problems, namely confusion amongst readers, increased backlog at GAN, and problems with article quality. People might complain about articles not being worthy of main-article displaying of GA, and another one of my concerns is that GAR would get backlogged severely. I don't know for a fact that it may result in these problems, but I would rather be safe than sorry. Also, most templates on articles assist in navigation of Wikipedia and of related articles. The GA symbol would just be decorative and would serve no purpose other than just look pretty. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I created a GA IRC channel (#wikipedia-good-articles) under freenode.net as a more efficient way to discuss this. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I may sound like a n00b, but I have absolutely no idea how to get on IRC...especially not on my mac. lol will381796 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I just go to this site, scroll down to "Freenode.net" in the first box, type #wikipedia-good-articles in the second box, and use your username as your nickname. Don't worry, it took me a while to figure it out too. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer centralized and open discussion channels like this talk page instead of IRC. IRC sparks too much drama. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's right now just a discussion between two people and its being archived and will be made public at its conclusion. will381796 (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please find the archive of our IRC discussion here. It was a productive conversation and would recommend everyone to read. will381796 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny how no one complained about the GA symbol on the top of this page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion in the wikipedia-fr channel on IRC

I wrestled with how to summarize what I learned from talking with the fr.wikipedia.org, but I don't think there's a good way to summarize it. I'm not trying to prove any points here, I just think it adds useful information to the discussion. Note how friendly they are; imagine what would happen if an unknown person popped into the wikipedia-en channel and asked to speak in French :) [Please note: I really don't care about the symbol, I was just making conversation.]

<dank55>	je voudrais parler un moment en anglais...c'est ok?
<gribeco>	bonjour le chan !
<Darkoneko>	dank55: go ahead
<hegesippe>	salut
<Arria>	dank55: Go ahead. :-) Need help on fr:wp?
<dank55>	bonjour
<dank55>	we are arguing about whether to put a symbol on "Good Articles" in en.WP
<dank55>	most of the other wikipedias do this
<dank55>	does fr.WP?
<Arria>	dank55: Yeah.
<fugace>	dank55: yes
<Arria>	A silver star.
<dank55>	which page can i look at on fr.wp?
<Arria>	The FAs have a golden star.
<Darkoneko>	a symbol, as in an interwiki symbol ? or a tempalte in the page ?
<Arria>	[[Wikipédia:Bons articles]]
<Pymouss>	dank55: you can speak any language you want, Arria will understand
<dank55>	that was actually exactly what I suggested... no one liked my suggestion :)
<dank55>	merci bien
<Arria>	dank55: An example : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francium
<Darkoneko>	dank55 > as a link next to the interwiki, or as a template ?
<Darkoneko>	a tempalte in enwiki, I mean.
<dank55>	the symbol would direct people to the Good Articles page
<Arria>	dank55: Both the interwikis (to other languages which have Good Articles) and the top of the article have a silver star.
<Arria>	dank55: It does, too, on fr:. Click it. :D
<Darkoneko>	the symbol would be *where* ? (which wiki ?)
<dank55>	i read french better than i speak it, i will look
<dank55>	en.wikipedia.org
<Darkoneko>	oh
<dank55>	has fr.WP had problems with people expecting a lot from bons articles, more than is being promised?
<Arria>	dank55: I've often wondered why en: had no symbol for the GAs.
<Darkoneko>	dank55 we have that for featured
<dank55>	that is the big argument at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles.
<Arria>	dank55: No, I think not. GAs are a nicer, don't-bite-the-n00bs way of getting an article recognized as good.
<Darkoneko>	like, they earn the title, then well, only noob edit it so the quality degrade
<phe>	dank55: we get less trouble with good articles than with featured articles
<dank55>	i'm very glad to hear that!
<Arria>	In the votes for GAs we get less dramahz and less pickiness, which encourages the people writing the articles.
<dank55>	you all have been very helpful, thank you!
<Arria>	Happy to help. ^^
<Darkoneko>	arr're welcome
<Arria>	dank55: Why has it taken so long for en: to start thinking of a symbol for GAs?
* Arria	always thought that was odd

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I'm glad to see that none of the problems that many people foresee have been experienced by WPs in other languages. will381796 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Some facts

Here are some stats I found. Of all languages offered by Wikipedia, 29 have Good Article process (including English). In these 29, only 5 do not display the corresponding GA symbol on the main page. These languages are English, Japanese, Indonesian, Upper Sorbian, and Yiddish. However, the last 3 languages (Indonesian, Upper Sorbian, and Yiddish) do not have a single GA so we cannot judge on whether such practices are allowed.

I won't call this a crisis, but this definitely rings the alarm because we're going in the opposite direction comparing to the global trend. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really much for following things just because they're global trends, but this does seem to show that people familiar with other wikis will immediately understand the symbols, if nothing else. Wrad (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It also shows that it's not going to cause the downfall of the wiki to put the dots up. --erachima talk 04:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if those other Wikipedias have had discussions to include the GA icon thing? If so, it would be interesting to see why the proposals were denied. It might also be interesting to get some more opinions from other Wikipedias that do do it to see how well it has worked out, what some potential pitfalls might be, etc. Anyone speak any of the 29 languages? Drewcifer (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, have you not looked above? There are opinions from editors on at least the French, German and Spanish wikipedias. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Yea, I read the French one, which was interesting but wasn't as in-depth as I was hoping. Basically it says "Yea we do it" and "Yea it's been pretty cool I guess". Nice to know, but it doesn't really address any of the major arguments for or against. Drewcifer (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because there's nothing to argue about? They did it, and the world didn't implode. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, because according to the WP:GA talk page in the Spanish Wiki, and its archive, this was never even questioned, which is weird considering most processes de-branched from the English Wiki. Another thing the French and the Spanish do (that I love and have used frequently) is adding their GA symbol next to the GA in other wikis, just like we mark here the FAs in other wikis. See: fr:Guerre des Malouines and es:Estados Unidos.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 10:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My question is, how come it worked so well in other languages yet we're not adopting the same procedure? Because we have more editors so it's bound to attract more opposers based on probability? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that on other wikis FA and GA are friends and don't have so many sworn enemies on both sides. If only... Wrad (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to say why we have taken a different tack from the other wikis, but part of the reason may be a greater sensitivity to criticism or embarrassing ourselves that would stem from the ways EN has been burned in the past. Obviously, when we tell people that an article is good, we run the risk that we are wrong about this. Also, a glance at the main pages of other wikipedias suggests that most of them use icons in general more prolifically than we do.

Incidentally, the fact that it has been adopted in many places doesn't say anything about how well its working in any of those places. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm sure if it caused big problems other language wiki's would get rid of it. Maybe we are just more conservative, or less willing to take a risk? - Shudde ^talk 04:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to "cause big problems" to work poorly, or worse than the system it replaced. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it clearly hasn't cause enough problems for them to remove it, and I'm sure if it was worse then the system it replaced then removing it is exactly what they would have been done. Nothings perfect, and if that is what we are aiming for we may as well give up on both the WP:GA and WP:FA systems now. - Shudde ^talk 05:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's do a trial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure everyone has seen this

Please see the comments by Samuel Wantman (an uninvolved admin) immediately before the requests for comments announcement on his generous offer to help to close the discussion. Geometry guy 22:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be beneficial to Sam and the process in general if we made up kind of a argument-by argument summary? The closest example I can think of is here in the States: when a certain bill or law is up for voting, every registered voter gets a little pamphlet describing every proposal in neutral terms, then a summary of arguments for and against, then usually followed by counter-arguments. This might be a good idea so that a) it saves Sam from spending an entire day reading through the reams of comments made here, b) avoids the whole majority-rules sentiment that the above voting might imply, and c) would be a beneficial resource for any further discussion along a similar vein. Any thoughts? Drewcifer (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be beneficial so long as nobody starts to comment on each of the arguments made by either side...at least not here in this section.

and rebuttles are threaded/nested; i.e. something like:

• argument for1
  • counter-argument1
    • rebuttle
  • counter-argument2
  • counter-argument3
    • rebuttle
• argument for2

Kevin Baas^talk

And the wikipedia's that are already doing this should be mentioned, with, if possible, a note by an admin there about how it's working out. Kevin Baas^talk 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, and I had already begun to ponder similar things before I read this. My plan now is to have the community work together to create the summary and use it to work towards a consensus. It seems very clear to me that any issue that generates strong opinions and scores of editors voicing them is very hard to resolve with straw polls like the one on this page. On the other hand, free-form discussions often meander, sprawl, and or devolve into one on one arguments. To deal with this, I plan to start a new Wikipedia process that is modeled on traditional consensus problem solving techniques to create a facilitated discussion. I will have more to say about this in a few days. There seems to be several other good reasons to hold this poll open for another week or so and several people who have so requested. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article signs (closed)

Good article signs I see no way to close this debate as anything but "No Consensus (no icon in mainspace)". I can understand why people would want to add a symbol, and how a symbol might ultimately help the GA process. But if we just consider this as a poll about putting a little green symbol on pages, we will miss some more important issues that keep the community from reaching consensus. The big problem seems to be how to create an assessment system for articles that will be seen and understood by most users of Wikipedia. Along with that problem is the bigger philosophical issue as to whether we should be doing any assessments at all on article pages. Many of the comments by those who objected help to point out the two different world views about this issue. On one side, the idea of telling our readers that they can "trust" the article seems disingenuous to the process of a wiki. On a philosophical level, this side does not believe that truth is something absolute, and therefore users will never be able to find truth in Wikipedia articles. When critics claim that Wikipedia has errors, this side would respond that all media have errors, that readers must be skeptical of EVERYTHING they read, and they should check all sources. The second side believes that we can make a judgment about an articles trustworthiness. The response from this side to critics pointing out the errors in Wikipedia would likely be that, "yes, Wikipedia has errors, but they are quickly fixed". There is merit to both world views. On a practical level, we all come to Wikipedia to find out things even if we are skeptical of the nature of consensus reality which Wikipedia models. As things stand now, both world views can coexist. People who feel like reviewing articles and labeling them as "good", can do so -- as long as the rating ends up on the discussion page. In a sense, the two pages -- the article and the discussion -- separate these two realms and allow them to co-exist. Left separate, there is no problem with the GA process being posted on the discussion page even if it is the opinion of just two editors. However, the same rating posted on the article page breeches the philosophical divide. FAs seem to have straddled this divide, as have all the warning and stub templates that get sprinkled on articles. However, the stub and warning templates are meant to be temporary. They are like "construction in progress" signs. Ultimately, articles should be improved to the point that they are free of the templates. So really, the featured article star is the only exception. Even so, it is possible to look at the FA star as an indication of the article's having been made ready or having already been on the main page -- it is our one self-referential citation. I saw no comments that think the FA process is flawed, or that articles reached FA status without being adequately vetted. There are however, many comments that fault the GA vetting process and its lack of broad community support. The reality is that most readers of Wikipedia have no idea that there are stars for featured articles and do not understand what that means. To emphasize how poorly this is understood, I will recount my experience this past Saturday at the Maker Faire in San Mateo, California. Wikipedia had a booth, and several Wikimedia staff members, admins, users, and board members were there. I decided to ask the Wikimedians present for their opinions about "Good Articles" on Wikipedia. I was surprised to find out that not a single person knew about the process. Even more surprising was that most people were not aware of the FA star, and nobody knew any of the details about the process was for achieving FA status. This seems to discount any arguments that the FA or GA symbol will be of value to the general Wikipedia public. I have heard it stated that the discussions and debates that happen in these back pages are not important, that the important work is working on the articles in the encyclopedia. Ultimately, articles become not just good, but great because they are read and improved by hundreds of readers, not just one or two experienced editors. The fact that there was no awareness of the good article review with the Wikimedians at the faire seems to support this view. However, the consensus that does emerge from these discussions are important, because they influence the best behavior of our best contributors. What concerns me most about discussions like this is that they are so inefficient and do not scale with more than a dozen or so participants. We need to develop better methods of having these discussions. If this discussion is going to continue and move forward, I suggest trying to tackle some of the big issues first. Should the GA process be improved? Should the GA process be more in sync with the FA process? Does the community want to create a project wide system for assessing articles? Are these assessments for the benefit of our readers so they can judge the reliability of articles, or are they to inspire editors to improve articles? If we have consensus about our objectives, perhaps we can create criteria that will help us design ways to implement those objectives. Eventually we'll get around to discussing the best way to display whatever assessment system results. – ☑ SamuelWantman 07:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.
Should Good Articles, like Featured articles, how a symbol on the top of its page, signalling so? I think it should, to showcase that the article is better than the norm. Universal Hero (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Any views? This is a perennial proposal for GA, which is invariably opposed. bibliomaniac15 22:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Yap, always like that. Idea pops up from time to time yet there's not enough !votes in each deletion review that merits an overturn (it's like those small political parties, they have some support all over the places, but never enough support in any one location to gain a seat) OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Can't we start a campaign or petition for the approval of these signs? Universal Hero (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Feel free to do so. You have the support of many of us, as long as you inviteus all to the discussions. Tarret talk 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC) I agree that there should be a visible image on the article's page itself, rather than just the Talk Page -- so much so that I'm already bolding text as though we're voting :). As things stand, it's sort of like presenting an award behind closed doors (or in this case, behind a link that not everyone who visits the article will click on). Actually, I thought that there used to be an image for Good Articles present in the articles themselves (a silver star or something). I can't recall how I even learned about the existence of the Good Article honourific without one.--James26 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I think on balance this has my support. There was indeed an article-page symbol at one point, but it got !voted out. While I understand the arguments against, I think we've addressed many of the objections and GA quality is generally on a upward curve. Part of the difficulty is that this has been shot down so many times now that many GA veterans just don't bother discussing it any more ;) EyeSerenetalk 11:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC) This idea has always had my support, but there's definitely a firmly entrenched body of opinion against it. To the extent that some would even prefer to see the bronze FA star dropped rather than allow a GA symbol in an article's top right-hand corner. EyeSerene quite rightly points out that the quality of GA articles has been on an upward curve, to the extent that in some recents GA passes I've seen you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference betwen GA and FA. In the interest of full disclosure I'll admit that I was of the main editors of Pendle witch trials, and that I was the reviewer for Gerard, Archbishop of York, but articles like that are becoming more and more the norm for GA I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I've always been against a main space symbol, but not out of any concern about the quality of the GAs, nor because I think GAs and editors who create them don't deserve recognition. Instead I am against a main space symbol simply because it is not encyclopedic information: one could even argue that whether an article is GA or not is original research, not neutral in point of view, and not verifiable by reliable secondary sources! Violating all three of Wikipedia's core content policies is not a cool idea. GA is a resource primarily to help and motivate editors, not readers. The fact that the GA process is clear about this distinction is part of its integrity, and is something to be proud, not ashamed of. Geometry guy 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I am in favour of this. Regarding Gguy's objections: there is plenty of unencyclopedic information already on mainspace, telling readers that articles are stubs, that they need clean-up, that there are npov problems, or whatever. In fact, such information as is already present is much more clearly directed at editors than at readers (recognizing that the line is fuzzy, and that such tags aim in part to turn readers into editors). And these tags also arguably violate the same Wikipedia core content policies. A "good article" symbol would be much more discrete, and much more obviously targeted at readers. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I think that's absolutely right. To me, Geometry guy's objection is inconsistent, given the existence of the FA bronze star. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Well, even a number of the FA folks aren't thrilled with the FA star. I'm neutral on the matter, but it seems somewhat moot given that one can enable display of an article's assessment in the "gadgets" preference tab. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Moot only if one believes that all of wikipedia's readers actually logon to wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Note the strategic use of "somewhat moot".  ;) Perhaps I'm spoiled by never needing the services of a public computer, but it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable to assume that those familiar enough with the assessment systems (i.e. those for whom the star/plus would have meaning in the first place) would also be those who have accounts. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC) That seems to miss the important point made by Jbmurray. The star or whatever are not there for the benefit of those who have accounts. Their purpose is to give the reader some confidence that what they're reading has been through an independent review process. Do you seriously believe that most of the millions who view wikipedia each day have accounts? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Involving Jbmurray in the GA process has clearly been a good thing. This is the first argument against my point of view that causes me to pause for thought, and even reconsider. I stand by my point that GA is editorial information, but what are the criteria for deciding what editorial information should be placed in the mainspace? Has this been thought through and discussed somewhere? Voting is not usually the best way to determine consensus, but if editors discuss, consult, and think about the issues before signing up to one of the sections below, this particular !vote may work. Geometry guy 19:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Jbmurrray made the same point I was about to make in response to guy's objections, except i was going to use article redirects and disambiguation pages as examples of "non-encyclopedic information" that have a clear and useful purpose on wikipedia - and that are "original research". Besides "FA" status not being encyclopedic information, either, and being original research, and so forth. Kevin Baastalk 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) @ Malleus: Of course not, which is precisely my point. Those teaming millions wouldn't know that the icon means there had been a review process. It would be a meaningless icon to them. An article's content and quality are self-evident; icons aren't terribly helpful, even to those who know the system. GAs which, by definition, are only "satisfactory article[s]" and do not need showcasing. If highlighting reviewed articles is important, why not have an icon for peer reviewed and A-rated articles? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) "An article's content and quality are self-evident." For good or ill, this is not always the case. Most obviously, it is not always obvious whether or not an article covers all that it should. And for (far too) many readers, it is I suspect simply not obvious at all. As for knowing what the icon means, I suspect that's the same as the FA star. I suspect that the question should be phrased along the lines of "So long as we have the FA star, should be not also have a GA symbol?" There's no doubt another place somewhere in which the FA star, also, can or should be debated. NB I don't see this as a question of "showcasing." (The FA star doesn't really "showcase": rather, it's the mainpage exposure that does that, and I'm not suggesting that GA articles are to be put on the mainpage.) But it's worth highlighting the < 1% of articles that have been through and passed some kind of review, even if there may be problems with that review process. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Because too many distinctions would be excessive. Kevin Baastalk 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Then I think that you ought to be consistent, and support the removal of the bronze star from FAs. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Show me the debate regarding removal of the bronze star and I'll enter the same comments. There's no inconsistency here; I've never been a proponent of the star. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC) As above, I think this has to be an "if... then..." discussion. I.e., so long as there is an FA star, should there be a GA symbol too? Though I have no major objections if the debate were to be expanded: it should simply be taken elsewhere. (Where?) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I agree that this is a valid question. It's a more or less perennial issue at FAC/FA, too. I know Raul doesn't like the star and I suspect Sandy is the same (although I say that with absolutely no certainty). As FA is the only "process" utilizing the main space icon, FA/FAC talk might be viable venues (Sandy will no doubt sigh, but c'est la vie). Otherwise, the village pump would likely have exposure to a wider audience. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Ha, my name :-) Never thought much about, but I 'spose I'm indifferent, since our readers probably don't know the difference. I might even be encouraged to feel differently about the GA icon in mainspace if they would just please do something about enforcing WP:V policy via reliable sources: scores of GAs show up at FAC monthly that aren't even reliably sourced, and quite simply, that should be priority one, before anything else, on Wiki. Without that, the GA icon is meaningless and worse, misleading. I'd also feel the process was ready to be considered for mainspace recognition and another piece of housekeeping (an icon) if they could figure out a mechanism to stop wiping out articlehistories on talk pages (I have to correct GA errors daily in articlehistories, and I'm not even part of GA). Until they can get these two items under control, I'm just not convinced they're ready for prime time. But I definitely recognize and value the process and the goals, in spite of attempts to distort my views :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (outdent) So when will this !vote ends? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I suggest waiting a couple more days, then, if the pace of the discussion dies down a bit, asking a willing and uninvolved admin with experience at reading consensus to close it. I was very impressed by Samual Wantman's thoughtful closure of a very controversial CfD some time ago, on an issue which had repeatedly caused controversy: yet his decision has been unchallenged since then as far as I know. But I am sure there are plenty of people who could be asked. Geometry guy 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I'd request that the closing admin be not associated with either the GA or FA nomination process to avoid any possible bias. will381796 (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Absolutely: that is what uninvolved means; and we want uninvolved++. It is easy to check involvement using Wannabe Kate. Sam fits the bill and I'm sure many other admins do as well. Geometry guy 22:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I've been invited to take a look at this page and close the discussion. I have had no association whatsoever with GAs. My only involvement with FAs has been working to bring one article to FA status and commenting on a few other nominations. My work on policy has been related mostly to Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Consensus. I have not read any of this discussion yet. I'd like to wait a day or two to make certain that everyone -- who wants to comment -- has, and to see if there are any concerns or objections to my stepping in. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Sam, sounds good to me. Thanks for agreeing. will381796 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks you for your offer, but considering the level of community involvement on the issue and the possible implications of the decision, should there not be more than one admin involved? Maybe a troika at least? Lampman Talk to me! 00:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC) What are these apocalyptic "possible implications" that necessitate the unprecedented involvement of (at least) a troika of administrators to determine consensus? How far does your infinite regression extend? A troika of bureaucrats to oversee the troika of administrators? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Considering this poll started on the 23rd, a few days seems too soon. I suggest two weeks (May 7, as we did on the Featured list director), and closing by a Bureaucrat (as we did on the FL director), only because both will give the final decision more authority. Since the outcome impacts mainspace, I suspect both would be expected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I think that you're comparing apples and oranges. A role versus an icon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I second SandyGeorgia. Two weeks open is pretty standard. And, a Bureaucrat should close, considering the number of admins here. So, keep the discussion open until 7 May and then poke a Bureaucrat. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Just the one bureaucrat? Are you certain you wouldn't prefer a troika of bureaucrats? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I've started reading the archives and this page, in an attempt to understand the full extent of the issues. My initial impression is that the discussion needs facilitation. My plan is not to "close" the discussion, but to attempt to lead it forward. As I read, I have some questions that I'd like answered. Controversy has a tendency to fester at Wikipedia. I'm willing to try and work towards a real consensus. Since I don't think there will be a "decision", but instead more discussion, I don't think there is a need to keep this going for that long. On the contrary, the discussion is already unwieldy. It is very difficult to absorb everything that has been said on this page. I'd like us to try and summarize the discussion together, and I'm willing to facilitate the process. I don't think my role as an admin, or someone else's as a bureaucrat is important. Anyone can do what I am proposing to do. No one person has the power to make a decision. Consensus on a wiki comes about when there is a tacit acceptance. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC) If the goal is discussion, I suggest moving this entire section to a subpage, because only GA participants are likely to keep a page watchlisted that pops up each time a GA is listed or delisted. (I don't watchlist this page; I came over last night to see how the discussion was going. I suspect there are many participants like me, who won't even follow up here, because this perennial proposal has been defeated so many times, they may not see the need to follow. A subpage would help. My reasons for suggesting a longer discussion/!voting period and bureaucrat closing are related: I suspect few editors are following this discussion; if it passes and as other editors gradually become aware of a new icon in article space, the process that led to it should be broadly defensible.) Also, reading the GA archives gives the GA POV: IIRC, this has come up many times at WT:FAC and other places as well (I'm not convinced the links included to previous discussions are comprehensive). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I should add that I welcome a discussion. Others know how frustrated I've been at raising two issues over and over and over that GA could do to earn article space recognition, IMO. First, find a way to deal with basic talk page housekeeping and history so other editors don't have to clean up after GA passes and delistings (I don't want to see the talk page instability and errors continue to article space). Second, find a way to assess and deal with the number of buddies passing their buddies articles to GA, with no concern, regard or understanding of even what a reliable source or WP:V policy is. I get the impression that no one in the GA process is aware of how widespread this problem is, and perhaps the only person who sees it is the person who reads every single FAC and keeps a spreadsheet tracking who's !voting for whom on GAs that appear at FAC and aren't promoted because of often serious and glaring deficiencies. Quantifiable, hard data is easy to come by thanks to the FAC archives; my estimate is that half of GA articles do not meet Wiki's fundamental sourcing policy, WP:V, and that is a serious problem. As soon as GA gets a mechanism to deal with these two issues, IMO, an icon in mainspace will mean something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I'd guess, that probably half of the articles I see at FAC have at least one reliable source issue that I have to query. Sometimes it's pretty minor, but sometimes it can be pretty big. I have no idea how many of the ones with problems have passed GA, I don't generally look at that sort of thing. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ←I finally decided to come over here and say the things I want to say...and lo and behold, Sam and Sandy and Ealdgyth have said many of them, which is a relief. Sometimes, the longer a conflict goes on, the farther apart people get, in the hopes of shifting an eventual "compromise" more in their direction. Some supporters have asked that we not make any big changes in the GA process, because WP:GAN is falling so far behind, and Wikipedia is poised for rapid growth. After reading all the comments, I just can't see any way that GA is going to continue without devoting more time to quality control. When volunteers rise up and ask for recognition for their hard work, there's just not a lot you can do about it. If you don't give them a little green circle in mainspace, then they'll just demand recognition in other forums and in others ways ... and why shouldn't they? They've worked hard and they're doing well. "We can't give your work any mainspace form of recognition, because some of you sometimes drop the ball" just doesn't cut it; people need what they need, and if they don't get it, they get pushy, and if that doesn't work, they leave. So, they're going to get some kind of recognition. But the FA people see problems with GAs every day (they're not just saying that to score points for their side...it's true), and with greater GA visibility comes greater responsibility to get things right. I have volunteered to help on the "well-written" side of things, but what we really need IMO is at least 2 or 3 people, hopefully more, to volunteer to be trained by Ealdgyth (if she's willing), to do what she does (well) on every WP:FAC. WP:V is policy for every article, not just GAs. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (gulps). Err... just don't volunteer me for whatever it is that Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) is proposing over at ArbCom. Once dealing with ArbCom is enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I read the page, and I don't follow that, but I do follow that you don't want to do the training, sorry if I was presumptuous. How could we make your life easier at WP:FAC by improving the sourcing at the GA level? Is there anyone you'd recommend as someone who could train others how to thoroughly check sources? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I don't mind doing the training, (you weren't presumptious at all) but I'm going to be on the road for the next two weeks, so i'll be doing well to keep up at FAC. I've been feeling guilty because I've been unable to do as much GA reviews as I used to. A good starting point would be User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet which is my cheatsheet where I stash things that have already been proven reliable, and User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You where I'm working on a dispatch article. Some of it is just the training I got in college in history, judging sources and their biases. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC) A related note: I hope we are careful about implying that one can be trained to evaluate reliable sources, since the reliability of a source depends on many factors, including the text being cited. There is no such thing as a definitive list of reliable sources, and editorial discretion and knowledge is needed. The issue here is to get some sort of assessment of whether most GA reviewers 1) understand WP:V policy, or 2) apply it in GA reviews. The evidence that I have says that there are some very good reviewers who do excellent work including sourcing, but that most do not. If the GA folk will do some basic assessment of what kinds of GAs are showing up at FAC with what kinds of issues, the path to GA credibility may become more clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Proposal A GA symbol akin to the well-known FA symbol should appear on an article. Support Support. The little green dot would help the project. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Will it help our readers to think that one editor's opinion (sometimes passing an IRC buddies' article) is a determinant of quality? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Support. It would also help the readers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I must say that this is one of the arguments that I need help understanding. I understand how the symbols would help an editor because they are involved in article building/reviewing so the GA criteria means something to them, but how will it help readers? From my perspective, there is a difference between what the symbols actually mean and what a reader would infer. From a reader's perspective (not an editor) I would see it as a guarantee that the article is error free - something I just don't think we can deliver given our limited resources. It is actually referencing an internal process - something that should be meaningless/ignorant to readers, the fine-print that if they did happen to find probably would care about - that it is for-the-most-part free of grammatical errors, compliant with some of the WP-MoS pages, somewhat comprehensive, stable, not bias, appropriately licensed images, and uses footnote appropriately. That's my dire vision: the view that WP is vouching for something we cannot, I trust your vision is more optimistic. -maclean 01:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Would also like to know how it will help readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC) No article is error free, not even the very best of FAs; to believe otherwise is to believe in an illusion. What both symbols signify is that an article has been through an independent review process. You may not consider that to be of interest to a reader, but I do. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Support. Beneficial to the readers and an incentive to the editors. I don't think the reader would be confused as to whether or not it's part of the article. Kevin Baastalk 20:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) How do you know people aren't going to be confused? There are millions of people who visit this website, and the majority of them have no clue what the GA symbol means. The FA symbol is self-explanitory. How is it beneficial to the reader? How many people are going to look at the top-right corner of the article to see if it has the symbol, and determine whether or not to read the article on that basis? People aren't going to judge the quality of the article on what kind of symbols there are in the article. They are going to read the article, and decide for themselves whether they think the article is truely "good". Also, since only one person has to pass the article, they might consider it good while other people have a much different opinion. And, who is it an incentive to the editors? I highly doubt that anybody is actually going say "Well, if the symbol gets stuck onto the article, then I'm going to get working!". It's an incentive enough to get GA status. IMO, it would be unneeded, and just provide confusion to the average reader. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I believe I said "I don't think the reader would be confused as to whether or not it's part of the article." I didn't say "I know they won't..", I said "I don't think [they will]...". I used the word "think" and not the word "know", and I worded it in the positive and not the negative. And I didn't say "...about the details of the good article process." - which is not the purpose of the symbol to inform them - there are articles for that. I said "...whether or not it's part of the article." because this is a hidden assumption in the arguments put forth that it is "unencyclopedic" material. - the navigation bar at the left is "unencyclopedic", but that's okay because it's not part of the article. Same applies to FA status symbols and same would apply to GA status symbols. It is beneficial to the reader because it informs them that the article has been through and passed a review process. It provides an incentive to an editor because it adds an extra reward for getting an article to good article status, much like a badge of honor. It seems to me that these two things should be obvious. Kevin Baastalk 16:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Support A bronze star is no more self-explanatory than a green circle with a plus sign inside of it. You have to click on the star to KNOW what it means and what type of review it went through to gain FA status. It would be the same thing with the GA status. And that is the point of GA versus FA: to point out articles that are not up to FA status but are still better than the vast majority of other articles. I believe that with a GA circle clearly presented on each article, if an editor reads the article and disagrees with its rating, will provide them with a more direct route to go about reassessment/delisting. Right now, a visitor could stumble upon a pretty bad article, which might just happen to have at one time been GA-material, and not have any idea that there is a way to reassess the article's status and get it demoted. The only way I learned about GA was through a talk page header, and not everyone goes to every article's talk page. This may potentially increase the numbers of editors that know that GA status exists and increase the likelihood that a good article will get promoted and a poor article will be reassessed and demoted. will381796 (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Or even better, improving the article so that's its classification is justified. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Indeed. will381796 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC) The process by which an article became FA is prominently linked in articlehistory: GA has no such process, and even experienced users (like myself, when building articlehistory) can't always determine who passed a GA and based on what. Often they are passed without even an edit summary, so you have to go back through old archives and diffs. The process will be difficult for readers or uninvolved editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Support. If there is to be an FA star, then I see no reason not to have a GA symbol, too. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Others see several reasons, however. See below... Above... Well, look around you, there are plenty of them. Waltham, The Duke of 10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Weak support I think the pros outweigh the cons - for me the decisive factor is that we are publically identifiying those articles that have been assessed as containing a minimum acceptable standard of scholarship and writing. If we want a quality encyclopedia, we need to make such articles more visible and instantly recognisable (how many readers ever check the talk page?). EyeSerenetalk 21:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Tentative support. I never expected to find myself supporting such a proposal, but I am tentatively supporting it now. I think the case for doing this has finally been made, but the implementation needs to be done with some care. Geometry guy 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Support. I've always liked the idea. Wrad (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Support GA is getter larger and better all the time. Another way to broadcast to readers and editors that we have a large body of work that has been reviewed and assessed as being quality is a definite net positive. Nominators deserve this, reviewers deserve this, readers deserve this. VanTucky 18:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC) To expand on my support, there is a very important point that one has brought up specifically. Despite the fact that people are still using GA as a stepping stone towards FAC, there are many GA-class articles that can simply never meet FA standards. Articles like Herdwick and Vinkensport can meet the FA standards in every way, but are denied that recognition simply because of their size. These smaller, but well-written, articles deserve the kind of immediately visible recognition that bigger articles can get through FA. We need an alternative, and adding a GA symbol will only be one more incentive for smaller articles to meet the GA criteria. VanTucky 22:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Short articles can certainly pass FAC if they are comprehensive and meet the standard. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Correct (re short articles). And GA getting larger means less control over who is passing them. Any new editor can pass a GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Strong Support - The GA's have never been of a higher quality, and the little Green symbol would indicate the usually vast difference between a GA and a non-GA. After all, this is an encyclopedia for readers, not editors, and it is important not to bury information on the quality of our articles so people will know at what stage of development they are. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC) When one-third of this month's FAC archives are GAs that have non-reliable sources (WP:V is policy), I'm unclear how we can support broad statements about GA quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Support, I've always wanted this. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I've never wanted it, though. Waltham, The Duke of 10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Strong support. This idea is probably one of the most frequently revisited debate in deletion review. It always got "shot down" because more opposers visit and comment on this debate than supporters, which is not a good representation of the community's opinions. GA have gone a long way and the bar raised over the years. Originally, if anyone thinks it's good, it's GA. Now there is a criteria that can be measured against. Just like in any sport competition, there're gold, silver, and bronze. If only the winner is recognized and leave the other 2 runner-ups in the cold, I think this is really really unfair. Putting it back to Wikipedia terms, this green + helps encourage editors to improve articles without the need to dedicate tremendous effort into making a FA before "officially" recognized for their hard work. Plus other languages have similar practice without getting into any conflict so I wonder why this couldn't work in english wikipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Isn't it better to reward the editors for work done rather than the article for its current state? Perhaps this is illustrative of a mind-set we are in, that we keep creating new ways to tag content rather than recognise effort. At least GA has the "GAN Reviewer of the Week". maclean 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Perhaps it got shot down because there were more opposers than supporters. I do not suppose you have conducted a census? (The closest thing to that is probably this very poll.) I find parallels between encyclopaedias and sport competitions rather unfortunate. However, I should like to mention that in the Ancient Olympics only the winner won (an olive wreath, a great honour but nothing substantial), and the runner-up was not even mentioned, no matter whether the difference was great or very small. Waltham, The Duke of 10:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Why? -- Naerii 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Support. There’s no reason not to. I don't agree with the comments about possible POV since any assessment mechanism is bound to be POV, you can't asses something without giving your opinion about it (especially when considering requirements such as being ‘’broad’’ which are subjective), but so long as that little green symbol links to the GA page and that page fully explains what GA means then I really don’t see the problem. Acer (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Support. I've always been under the impression that the great majority of good articles are, well, good enough to merit recognition. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Support- Mirroring what's stated above, good articles have achieved something, and deserve recognition for that. To address a concern held below about the symbol representing something that possibly isn't achieved in the article, adding a symbol should be a reason in which to make sure that the standards of a Good article are held high, and these standards are represented in the article. As long as we make sure that the article itself is worthy of attaining GA-status, there should be no problem of a GA symbol presenting false perceptions or recognition. Mastrchf (t/c) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Support, this is a perennial proposal and one that I support fully, but it has sadly had trouble gaining consensus in the past. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC). Support GA symbol shows that it was reviewed by at least one individual; since it isn't a star, there's not going to be a "oh, it's featured, it must be great" issue that has worried some of the opposers. Also, it might help draw in reviewers, long term. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Support. The GA process is well-ensconced in the community, so previous complaints about it being too new, too obscure, too insular, and so on are no longer well founded. If the desire for little green circles can encourage the creation of quality article content, then it's worth putting them up. --erachima talk 03:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Creating Good Articles should not be an aim in itself; why encourage people to settle with GA status when they can try harder and achieve FA? Waltham, The Duke of 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Support Nothing new to add, I just think that it's a good PR move. Personally a little green circle would be motivating to me... perhaps that says more about me than the proposal though. --Gimme danger (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Support: If the article mainspace needs to be kept free from editorial remarks, all improvement tags have to be moved to the talk page. If that's not done, then the GA icon has equally valid reason to be on the main page. Arman (Talk) 09:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Support I think the general reader can soon be educated to understand the symbols. Maybe a simple explanation could be accessable from the main page? Lampman Talk to me! 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC) A click on the icon sending the user to the GA criteria? That's basically how I discovered what those little FA stars stood for. will381796 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Support It's beneficial, it's motivating, and I see no reason not to. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Support. A way of highlighting a wider range of better articles than can be reviewed by the current FA process would benefit both readers and editors. Readers are not so naive that they are likely to confuse "considerably better than average" with "perfect". The GA sweeps by experienced GA reviewers are an answer to many of the criticisms voiced below. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC) And what is "average" for Wikipedia? A featured article is the best Wikipedia can offer, an encyclopaedic article fulfilling all existing criteria of quality and presentation; your definition of a good article is relative, heavily reliant on any individual reader's impression of Wikipedia's average, and therefore not intuitive to a great percentage of our readers, especially the newer ones. Waltham, The Duke of 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Support. It would certify that the article is in good shape, just like the little star.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Contrary to some opposition, this would make quality control better, as bad GAs could be easily spotted (load random article, "omg this GA sucks", delist). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Except it doesn't work that way, its more like "OMG, don't you dare delist MY article, and if you do I'll revert you because you have to discuss it first." So while listing is solely one editors decision, delistings seem to nearly take an act of congress, leaving the system rather unbalanced. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Simply add something to the GA "rules" saying that you cannot revert a good-faith delisting. Once delisted, it must be renominated and reviewed again. A complete delisting is unlikely to be due to vandalism, at least to my naive eyes, as most vandals are rather hit and run and don't know the ins and outs of the entire GA process, so while they may remove the header from a talk page as a form of vandalism, it would still be listed on the GA list as a GA. For anyone to say you must "discuss" a delisting is outright incorrect. I've seen plenty of articles delisted by a single editor w/ no such arguments made. Although they may gripe, they mostly realize that "their" article has fallen into disarray and needs to be re-worked. will381796 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Good faith delistings should not be reverted: disagreements should instead be brought to WP:GAR. Delisting does not require an act of congress, but advanced warning is appreciated by regular editors of the article, as they may be able to fix the problems and avoid a time-consuming GAN. Everyone, please read the delisting guidelines for best practice on delisting. For the instance which I believe prompted this discussion, see the reassessment talkpage. Geometry guy 12:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC) AnmaFinotera; I sympathise, I've been in the same position on numerous occassion in delisting stuff that isn't close to standards. It is the most unpleasant part of the process, and that's why we value people like G-guy for their GAR work. I'm not convinced that the occasional outburst over a delisting should stall this proposal. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Weak Support. I'm not a fan of icon creep, but I feel that posting the GA symbol will be somewhat useful to readers. Majoreditor (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support. I can't think of any good reason why we wouldn't want readers to be aware that good articles have been vetted more carefully than non-good articles.--Pharos (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support - GA is an accomplishment in its own right, it deserves more recognition. Also i think those tiny little symbols should be made larger (doubled in size). --Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 11:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support GA is not perfect, but the vast majority of articles of GA status deserve to be, and it is worthwhile to make the reader aware of the standard the article has been up held to. Drewcifer (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support The fact that a GA assessment is done by one person and that having the GA symbol confers a status that hasn't been vetted with the same rigor as an FA misses the point. Our public readership haven't a clue as to what either symbol means (or would mean). There is nothing about the symbols that tells readers not already familiar with them that any status is conferred. And if they learn what it means, it's because they've clicked on the symbol—if it's the FA star they then are introduced to how that process works; if it's a GA symbol, then they'll learn how that process works, including the rigor or perceived lack of rigor of GA assessment. They will also be informed there of how unbureaucratic and easy it is to remove the GA symbol if the article is not up to snuff. However, if a person already knows what the two symbols indicate, then they already know how the assessment processes differ; thus dies that issue. I think we underestimate how much recognition matters to people. Having a GA symbol, just as an FA star, is a motivator. Anything that motivates good article building is a boon. The clutter issue just doesn't make sense to me. It's just a tiny symbol that is lost in the background of a page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support Having put several articles through the GA ringer and reviewed a few myself, I am confident that GA status is something that Wikipedia and its readers can have confidence in as an indicator of quality. I would suggest, if it has not been suggested before, that clicking on the GA icon in the corner of the page would lead the reader with a short, noob-friendly note explaining what it means that the article is Good, with the usual follow on links to WP:GA, WP:WIAGA etc. Skomorokh 15:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Strong Support I've always thought this was a great ideaPaco8191 (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support After evaluating the pros and cons I've come to the conclusion to support this. Informing readers that the article is of Good article status will help to uphold the reputation of Wikipedia. People will feel safer reading a GA. Adding a GA symbol to the top right hand corner of the article does not affect that article's layout in any way. Only the same way as a FA and don't even get me started on stubs... 86.29.133.238 (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Comment Boy this editor sure knows a lot for someone who's been here one day... removing !vote as per WP:SPA Ling.Nut (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Comment Knowing a lot after being here for one day is not the definition of a SPA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Comment Thanks for saying that I know a lot (I don't think of myself as knowing a lot though). Just to clarify this situation I haven't been here for one day. I've been here for about 2 months now. I do not have an account. And the reason why it would appear as though I've only been here for one day is because I have a dynamic IP. 86.29.139.70 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Support. The "proliferation of icons in the top-corner of the page" argument is a strawman - the GA status is fundamentally different to A/B/Start/Stub class, DYK, etc etc, and very similar in principle if (deliberately) not in practice. The Flagged Revisions argument is the same: the question of which version is shown to the reader is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the article's status as a GA should be noted with an icon. In fact, the fact that the version being shown to anons is a GA-class version makes it more important to have an inconspicuous note to convey that fact. Happy‑melon 20:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support. Changing from neutral to support so as not to dampen the wave of enthusiasm and because it's clear that at least some of the potential problems mentioned by the opposition won't be problems, simply because FA reviewers go over FACs with a fine-toothed comb, and if there are GA reviewers with consistent weaknesses, they'll tell us. I really hope changes are made in the GA process before FA reviewers have to say anything about it, though. I am totally not buying this argument that it's okay for one self-appointed reviewer to stick a green cross at the top of the article in mainspace. That's a kind of trophy; are we handing out trophies now based on probabilities? "And Michael Jordan gets the MVP award this year, but since the judge was picked randomly, make sure to tune in later to see if he gets to keep it." No. If one person is reviewing, some kind of track record or score card that indicates why we should trust that person needs to be available, and even then, someone needs to be looking over their shoulder (and much better for it to be GA-reviewers than FA-reviewers). I'm only supporting because I've seen the work of the GA reviewers, and most of them are great, and I believe the problems the FA people have detected could be solved if some of the GA reviewers got assistance for the things they don't like to do. But I'm nervous. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (comment dragged along from the neutrals when I switched to support) Perhaps it would be prudent in the future to vet the editors allowed to list an article as a GA, similar to the way that those carrying out the GA sweeps have to be invited to take part. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Noting of course that this is not quite the right forum for any full discussions, but: Maybe the process should require two people, one to do a thorough review with commentary and a second to do a faster pass. Something like after the full review, the reviewer marks the entry at WP:GAC as "passed, awaiting seconding". Then a further person has to just say, "reviewed and seconded".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support Although I would prefer a more subtle icon. Current icon is a little loud, compared to the featured star.--Dodo bird (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support Per OhanaUnited. ♠TomasBat 23:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support: Helps readers and editors alike in determining the quality of an article. Not entirely sure of the icon however. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Could you please clarify? It is the icon we are discussing; which aspect thereof are you unsure of? Waltham, The Duke of 11:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Strong support I would have to agree with many of the arguments above. We have to remember this is intended for readers, not editors. This would certainly help me to determine the quality of articles to see if I can trust them. While I do not use Wikipedia for serious research, I do go through articles every once and a while because I have wanted to know more about a subject. This would help me easily evaluate if its statements are true. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Strong support. There are other things that indicate that something is a good article. Why not have one that's more obvious to the readers? Celarnor Talk to me 04:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Good idea recognises content--Phoenix-wiki 11:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Support Encourages article improvement which we all want. Captain panda 14:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Support Agree with most of the above, seems like a long overdue move. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Support Great idea. Spanish Wikipedia also uses a little green check, just like a featured article. Example. Macy (Review me!) 17:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Has it worked well on the Spanish Wikipedia? Have any of the things the Opposes are concerned about been a problem there? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Ive already put support, so im in, but i think some are opposing simply because they dont like the symbol itself, if we used the spanish symbol i think more of those who oppose would support. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Some editors from Spanish Wikipedia had said that saves you time from checking the talk page (where the GA template is located) Macy (Review me!) 18:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Chinese Wikipedia also has that. Their selection criteria is slightly different, but essentially the main points are the same. There are no problems observed in the GA system. In fact, on their main page, they even have a section for GA. And they use the green + symbol on the page (see iPod) OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC) You can see an example of a German "Lesenswerte" ("worthy of reading") page at [7]. Their equivalent of WP:GA begins: "Die folgenden Artikel sind fachlich korrekt, belegt, ausführlich und informativ. Deshalb wurden sie mit gekennzeichnet." Correct me if I'm wrong, someone, but I translate this as: "The following articles are correct with respect to their subject, (well) sourced, extensive and informative. For these reasons, they are denoted by ." If anyone wants to know, I know one of the German admins and I'll ask him if any of the problems brought up by the opposition below have been in evidence on the German Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC) That would be great. Additionally, if you could get him to comment on their experience with it, I think that would be very informative. (Same goes, btw, for the spanish and chinese wikipedias.) Kevin Baastalk 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)  Done. I got some info from #wikipedia-es. Users said that lets users recognize the article as a GA, and that lets you add the article in a category. Macy (Review me!) 18:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Alvaro qc (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC) With this one can know is a good article without looking the discussion page, it works well on spanish wikipedia Support if only because I know myself and others will benefit from not having to check the talkpage to determine GA status. So Awesome (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Support: The symbol will become as well known as the FA symbol after a while, and it would show the article's quality (although I think all articles should have a symbol at the top). We would also need one for A class, as that's between FA and GA but often gets ignored, so that's a support for GA and a support for A...... Dendodge.TalkHelp 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Hey, one battle at a time, eh? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) That raises a very good question, and further illustrates why having a special GA icon in meta space is problematic, when an A-article is higher on the quality scale. JGHowes talk - 13:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 'Support per Dodo bird and Macy. Maybe the symbol needs a change since the green + is better suited for support votes with the red - for oppose. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Maybe if the FA star was gold, the GA star or other symbol were bronze?Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC) How about another idea. A major retailer in the US is using a stylized asterisk/starburst. Why I don't say we should exactly copy it, the logo has more white space and something done similarly would have less visual mass than the bronze FA star, but relate to it somewhat as well.Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Third and last idea I have borrows on the blue "L" from the German Wikipedia. How about a green "G"? Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Support I think the GA process has undergone a significant amount of improvement in the past year, and many articles that I see actually are, in fact, viewed and commented on by several reviewers during the process of review, even if it ultimately does come down to one editor to pass/fail in the end. Having observed the quality or reviews recently, I think the vast majority of them are good reviews, and I think that adding that GA + sign to the top of the article is an excellent way of promoting the GA program and informing readers that the article in question has undergone some editorial review process. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I've seen the same thing. Perhaps the only fundamental difference between the GA and FA processes is that in one the promote/fail decision is made by the same person each time, whereas in the other that role is dynamic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I have wondered about this for a long time. Zginder 2008-04-24T14:30Z (UTC) Support A community-ranked article (FA and GA; as opposed to A- or B-, which are usually individual-ranked or ranked by a Wikiproject) should have its status listed on the upper right corner. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Support It's a good idea, and might generate more interest in pushing GA articles up to FA. Doc Tropics 03:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Strong support as has already been mentioned perhaps it will motivate people to push the articles to featureship --Hadseys ChatContribs 15:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Support, as I don't see the harm the naysayers do, and I think it could be beneficial for the project. Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Weak support for three reasons: (1) I only noticed (and understood) the little images in a page's corner several months into my active wiki service, so I doubt other newbies would notice either and create a flood of crappy GANs. (2) The quality of new GAs appears to have increased, so a little more recognition wouldn't hurt for those who care about the symbol. (3) de.wiki uses symbols in the corner for both Lesenswerte Artikel (Read-worthy articles) and Exzellente Artikel, and they haven't slipped into chaos. But ultimately, I don't really care that much about the symbol, so I added a "weak" to my !vote. – sgeureka t•c 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Strong Support The icon is definitely a good way to insure readers that they are reading an article with a greater -- albeit imperfectly so -- level of reliability. This may become less urgent when the flagged revisions model is implemented and readers can directly go to a reliable version of an article, but for now it's a very good idea. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Support Sure, why not? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Strong Support Knowing at a glance where the article rates insofar as the assessment scale is concerned is huge help during these all nighters at the library, those articles that have the bronze star in the main space currently are beacons for those of us who need such articles to help launch school related projects. Adding the GA icon to the mainspace would advertise to the public (students included) that the article in question has passed minimum quality standards for a higher rating on Wikipedia and thus can be trusted to a limited degree to provide accurate infomration that can be backed up by second and third party sources. Frankly, I would like to see GA, A, FA, and FL material all embrace this system. — an unlogged in TomStar81 (talk · contribs) Actually, registered users already have this option. Just go to "Preferences" -> "Gadgets", and under "User interface gadgets" tick "Display an assessment". The rating appears below the article title for everything from stubs on up, and the article title is displayed in different colors (i.e., blue for A-class, green for B-class, etc.) JGHowes talk - 03:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Support: GA like FA is a platform when the wiki-community (1 reviewer, as a representative) comes together to judge the article, and not just the wikiprojects involved.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Support: Yes, for two reasons: 1.) the + is rather aesthetically pleasing and 2.) it indicates that the article has been reviewed (which one would assume in a traditional encyclopedia). I've also seen this work to a degree of success on the fr:wp where I contribute from time to time. Lazulilasher (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Support: Editors (myself included) are only human. A symbol on GA pages might work as an incentive to keep working on improving articles. Eixo (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Support: This seems like a no-brainer. The arguments above make the case quite clearly (as if that should be necessary.) Panichappy (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Strong support - But only to be placed on articles that have gone through the sweeps process. This nulls the oppose votes per a one person review. Sweeps consists of hand-picked reviewers, those considered to be among the best. They're currently going through and delisting old GAs that no longer, or never, met the criteria. Which is why the article mentioned by one opposer below took so long to be delisted. MANY poor quality GAs have been delisted, and as sweeps continue, greater quality within the project is achieved. And for the argument that readers won't know what the green button means, they can click it, just as they do when they encounter that bronze star that they don't know about. Lara❤Love 06:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Where is the evidence that these "hand-picked reviewers, considered to be among the best" are evaluating articles per WP:V for reliable sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) That seems like kind of a weird question to me. How does one provide evidence for something like that? For example: how would you provide evidence that FA reviewers evaluate articles per, oh, I don't know, WP:NOT? For every FA review that doesn't cite WP:NOT (which I would assume is the vast majority of them), does one assume that the reviewer is aware of the policy and found no issues in the article and therefore had no reason to cite or mention it, or do we assume they are not evaluating the article per the policy, and are therefore not giving a thorough review? I would argue that the same logic would apply to any other form of review, including GA and GA sweeps, so I really don't see this as valid criticism. Or maybe I'm just misinterpreting your question. Drewcifer (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I don't think it was unclear, but I'll be more specific. How are these "trusted" reviewers defined and how many of the GAs that appear at FAC with non-reliable sources were passed or written by these "hand-picked" GA reviewers? Review the FAC archives for quantifiable data. While we're here, can a trusted GA reviewer please look at the sourcing in Self-injury, and then browse the talk page archives and tell me by what process that article was passed, by whom, and when it last went through sweeps? No accountability, and a medical GA of very dubious quality and based on very iffy sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Question: Sandy, why do you keep bringing up the GAs that make their way to FAN? Do you, when you see these violations of WP:V take the initiative and delist the article from GA? I have no idea whether or not you are, but I would say that if you are simply complaining about all these "sub-par" GAs that get nominated for FA and are still doing nothing about it, then please, help us out and start delisting the articles from GA. We don't want them there as much as you do if they do not comply with WP policies and guidelines. How do you know that these GA that are going to FAN were recently promoted to GA? How do you know these unreliable sources were present when the article was nominated and promoted to GA? GA, just like FA, do not undergo a constant review process. Every change to a GA (and FA) does not come under scrutiny (although, since FAs are advertised more prominently, they most likely have more people watching for changes and able to revert quickly...something the GA icons would help correct on the GA-side). Why don't you people from FA lend a helping hand to us when you see something wrong, rather than there being so much hostility and competition between the two. Nobody is saying that these icons are supposed to make GA equal to FA. Nobody is trying to make GA equal to FA. will381796 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Simply, Will, because we have FAC archives full of quantifiable data on GAs. If I delisted every GA that comes to FAC that is out of compliance, it would become literally a full-time job, and most people can tell you I have limited free time. If I delisted all those GAs, Malleus would come out of his computer and whack me with a wet noodle, too.  :-) Further, I have no interest in stepping on GA toes: I do have an interest in seeing solutions for the identifiable issues. How do I know they were recently promoted? Well ... because I check the talk page and articlehistory of Every Single FAC, and have for months (years?) to prep for GimmeBot. And, the difference in review processes is that, even if standards increase so that some FAs fall out of compliance, at one point, they were all seriously reviewed, which can't be said about most GAs. There is no hostility, Will; don't read into my words what is not there. And if we had "people power" to spare at FAC, I'd be glad to send some your way, but all of the review processes are stretched thin, so the perennial question is, why doesn't GA utilize work already done in FAC archives to help improve GA reliability and credibility ? The work is already done for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I don't care about getting hit with a wet noodle. Article's should not be a GA if they don't meet basic WP guidelines. If you can point me in the direction of the FAN archives and what I need to look for to see reasons why they were rejected, I'll start the delisting and/or reassessment process. will381796 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC) There's actually whole threads I've started on this somewhere on a GA talk page, but um ... those pages are so complex that I can't locate my latest thread right now. If someone can find and link the latest thread I started on this before I do, that would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Found (lots of GA process and sub-pages to search through :-) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps#FAC archives. That prelmiminary list based on a partial month only encompasses the articles that weren't promoted at FAC; if you really want to fully assess the quality of GA, it would also be necessary to look at the FAC promotion archives, to see how deficient GAs come to FAC but are corrected while at FAC. This data gives you a way to assess the quality of GA reviews. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. Having looked at the talk page of Every Single FAC for at least a year, I have a pretty good gut feel of the issue, and I suspect shedding some light on it will solve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Related comment: You're right on one thing Sandy, and its that there needs to be a better record of who made the promotions and better record keeping regarding the retaining of reviews. I searched the talk page and found mention of GA, but no review and no message by anyone stating that they were promoting it. I'm going to list that article for reassessment. See how simple that is? But, that article was promoted to GA status two years ago and hasn't yet undergone reassessment. However, your arguments are against the GA process and really are unrelated to the placement of a GA icon. A GA is a GA regardless of whether or not there is an icon on the article. Perhaps you should focus your energy on helping us improve the GA process rather than attempting to prevent our growth & maturation. Perhaps you could check my contribs, tell me where I'm going to find the time (in between FAC, FAR, WP:FCDW and the articles and topics I personally follow), and then opine on how you think some GA folks would feel about me barging in to delist hundreds of GAs that I know to be out of compliance :-)) I am trying to help; by highlighting the issues, and telling you all how simple it would be to begin to address some of them, by utilizing some of the work already done for you in the FAC archives. Unlike some of the other Opposes, I have also stated very clearly what two things I would like to see attended to for GA to warrant an icon in article space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I'd just like to add one thing. I don't like to see editors talking in terms of "you FA people", or "you GA folk". Many of us try to help in both processes, and want both to be as good as they can, while recognising that they are somewhat different, and have different intentions. It is not Sandy's job to delist GA articles as they come up at FA, and I do somewhat take to heart the couple of significant points that she's made about reliable sources, and I agree that something ought to be done to address those points. In FA-speak, I see those as actionable opposes, unlike many of the others. Oh, and Sandy, if ever you want whacking with a wet noodle, I'm your man!.  ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC) oh, my :-)) What have I walked in to? (Don't answer that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I should be jealous, only I can't stop laughing! I agree with Malleus that we should try to avoid "us and them" language whenever possible, but also that Sandy raises important points here; she also provides some useful information in this thread to help address the reliability issue. Geometry guy 18:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I'll make the obvious point from Wikipedia:Good article criteria that a GA is a satisfactory article: "The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles." The articles must be sourced per the WP:Verifiability policy but they do not need to be the best sources: just an appropriate source. Of course, appropriate is subjective. WP:Verifiability is always in flux:notice the 27 archived talk pages! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC) All articles must use reliable sources that comply with WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) SandyGeorgia, what is a reliable source? Reliable is subjective: as I've said above, 27 archived pages of talk demonstrate community friction at WP:Verifiability. As long as the article is decently sourced then it matches the GA criteria. Yes, all articles must be sourced: the quality of those sources are not held to the high standards of FA. Why not? Well, then the article would be at the FA level! But, a GA level of sourcing is vastly superior to the 2 million poorly sourced dross that is Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) If you're supporting or advocating some of the sources that are turning up in GAs at FAC, then I rest my case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Hmmm, SandyGeorgia, I think I implicitly said that GA is not FA. If a fool wants to shuffle over to FAC immediately after getting their green dot...well, I say they are a fool. In the real world, that would be like immediately submitting one's undergraduate thesis as a master's thesis. On the other hand, an undergrad thesis is good compared to all the dross produced during one's undergrad years. In other words, it is all relative. GA is not FA! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Err, the difference between an undergraduate thesis and a master's isn't to do with the quality of the sources used. It's how those sources are employed. Which is much like it ought to be in the GA/FA distinction. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC) It's just an analogy!!! The analogue being one doesn't re-submit one's undergrad thesis as a master's without two to three years of hard work! (For what is is worth, I personally know of only one person who carried on with their undergrad work into graduate school.) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I'm certainly not advocating that. One of the projects that I do a lot of work with (WP:GM) has been trying to go through all of its articles to eliminate unreliable sources, and documenting reliable ones. Not just GA/FAs, but all of them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Support - Good quality article's status should be shown to the general public and not just mostly Wikipedia editors. Hello32020 (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Support - Cradel 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Support - I've always wondered why good articles do not have the distinctive mark on their pages. It would be good for both readers to have a interest in a subject of GA articles and editors to improve GA articles to FA. --Appletrees (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Support - I think it's an excellent idea, as GA is really the first stage where an article can really shine and show its quality. Skinny87 (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Support - This gives casual readers a way to see that an article has been peer reviewed and considered to be of a certain level. The GA process seems to be a very good and thorough one. Seeing articles listed as GA and then reassessed immediately where there is even a shred of doubt shows me that this process works. If the process didn't work, the icon would be worthless or even counter-productive. Since I feel the process is working well, this helps those new to wikipedia or not regular visitors to identify articles which are peer-reviewed and accepted to a good standard. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Support I agree with Nicholas. Narayanese (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Strong Support I see the FA symbol, (which I know because the 1st time I saw it I examined it) and now I know not only was this article was researched and written by the one or more contributors but that others have thought it worthy of the FA symbol. This to me says that I can "trust" the article a bit more(I know ...is a bit silly) because others have looked, checked and tested. A GA is a step on that same journey and should have a symbol to differentiate from others. It also has been looked, checked and tested. Not necessarily to the same degree, it is not, after all, going for FA, but is in some ways the same process. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Support Dont see the harm in it, good article well written. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Support i) encourages and recognises effort made by editors (this is important: editors make an encyclopedia). ii) makes GA more accountable: people see status and make judgements. iii) widens interest and knowledge of GA process. iiv) shows people what article should be like: "see, this is an example of what makes a good article". v) most mainspace tags are negative (cleanup, fact, stub, etc) so let's have some positive reinforcement. Gwinva (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Support I've never really understood why this hasn't been done before. Some visible mark should be added to a GA in recognition of its quality. Mattyness (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Weak Support - only because at the end of the day it is about article quality. If having a green hot-cross bun in the top-right corner gets more editors in collaborating to write recognised content of any form then it is a good thing. I think this benefits probably outweighs the risk of folks gaming the system. A few tweaks of GA can address this quite easily. Anyone can still read WP:GA and conclude its transparency etc. So overall I forsee the likelihood of this being a net positive somehwat over 50% so i am prepared to roll the dice....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose Oppose, while GA may be improving, the decision to promote is basically done by a single editor with little oversight. While GA is certainly a good thing, with properly awarded, without the in-depth reviewing offered by the FA/FL process, having a GA symbol on the front of an article is unnecessary and gives a false impression as to the quality of the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC) The decision to promote at FA is also made by a single individual. I would suggest that many current GAs are far superior to many older FAs, yet those articles still have a misleading bronze star in their top right-hand corners. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict) The decision is made based on comments and reviews from other editors. Raul and Sandy would not promote something to FA if it got no support from other editors at all, and have been known to fail if there are enough opposing or unaddressed comments. There is more oversight all around. And I do agree, there are quite a few FAs that should be taken to FAR (as well as many GAs that need delisting because they either never should have been passed, or that no longer are GA quality). Not perfect, but at least with FA one can feel reasonably sure that it truly was FA quality at the time it passed. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Thing is, having a symbol increases transparency, and thus, in turn, oversight. Wrad (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Not that I've seen. It hasn't helped oversight with FAs anyway. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) This is a discussion about GA, not FA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Malleus's statement ("The decision to promote at FA is also made by a single individual.") is simply incorrect; FA is a community process, and an article needs community support to pass. Unlike GA, which is one editor's decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) That is a bit short-sighted. One person can pass it, but anyone can remove it (and they do) if it doesn't meet the criteria. GA deserves the title "community process" just as much as anything on wikipedia. Wrad (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC) In other words, not only is it conferred by one editor; it's not stable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Are you claiming that FAs are stable? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC) We're talking about the display of icons in article space. The FA process is stable; FA stars don't come and go from day to day, week to week, etc. They are conferred and taken away in deliberative processes involving multiple editors. (And you know the answer to the other question :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC) So your objection to the GA icon is now that it might come and go from day to day, week to week ... but isn't that a good thing? Look at all of the FAs that are clearly nowhere near the GA standard. Why deceive readers into believing that the information in those articles is reliable? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose Mostly per AnmaFinotera. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose. The presence of the "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." widget mitigates a concerned user's need to know the rating of each page on Wikipedia. —Rob (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose The FA star was divisive enough. We shouldn't have another dust-up. I'd be more in favor of removing the stars than implementing the symbols because the stars on the mainspace are just symbolic elitism (my wikiproject is more important than your wikiproject). They are not guarantees of accuracy, completeness, or that anything is error-free. The FA/GA systems are internal assessment processes which should stay on the Talk & WP pages. On the GA side, I think the reviews are inconsistent and not rigorous enough to merit an elitist symbol. (I know there are the odd examples of very rigorous reviews). Following WP shift in focus more towards quality rather than quantity, GA is where articles should be. This shouldn't be special. And if you're looking for motivation try something less exclusionary and more focused on content creation, like Good Topics. maclean 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose per all the above reasons. I don't agree with the FA star either. Epbr123 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC) This is a discussion about GA, not FA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose. How many times do we have to rehash this issue. Isn't this like the 3rd time this has been proposed. No more iconcruft, please! Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Can you point to the previous discussions? That might be useful. I have in fact asked this question before (though it's a bit buried in that section), which led to this brief discussion. Obviously, nobody wants to be endlessly re-hashing debates; but those who are newer (such as myself) might appreciate being pointed to the previous iterations. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC) These were first mentioned here: [8] And deleted here, endorsed here and then a few months laterhere. See also: this and this. --maclean 20:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC) And of course Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/archive 1#The good article tag on main article space, Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 2#New template. I think the last endorsed deletion was Sept 2007 here and the last time this was proposed was Jan 2008 here maclean 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC) OK, many thanks for these links! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I've looked over them now, and made a comment below. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC) And whatever the outcome of the discussion here, it might be useful to have some kind of short FAQ, perhaps at WP:GA. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC) WP:CCC - the reason given for opposing could be considered invalid. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose. Only articles that reach FA are deserving of such recognition. I fully and completely and totally support the GA project, and love what it does and what it stands for. However, I just don't see that any article less than featured deserves such front-page recognition. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC) No, just not a good idea. -- Naerii 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Why not? I can understand the pov that Epbr123 expressed, that there should be nothing on the front page, but not the inconsistency that only FAs should be recognised. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC) The difference between GA and FA is that FAs are thoroughly vetted and undergo a lot of scrutiny before being passed. GAs are passed by whoever happens to wander by. I'm much more confident about us saying to the general public of our FAs, "Yes, this is some of our best work" than I am of saying to the public about GAs, "Yes, these articles are pretty good". I flicked through the GA page the other day and found tons of articles that were barely worthy of the status. I am very wary of making endorsements of these articles in such high visibility areas. -- Naerii 22:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Try flicking through the FAs one day. There are tons of them that would struggle even to make GA these days. So I still find your argument to be inconsistent. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I could go on for days about GA versus FA, but this isn't what we're here to discuss. Naerii has certainly give sufficient justification for his oppose. I don't agree, but no need to debate the perspective on which he bases his reasoning. VanTucky 22:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Please don't try to lecture me. I'm questioning the consistency of the argument, not its content. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC) The 'inconsistency' is imagined. P.S: I'm a she. -- Naerii 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose. After seeing a strange comment on Jbmurray's page (that FA doesn't like GA), I followed his edits to find the latest dust up (stalker alert :-) This is a perennial discussion, and y'all can talk about it all day long here, but once it's exposed to the broader community, it will likely end up where it always does. Raul is on record as even being opposed to the FA star. As long as GA can be conferred by one editor (and that editor could have been a troll, vandal or sockpuppet yesterday and conferring GA status today), the star doesn't belong in mainspace; it is and will always be one editor's opinion. It is not a community process; it is a decision made by one person. And I would appreciate that some people would stop trying to pit FA against GA. Stating the facts (that GA is not a community process) doesn't mean that someone "doesn't like" GA. Resisting the continual suggestions to make the FA pages look like the GA pages also doesn't mean "FA doesn't like GA". GA means a lot to a lot of editors, there are several very good to excellent GA reviewers whose GA passes really do mean something, but as long as JoeAnybody can pass a GA, it is what it is, and FA doesn't need to emulate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I think you're mischaracterising the GA process. It is definitely community process. It is just a community process that works differently from FA. Also, this debate has already spread to the broader community and this is not an insider discussion by any means. See Wikipedia:Community Portal. Wrad (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Status that is conferred by one editor is not a community process; it's one editor's opinion, community of one, perhaps?  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC) That's only the beginning of the story, Sandy. anyone can remove the status if it isn't merited. It is a community process. A non-community process would be one in which one person could promote an article to GA and hold it at GA against the community's wishes. That is just simply not the case at all. See below for an example. Wrad (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I agree with Wrad. The process is a community. Last week, a naive reviewer promoted Literatur und Kritik, an article no better than start-class, to GA. Within minutes of the promotion appearing in the edit summary, four editors pounced and delisted it immediately. People are watching; or, perhaps, I should say a community is watching. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC) And why do we want that kind of instability reflected in the article space ? Further, I'm not sure anyone has yet addressed my other concerns, which I've raised repeatedly on the GA talk pages. One-third of the FAC archives (this month's sample of articles that aren't promoted to featured articles) are articles that were passed GA in spite of being cited to non-reliable sources. That means, in reality, more than 1/3 of GA passes are not getting source checks, because the 1/3 are only the ones that don't get promoted at FAC—some improve their sourcing and get promoted, others never come to FAC. If GA does not have a mechanism to make sure reviewers are checking for our most fundamental policy, WP:V, why do we want to advertise that before our readers? Second, I correct multiple errors daily in talk space from GA errors that show up in the articlehistory error category; since anyone can pass a GA, the process is inconsistent and errors are introduced due to lack of training, lack of compliance, and too many cooks in the kitchen. Extending those errors to the mainspace and to our readers, and adding more housekeeping/bookkeeping tasks to a process that isn't yet coping with the ones it has, would not be a service to our readers. I also suspect that some of the people supporting this icon in the article space haven't examined thoroughly the FAC archives to see what sorts of issues and problems I'm talking about and seeing routinely show up with a GA icon. Yes, continue to strengthen this process, and it has a valuable place in the community, but put it before our readers when GA says something about WP:V, and when housekeeping can be attended to consistently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC) This is something I have explained to Sandy before, so she is unlikely to be convinced by another explanation. Many of us help out both at FA and GA, so there should really be a lot more empathy, as both processes face the same basic problem: shortage of good reviewers. There are old GAs which don't meet the standard but go unnoticed; there are old FAs which don't meet the standard but go unnoticed. Weak articles pass GA for the lack of a good review; they also get promoted at FAC for a lack of enough in depth reviews. (One recent case was Emile Lemoine, where a substandard article was passed by consensus, because there was no reviewer to probe its shortcomings; I am partly to blame for leaving a supportive comment before completing my review, but it is FA now, despite failing several criteria.) Neither GA nor FA provide quality assurance for readers. FA sets a higher standard and is more reliable at achieving it, but neither FA-status nor GA-status are encyclopedic information about the article. They are a reflection of community processes that most readers have absolutely no idea about, and of two different ways to reach consensus on article quality. Nevertheless both processes contribute fantastically towards improving the encyclopedia by motivating dedicated editors both to add quality content, and also to assess such content against community agreed criteria. Geometry guy 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Please don't confuse my support for the goals of the GA process with the separate issue of misleading our readers into thinking that one editors' opinion means something in terms of quality. I understand and support the goals of GA: as long as it is conferred by one editor, it has no meaning to our readers and is a self-reference, best interpreted by looking at who passed the GA (there are some excellent GA reviewers, but the fact remains that anyone can pass a GA). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose per AnmaFinotera. I confess that I approved an article last year that, in retrospect, should not have been approved. It has since been delisted. Carson 03:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC) ...and someone else in the community delisted it! There you have it! A community process at work. Different from FA, but it still works. Wrad (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC) It was delisted a year and a half after I listed it (listed August 2006, delisted December 2007). It felt like just a year ago. Oops. Such a long time span before I was 'caught' by the community is unacceptable. Carson 05:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC) A year and a half? The criteria have changed so much in that time that I'm thinking your retrospect may be inaccurate. A lot of articles that could be passed without qualm back in '06 wouldn't even come close to the criteria now. --erachima talk 05:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Which is why we have the Sweeps going on. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC) And why, if you had passed a substandard article on to GA, and you KNEW it, would you not come back and delist it yourself? That alone makes no sense to me. will381796 (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I think what happened was that I was on an extended wiki-editing break when I realized it. My second thoughts came way after the initial promotion. I've only picked up editing again in the past week or so. I had/have no reservations over delisting it; in fact, that was why I checked to see if it had been delisted yet. /Carson 06:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose, only because flagged revisions are coming, which will make this moot. The point of a GA sticker would basically be to tell the public that "this article has reached a certain standard", and that's what flags will do, only in a better way, since the version displayed will actually be the very revision that was approved -- as opposed to the GA icon, which would appear and then still leave the article open to vandalism and other bad edits. I'd support the idea otherwise, as I have in the past. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:07, 25 Apr 2008 (UTC) Oppose. I'm okay with grandfathering in mainspace ornaments on FAs as traditional, but I think we should not encourage the proliferation of new symbols in the mainspace. If we had a GA symbol, why not an A-class symbol as those articles are also reviewed? Or B-class, which was at least assessed. Or DYK? I support GA, A-class, assessments, etc. but think lots of different mainspace ornaments quickly just become sort of ugly and meaningless clutter. --JayHenry (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC) As I've said above, I do think this is a bit of a red herring: the reason "why not an A-class symbol" is that these are determined by projects, and are part of a different system. The very fact that an article may be simultaneously A-class (for one project) and, say, B-class (for another) immediately militates against the extension of the system of adding these small symbols any further than GA articles. (Again, Geometry guy has a much clearer explanation of the differences here than I do.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I'm a little skeptical of that argument as it seems to imply that projects aren't community systems. Certainly they are, and most of the arguments supporting the icon (though not this particular argument of yours) could also apply to A class and other potential systems. I'm really only okay keeping the FA star since it's a historical nugget, basically a system introduced by Larry Sanger himself, and also multi-lingual, in the interwiki links, etc. The meaning of the GA green plus symbol thingy isn't entirely clear to me. "Considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach featured article quality" is actually a contradistinctive definition. --JayHenry (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) That used to be my position as well, but the same oppose argument applies to stub templates, clean-up templates and the like, which are neither encyclopedic, nor historical nuggets: they are proliferating all the time. For the meaning of the green symbol, see WP:WIAGA, which defines what the symbol means for article quality. Concerning your scepticism, of course projects are community systems, but the argument doesn't imply they aren't. But WikiProject assessments serve a completely different role: they are a coordination, progress monitoring and prioritisation mechanism for WikiProjects. At a stretch some of the arguments supporting a GA icon could be applied to those WikiProjects which have a thorough A-Class review process with clearly defined criteria, but so what? We're not discussing that now, and slippery slope arguments like this fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Geometry guy 18:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC) "Slippery slope" is not a fallacy and has nothing to do with the essay about article inclusion standards you've linked. At any rate, GG, you will find few editors as I who desire so thoroughly to rid the product of unencyclopedic mainspace templates. I'm not really arguing any sort of slippery slope. I want us to stop cluttering the encyclopedia. I want us to move in the opposite direction, eliminating as many of these silly self-references as possible. If there are discussions to eliminate other pointless templates and intrusions like this, please point me in that direction. I only mentioned why I can live with the FA star, because a lot of those opposing the new ornamentation are met with the "well, then, we should get rid of the FA star too". --JayHenry (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose (both the GA and FA icons). The "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." Gadget in the user preferences does the job in a far better way. The FA and GA icons are there to describe the article - but that's what the talk page is for. The icons are redundant and decorative. 52 Pickup (deal) 12:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I might have been inclined to agree, were it not for the fact that the gadget obviously only works for logged in users. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC) It is very likely that anyone who is interested in working on an article so much so as to bring it up to GA/FA standard would (and should, IMO) be logged in. To tell a casual reader that "this article is really good" at the start of the article seems rather patronising. Such notifications have their place: the Talk page. - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose: Others have stated my main arguments, so I don't want to repeat everything. Mainly it comes down to the fact that articles are promoted to Good Article status via one individual's opinion rather than that of a community's. There is usually the lack of check and balance, which causes an uneven (and often low) set bar. I have seen numerous inexperienced users pass sub par articles to Good Article status, many times without opposition from outside views, and although it may be true that the GA process is improving, it isn't perfect by any means. (Before people jump all over me, I do not think that the FAC process is perfect, either, but we're not discussing that, are we?) I do not think the same prestige given to FAs -- with their fancy little star emblems -- should be bestowed upon GAs simply because they are not the best Wikipedia has to offer. Far too often it's just one person's idea of a Good Article, which isn't good enough for me with my unbelievably high standards. ;) María (habla conmigo) 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Then doesn't the symbol help you to recognize articles that aren't up to snuff, so they can be delisted if necessary? Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC) No. That's what the talk page banners are for. On a personal note, I use Outriggr's monobook tool that color coordinates the article titles with their class status; Good Article titles are green, for example, so I can easily differentiate class without silly symbols. I highly recommend it. María (habla conmigo) 20:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I definitely agree with you, but I meant more as a way to notice while casually reading Wikipedia—I don't generally check an article's talk page, so I wouldn't notice otherwise. But you do make a good point about the monobook tool… perhaps the GA symbol would be better implemented as an (built-in) option for users with accounts. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC) GA is a community process an not an individual one. Anyone can list, but anyone can delist as well. It works the same way anything on wikipedia does. If you add something ridiculous to an article then it will immediately be taken out. If you add GA status when it doesn't meet the criteria, someone will catch it and remove the status. Again, GA is a community process, it just works differently from FA. An individual process would be one in which one person could pass the article and maintain its status against the will of the community, and that is definitely not what is going on. Wrad (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose: At first, the idea struck me as a good one. But now that I think of it, experienced editors may know the difference between GA and FA, but the general reading public may not. Adding a GA icon would likely suggest a level of accuracy and completeness in article where it isn't present. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Exactly the same objection could be made against the FA star. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC) The criteria for GA are fairly strict now, so the majority of GA articles—the ones passed under this criteria—should be relatively complete and accurate. Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC) In the same vein as Juliancolton, I oppose this proposal. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose but reluctantly; the step from article to GA is largely dependent upon one reviewer's opinion, and review of the application of that reviewer's criteria is at best deferred; I'm not so happy with committee decisions per se, but I'd be happy with a provisional approval followed by an independent review, even though that would introduce another layer. I've seen GA's that wouldn't pass if I were applying the criteria from my own perspective. And, of course, we shouldn't ignore cartels, for want of a better word, who approve each others' articles as unstated quid pro quos. Ideally, the whole approval process, whether for GA or FA, should be totally independent of interior standards and politics. Unfortunately, we don't have it. If we did, it would at least raise public awareness of WP as more of a reliable source than it is generally perceived to be at present. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Your description of the process is a bit oversimplistic and negative. GA is a community process. If you see an article passed and you don't think it should have passed, you can delist it. I would even say that it is your responsibility to. The only person to blame in that scenario is yourself. The GA process would be on your side in that case. I have yet to see any evidence of "cartels" which have successfully infiltrated either GA or FA. They are caught sooner rather than later, for the most part. Wrad (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose - On similar grounds as other editors. GA is a process where anyone that hasn't worked on a page extensively can promote it to "GA" status. To me, that isn't something we want to promote to the outside reader, as it doesn't actually show that the article is any good (though that doesn't mean that they aren't), and does more to say that some random editor liked it enough to give it a few initials. To me, even though the FA process isn't perfect either, being FA is based more on what the community believes and less on what a single editor believes. If the GA process was structured like the FA process, then I would be all for it, because I believe that more eyes on the page critiquing it would make it a stronger representative of the GA ranking. Unfortunately, that isn't how it's done and to give an article a flashy new icon on the mainspace, based solely on what a single editor believes would not be in the best interest of Wikipedia. We already have articles that get pushed through both the GA and FA process by people who just want those initials associated with the article, and I think adding a symbol to the front of the article is only going to provide more of a reason to be less thorough in our efforts to judge articles. It sounds stupid, but we all know that people can be very vain about such things, and it has happened in the past with other articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I find it hard to believe that one little symbol is going to have such terrible consequences. I also think that having the symbol will increase transparency and keep the GA system more honest. If I'm floating along and I see the symbol on a lame article I'm going to yank it off the list faster than you can blink. I'm sure I'm not the only one either. Wrad (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I'm sure someone said the same thing about individual episode articles, until they became such a huge problem on Wikipedia that they were uncontrollable. How many individual episode articles, that faily many policies and guidelines (there's isn't a policy for GA and FA) get "yanked out" as soon as someone sees them? Hardly any now, given the outburst to TTN's actions. Yet, for everyone that gets pulled back many more spring up in its place. Check out List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes, if you don't believe. After all the debates over individual articles, and the ban that was placed for several months, it still did nothing to stop all these articles from being created (not spunout) as soon as the episode aired. Just to clarify, only the pilot episode shows real reason to be separate, and another random episode shows promise (leaving 7 with nothing but a plot summary). The point being, even if you yank an article that fails the GA criteria from GA status, that isn't going to stop editors from pushing more and more articles into that category that do not belong there at that moment. GA is a single person's opinion, and we want to reward that opinion with a shiny star (or whatever object).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC) That is not a relevant comparison. GA has not even come close to having the problems episode articles have. They are too easy to keep an eye one, comparatively. Symbols in the corner are not going to change that in the slightest. Wrad (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC) It's an analogy, and perfectly relevant. People are rushing to create episode articles because they like them, not because they should, regardless of the criteria for them to be created. Editors have in the past, and, in my opinion, would do so more if they had more of an incentive, rush articles into GA status simply because they like them. I can show you an former FA article that was rushed into FA status simply because several editors "liked it", and it stayed that way for a long time until it was finally caught and put up for review. There are thousands of GA articles already, have you read them all to see if they actually meet the criteria? I doubt it, and I doubt you would take the time either. What you are saying is, "if I see it, then I'll do something about it". Ignorance is bliss is what you're argument comes down to. If you don't ever see the articles that are being pushed through the system, then you don't have to worry about the abuse.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC) As a matter of fact, we are reading them all and we are doing something about it. Have you ever heard of the GA Sweeps? Several editors are teamed up and going through all the GAs to be sure they meet the criteria. Right now. As we speak. Please don't accuse us of not doing what we're doing. Beyond that, people are already rushing to get GAs and a little symbol isn't going to make a major difference in that regard, and we haven't had anywhere near the kind of problem episode articles are having. Wrad (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC) First, I have never heard of such a thing, so my "accusation" (if you want to interpret it that way) was justified in what I knew. Regardless, if the icon won't change the fact that people are rushing to push articles into GA, then I guess that means the icon itself has no real value to the article. Why do we need it? It doesn't let the reader know anything about the article (unless they're already familiar with Wikipedia practices). GA certainly isn't as coveted as FA, so why does it have to be as recognized? It isn't going to make the article any better, yet you're rewarding an article based on a single person's opinion. Hardly seems worth it. It doesn't prove that the article went through any rigorous review. Some have, I know, but that doesn't mean any that I randomly pull have. This "sweeps", are you, as a team, going through the articles one-by-one together or are you all taking a handful and seeing if they meet the criteria per your own singular judgement? GA is not FA, and should be be treated as such by people who just want a shiny star (or circle) at the top of a page. Hell, remove it from FA articles too because it's useless there as well. Leave the stamp on the talk page where it belongs, as it has nothing to do with the article itself, but more to do with what people think of the article (thus it has no business being on the front page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Well, in my opinion, it will increase transparency and make it easier to spot GAs that don't belong. Some like it, some don't. If more people like it and it isn't that big a deal, then it should be added. That's how I feel. Wrad (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose - Apart from the very valid reasons already given, lay readers often mistake which has a greater hierarchy--FA or GA--maybe because they perceive a "good" article to mean being better than just a "featured" article. I've often seen anons suggesting that a certain FA is so good that the editors should try and make it pass GA. indopug (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I don't see how this relates to adding a symbol. People are going to think what they think with or without it in this regard. Wrad (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC) What I'm saying is that lay readers don't even know FA/GA signifies. The way it is right now, readers see articles without a star, a few with a star; they can come to a conclusion that the one with the star is better (better written, more reliable, more comprehensiveness...). However, when they come across this new kind of star, it becomes confusing and ultimately, worsens the reading experience of the layperson. Anyway, this is just a peripheral argument; my main objection is that GAs do not represent Wikipedia's best work. Also, I'm a relatively experienced editor who's a regular reviewer at FAC but I just can't understand GA criteria. While at FAC, you are expected to be unforgivingly strict and pedantic (a simple, linear reviewing process--demand for nothing but the best), at GAN reviewers are supposed to stand on some weird middle ground between excellence and mediocrity (the exact mix of which varies between reviewers). Simply put, the GA process allows too much decision-making power with one reviewer (even if we don't consider socks, vandals) as it is, showcasing this on the article's page will only be detrimental to Wikipedia. indopug (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Perhaps one day you might allow me to borrow your infallible crystal ball. In the meantime, what harm would be done by trying the idea out, and collecting some real data? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose, per the above comments. Rehashing them would be irrelevant. NSR77 TC 22:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose - GA represents the views of a single editor; it does not reflect consensus. A GA review is only as good as (the single) GA reviewer. Some reviewers take it very seriously; others can be very cavalier. GA needs to be improved. Most readers do not understand the FA star, let's not confuse them more with another. GrahamColmTalk 22:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC) So can we meet in the middle and remove the FA star, if most readers don't know what it means anyway? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose Per AnmaFinotera and SandyGeorgia. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Per above, and the many discussions this has had already, in which I think the cons have been stated rather well. Ral315 (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Mostly Oppose, but with some latent Support tendencies. You can look at this issue through two different lenses: The first lens examines whether the GA process has reached a point in its development where its products (GA articles) deserve such meritorious recognition by the greater community. Here I must place a flag pin on my lapel before playing the devil's advocate. I again, as always, state for the record that I wholly and wholeheartedly support the GA process. Having said that, I must also aver that there are some embarrassing holes in the "one reviewer" system in place at GA. For example. G-guy singled out Emile Lemoine as being substandard and yet having passed as FA. heck, when it was passed as GA I thought it was substandard even by that measure (you'll have to look at the version that was passed GA rather than the current version). I know people will therefore say that "GA is broken" is a weak argument, since "FA is broken too." Yes that does weaken the argument, but doesn't eliminate it. GA is more broken than FA is (and please remember, I wear an "I Love GA" flag pin on my lapel. Please don't scorch it when you flame me). ;-) It is when I look through this first lens that I lean toward Oppose. The second lens is "What impact will this have on the community?". In the short run that question will be answered largely by gut-level reaction. People will sort themselves out on a highly subjective "Yay-Meh-Boo" scale that comes freighted with feelings derived from personal history within Wikipedia. In the long run (and in general), if GA were more reliable, the impact would be positive. Some have mentioned that the FA process engenders a recurring streak of elitism in a small number of editors, and that is demonstrably true. In the past I have seen some harsh & self-aggrandizing words posted on various User talk pages. :-) But, but, but—the elitism is the dark underbelly of a brighter thing: a collective striving toward the production of meritorious results (which are then afforded public recognition). Whenever and wherever there is a merit-based system of public recognition (i.e., one based on achievement) there will always be both those who strive primarily for excellence, and those who jockey for status/recognition (and all else be damned). For exactly so long as the former milieu significantly outnumbers and outweighs the latter, competition is on balance a Good Thing. I hope that day will come with respect to GA. It is when I look through the long-term lens of "What Could Be" and see this potential milieu of craftsmanship that I lean toward Support. But I would suggest that "What Could Be" is contingent upon having a reliable system for measuring meritorious achievement. We probably are not there yet. When I look through the lens of "What Is", I see a system that is still "Under Construction". This is an idea whose time has not yet come. I hope its day will arrive. But today I !vote Oppose.Ling.Nut (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC) You express yourself very eloquently, Ling, but there are a couple of things which I find unhelpful here. First you mischaracterize the arguments others have made when you say "since FA is broken too". I think you are probably the first person here who has said FA is broken. I don't believe it is. In fact I think it is extremely successful. Furthermore, I don't think anyone here is even making the argument that this is relevant. What is relevant is the old chestnut "GA is not a community process because a single editor can list an article": by focussing on a single event, this fails to appreciate the way in which processes such as GA, FA, AfD are community processes. The second thing that I find extremely unhelpful is this whole idea that a GA icon is a pat on the back for the GA processes which should only be given when they deserve it. This seems to be the main undercurrent that causes people to care so much about such a trivial issue. We don't put clean-up templates on articles to congratulate WP:Clean-up for the good work it does. Deletion templates are not there to honour the recent changes patrollers, and the FA star itself isn't placed on an article in praise of the FAC process. The whole of Wikipedia is under construction, but bringing this into account when considering what is ultimately such a trivial matter prolongs historical accidents which are interfering with our collective ability to improve the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 10:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Ah, ah, stabbed through the heart! Called "unhelpful" by Geometry Guy! :-) :-) I'd rather be called a scoundrel and an infidel by thousands of others than "unhelpful" by you! :-) I wasn't (mis)characterizing anyone's argument (esp. not yours) as being "FA is broken". I'm sorry that all my eloquence came to nothing, since what I wrote was apparently as clear as mud. I was actually saying that Emile was an unfortunate pass as GA. It just so happens, by extreme coincidence, that it (apparently) received the same treatment at FA. So I wasn't saying that others say FA is broken—although I was saying for myself, speaking solely for myself, saying that FA is indeed somewhat broken. Sorry for the confusion. It is not systematically broken; it merely (but very unfortunately) is being swamped. The ratio of nominees/reviewers is too low. I was also trying to preempt (does that word take a dash?) the argument that FA is broken so we shouldn't knock GA for being so. Secondly, apparently I was as clear as mud yet again. I was not saying that the GA icon is a pat on the back for the GA process; it is instead a pat on the back for the dedicated editors of a GA article. It is an award for meritorious production, though not of the same level as FA. My other point was (here see Emile) that the vetting process for determining who gets those pats is not robust enough. One reviewer; no exp. necessary. Not robust enough. I've been begging for training and approval voluntary but highly recommended mentoring of GA reviewers since Day One—long, long before I ever met you. :-) The argument that "We have veteran oversight of newbies; we catch their gaffes" is precisely the same as saying "Sure it's a fire hazard, but we have a stunningly good sprinkler system." Ling.Nut (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying! All is forgiven after your brilliantly funny final analogy! Meanwhile, I'm going to suggest the banning of tags in the main space until some sort of training programme is initiated: some editors spray the tags all over the place, while others wouldn't know a statement which is likely to be challenged if it were a wet trout slap. :-) Geometry guy 12:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC) An unnecessary self-reference. I don't see any benefits to the project or to the readers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Same could apply to FA too, don't you think? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Seems like non sequitur to me. We're not discussing stars on Featured Articles. I don't propose to waste my time, or anyone else's, discussing matters unrelated to that at issue here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Not exactly a non-sequitur. FA has stars, and a lot of people think they are a good and necessary self-reference. What is so different about a GA symbol. Wrad (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Still a non sequitur: I don't much care for FA/FL/FP stars. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Well, it would be illogical (to me) to oppose GA symbols but not FA. I didn't know where you stood on FA stars. I'm still working on my mind-reading ability and haven't mastered it yet. :) Wrad (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Perhaps you might like to consider borrowing indopug's crystal ball? It's infallible. [9] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose Self-reference. The GA criteria is far lower than FA, and we need to reserve the icon for our best. This would cause confusion, and imply GA status is "good enough".--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Which icon are you referring to? Which of them would be a self-reference? Perhaps it's unfair though to be critical until you've fully developed your argument. Or indeed developed it all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose. I'm sure my reasons have already been stated: FA > GA, no question about it, always will be that way. FAs are articles that could easily be in a paper encyclopedia, while GAs are not all of the same quality, and many wouldn't be appropriate for Britannica, or other high-quality published encyclopedias. Strongly oppose this proposal, and in fact I'm somewhat surprised it was made to begin with. · AndonicO Engage. 01:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC) "Good" isn't good enough to let the readers know that it is merely "good". =) Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Good articles have not been reviewed for any of the qualities that a reader would expect in an article that has been approved or certified -- e.g. it has not been fact-checked. Readers are likely to be misled by this assertion of quality. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Ummm... How do you know? A lot of reviewers do check your facts... Wrad (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Perhaps they do, but we certainly can't make the claim that GA/FA have been fact-checked. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, that's true, neither do it the way I have with some publications I've worked for. Wrad (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose GA articles are, on the whole, too inconsistent in their quality to be given a symbol on their main page. Compare with FA, which have much more rigorous standards and usually do deserve some type of mainspace recognition. TheNobleSith (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC) FAs are inconsistent too, my friend. See Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems. Wrad (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC) True enough, but that appears to be mainly those reviewed awhile ago--recent ones are better. Regardless, the FA review process includes more oversight and restriction (a low percentage of FA's are passed, whereas I've never seen a GA fail). Unless GAN picks up a process similar to FAR, then I don't see why the former should be marked in any way. TheNobleSith (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC) How closely do you monitor the GA process? I constantly see nominations fail and I've personally failed 2-3 of the last 6 articles that I've reviewed in the past month. If you don't pay attention to the process and are not active in it, then of course you won't see them fail. will381796 (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Please take care not to misrepresent the citation problems list: the citation requirements Wiki-wide were changed in (?) late 2005 because of the Seigenthaler controversy, old FAs were not grandfathered, and that proxy was a list to begin looking at them and bringing them to new standards. As the stats show, currently only 6% of all FAs have not been reviewed for current standards, as the decision was made to bring them to FAR in a deliberative, careful process that has taken several years. This resulted from a strengthening of standards, not a lack of quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose per AnmaFinotera's arguments. Yes, GA has improved. Yes, I am proud of the articles I've brought to GA and the articles that I've promoted to GA. However, I don't think that the opinion of just one person should be enough to add a quality rendering on an article. In an ideal situation, someone would notice quickly when a subpar article was promoted and demote it, but this isn't an ideal world. In the meantime, the icon tells readers that this article is good and WP stands behind it, when we have no idea whether that one person had any idea what they were doing. Karanacs (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC) The icon simply says that its been rated a GA by the GA criteria. It says nothing about Wikipedia standing behind it. The FA symbol means nothing of the sort too. Being rated GA/FA does not mean that WP "guarantees" that the articles are factually correct and it is not an endorsement by WP about the content of the article. will381796 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC) The first sentence at WP:FA says Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. The first sentence at WP:GA says Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach featured article quality. A reader unfamiliar with WP processes is likely to click on a GA icon to see what on earth that means. They'll see that this article is "good quality", but nowhere does it say that the original method of naming this good quality was one person's opinion. I think this status belongs on the talk page with the project assessments, not on the article page where it could potentially confuse readers. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC) And it may also be worthwhile to note that even some of the supports above are saying that the icon would make it easier to see if the article was true: This would help me easily evaluate if its statements are true. Southern Illinois SKYWARN Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Then we should be consistent in our arguments regarding what belongs on the article and what doesn't belong on the article. If confusion is your worry, then new users are just as likely to be "confused" about the meaning of the FA icon. If this is the case, then all FA icons should be removed and only discussed on their talk pages. Yes, FAs are put through a more rigorous analysis when it comes to listing as an FA, but GA are not meant to be on par with FA and the requirements to be listed as a GA should not be compared to the requirements to be a FA. A GA is a GA regardless of whether or not an icon is visible. The icon is simply making the fact that it is a GA public which we believe will increase the quality of GA submissions and hopefully attract new reviewers to the GA process. These two things can only help improve WP as a whole. Hypothetical confusion seems silly as a reason to not implement this because it is simply that: hypothetical. And one person out of 50-something that may use the GA status as a determinate as to whether to use it as a research source is hardly representative of the group as a whole. will381796 (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC) The argument as to whether the FA icon should be removed is separate from this one. I would not be surprised to see that consensus was in favor of removing that icon, but I haven't seen a discussion of it except in context of whether GA articles get one. The appropriate place for that discussion is not here. Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC) When you describe an encyclopedia article as "good" in normal human conversation, you are absolutely saying something about its factual accuracy. Factual accuracy and completeness are the main things a reader will be looking for from this type of text, and judging an example "good" implies that you believe it has these qualities. There is, therefore, a big distinction between what you intend this symbol to mean and how people will actually interpret it. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC) "Good" does not mean "best", or "perfect", and I don't believe that anyone would so confused as to believe that it did. Perhaps the real problem is the name "Featured". What does that mean to the general reader? To me it would simply indicate that an article had been featured on the main page for a day. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Nobody would expect "good" to mean "best," but factual accuracy is not something associated with the best encyclopedia articles, it is something associated with adequate encyclopedia articles. The GA process (and the FA process no less so) in general have no procedure in place to examine the factual accuracy of articles, so we can't even really claim that these articles are adequate for their intended use, let alone that they are good in any meaningful sense. The fact that "featured" does not explicitly imply a level of quality is a good thing; if we insist in recognizing GA in the mainspace it would be helpful to rename it to something like "selected articles" where the terminology doesn't have any misleading associations. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC) So, to summarise, your objection is to the word "good", even though all we're discussing is an icon on the main page, with a link to what that icon means. That sounds rather more like an objection to the process(es), since you also include FA in your critique, than it does to this present discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I don't have any critique of the processes, they are working fine. What I object to is presenting to readers a potentially misleading picture of article quality. Changing the word "good" would marginally improve this problem but hardly eliminate it. The "criteria" that these articles allegedly meet include statements like "it is factually accurate" but we do very little to assess whether that is true or not; neither GA nor FA have the resources at this time to fact-check candidate articles. This is aside from that fact that we should generally resist the inclusion of excess permanent metadata in the mainspace; Wikipedia articles should tell a story about the topic, not about Wikipedia's arcane bureaucracy. That was true when the FA symbol was unwisely introduced and it is true now. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC) You begin by claiming that you are making no critique of the processes, yet go on to critique the processes. And your use of hyperbole like "excess permanent metadata in the mainspace" is no more convincing than your inconsistency. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) It's an analysis of the processes (and perhaps a critique in that sense), but it's not intended to be critical. FA and GA aren't intended to assess the factual accuracy of articles and it's not a problem that they don't do so. The process was not designed with fact-checking in mind. It only becomes a problem when we misrepresent this reality to our readers. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC) You seem to be piling confusion upon confusion. "Whenever you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose per AnmaFinotera, Sandy G, & others. GA is also rather misleading as probably the majority of articles that are in fact of GA standard have not applied for GA status, which is much less true of FA. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Articles don't nominate themselves. Perhaps if more editors were aware of the GA project, via an icon on the main space, then whatever substance there is to your supposition might be addressed? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I agree. The symbol is only going to fix this problem. As GA has become more popular and well-known, I have seen more and more people chipping in on reviews. One I am currently working on has three or four editors helping out! Wrad (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Don't worry! Virtually all such editors know about GAs, but just don't choose to submit. Few of the FAC's I look at are GAs, although that might vary depending on subject. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I just wish that I had your omniscience, and knew all the things that you claim to know. As a mere mortal, I have to rely on empirical evidence. Do you have any in support of your hypothesis? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Try working your way through Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations comparing FAs & GAs per their user pages. Lengthier research on their talk pages will turn up many less politely expressed versions of the opinions in this section. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I see that I'm one of those listed there. Exactly what is that's been said on my talk page that leads you to believe that I have a less politely expressed version of my support for the GA icon on the article main page than I've expressed here? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose As one who's participated in promoting both FA and GA, I can see valid points on both sides. For me, striving for a GA is a strong motivator in writing an article, and a front page symbol would be a form of inducement/reward for those of my ilk. I certainly don't share the view of those who say that a GA symbol or FA star shouldn't be on the front page because it's pov or whatever. We also splash {{unsourced}} {{tone}} {{tooshort}}, etc. "negative" judgment tags across the front page of an article, so a little star or do-dad in the corner for a "positive" tag hardly disqualifies on that basis. I also disagree with those who say the average reader doesn't know what a star means. It's really quite intuitive — a Gold Star is widely understood to mean something special, and if there's any doubt, simply hovering the cursor over it brings up the yellow dialogue box, "This is a featured article". So why am I opposed, then? Because I think the FA should remain something really special. Having gone thru the FAC gauntlet with Sandy and others, that star is hard to get and does represent our very best efforts, as much as that is humanly possible. As such, as a symbol of excellence, it should remain unique. Any kind of different star or icon for a GA would, I fear, blur any differentiation between a "featured article" and a "good article" in the mind of the reader when they see that in the article's header. Because the standards of FA require a fairly rigorous peer review, we should continue to highlight only the FA star on the article front page. JGHowes talk - 02:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Strongly oppose - the FA symbol on the main namespace clearly indicates that the article is of the highest quality, while a locked symbol clearly indicates that the article is under some form of editing restrictions. What would a GA icon mean - that it's a "moderately okay article, not quite there yet, but well along, and while not thoroughly vetted by a large contingent, trust us, one of our editors thinks so"? Once again, I would like to ask why the GA is trying to inch towards FA, and if they aren't, why they continue to insist so despite continually trying to assume parallel forms. Sorry, but I find the FA-creep rather distasteful, and largely against the long-term viability of the GA process, should it continue along these directions. My two cents for better or worse, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose. I have long desired the GA sign on the top of mainspace articles, if only for my own ease of use. However, for the mainstream public and the long-term legitimacy of the project, I don't think they are a particularly good idea. Does anyone know how much of the general public even recognizes the FA-star and what it symbolizes? Worth a poll perhaps? SorryGuy  Talk  02:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I don't understand your reasoning. Why are you voting according to how someone else may or may not feel about the symbol? There is no way you can ever know what all our readers think about it. Why not vote according to how you think about it. That is the only thing you can know for sure. The rest is speculation. Might I also add that if the reader doesn't know what it means, how is that going to hurt anything? Half of the opposes here say "it might make the reader think that the article is good when it isn't." But if they don't even know what it means, as the other half of the opposes contend, where exactly is the problem? Wrad (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Strong oppose—This is elevating a process that has a certain arbitrariness and instability built into it to the level of featured content, at least in the display of a symbol side-by-side at the top of an article. GA is a quite different concept, in which there is no rigorous, standardised review procedure that is open and there for all to view synoptically. It is, quite simply, competitive bloat. Please do not water down the iconography of WP. And yes, exactly how will it help readers? Tony (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Why is it, do you think, that other language wikipedias don't have the same distaste for what appears to a very minor request for change? Are they all wrong and you're right? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Simply put, yes. Japanese Wikipedia has a process which boils down to votes for blocking of users. German Wikipedia does not bother with the warning system we have here. Would you suggest we adapt those too? What other language Wikipedias do really has no relevance here. SorryGuy  Talk  04:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Are you familiar with the conventions for rational discussion? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC) If you disagree with what I have said, please point out what it is you disagree with. Please do not attempt to insult my ability to carry on intellectual discourse. I maintain it is a valid point that what other Wikipedias do is not relevant to what we do. If for no other reason, compare the visibility here and the visibility elsewhere. If we declare, on the mainspace, that an article is a "good article" and it is full of inaccuracies, how quickly do think members of the media would jump on it? I am not saying such articles are common, but under the current system they are out there. SorryGuy  Talk  05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I asked a question based on your apparent misunderstanding of the issue that is being discussed here. A misunderanding that your reply simply confirms. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Would you be so kind as to clarify this misunderstanding for me? SorryGuy  Talk  06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I'd be happy to try, if I didn't believe that I'd be wasting my time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Then I have to question your ability to carry on rational discussion. I don't see how you can dismiss everything that I have said out of hand and refuse to explain why you have done so. It is insulting and it is not becoming. If I have some fundamental misunderstanding, I will be happy to admit it. But I can not see one. If anyone else would let me know, I would appreciate it.SorryGuy  Talk  02:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC) People who read and don't edit generally have no idea that there are people who discuss changes, find reliable sources and award barnstars. As an editor, I appreciate good articles and if I want to know if an article is good, I can go to its talk page. This logic can easily be applied to the featured star, but for some reason I feel that featured article writers have earned it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose I find myself more receptive to the idea than the last time it was proposed, but I'm afraid I'm still not convinced. I can appreciate that GA is not a one-person process, but neither is it a community process. It simply does not fall neatly into one of those two categories, as it is made of elements of both. If GA continues to improve, it may one day reach the point where I find myself swayed, but it is not yet at that point. Pagrashtak 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose Agree with AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs), who put it well. Cirt (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose It is obvious from their content which articles are "good" and which ones are not. So obvious in fact that any editor can roll on over and slap a GA sticker on it if they see fit. I appreciate the GA system as a means of evaluating the progress of an article, incentivising editors and making people think about the criteria, but its purpose is purely editorial, so please keep it out of the article space. The difference between GA and FA is that an FA is deemed to have little to no room for improvement. To know that there are not glaring omissions, failures of convention, unreliable sources and so on, subject to frankly intense scrutiny, does make a difference to how one approaches reading that article. BigBlueFish (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Strong oppose per inconsistency, lack of oversight, and duplication with FA. I also strongly suggest a change of venue. Why the GA talk page was felt to be a neutral forum for this, I don't know. Marskell (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I don't see the reason for the objection. Not all GA reviewers support the idea, my friend. I would also argue that FA is inconsistent as well, that lack of oversight really is not as big of a problem as you may think, and duplication with FA really doesn't seem like a reason for oppose. Most people here seem to want GA to be more like FA! Wrad (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC) That people in GA want it to be like FA only reinforces the fact that it is a redundant process—something I've been arguing in vain for three years. And there is far better oversight at FA. There are basically five people to talk to if you have a problem with either of the two main review pages. The history has been exhaustively catalogued and the current process proceeds with remarkably few hiccups. And seriously, can we get a neutral jury in here? Not quite 60% of opposes are being challenged versus just over 20% of supports. Marskell (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Then feel free to oppose the support arguments yourself. This is the perfect forum for this discussion and steps have been taken to advertise this discussion to the general community. will381796 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Sure: let's, after every vote entered, have someone shouting "last word!" You want a poll, have a poll. I've actually worked in polling and there's a way to do it properly—a forum sympathetic to one opinion with three or four people acting as attack dogs is not it. Marskell (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC) First, its not a vote. Second, people are providing arguments to rebut points that are being made. Those against the proposal are also making such points. Don't argue for more rebuttals if you believe its simply people trying to shot "last word!" If all someone's doing is trying to get the last word, my guess is that their arguments suck. You can only go back and forth so many times without changing the subject before all relevant premises, hidden assumptions and logical relationships in the original statement have been fully articulated. Hypothesis: As a debate grows longer, the probability that at least one of its participants isn't making honest, valid arguments approaches unity. Kevin Baastalk 20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC) First, it is a vote. (Just like ATT was a vote and all the none-votes on RfA are actually votes. I love this semi-religious feeling Wikipedia has created about "not voting," while voting.) Second, my "honest, valid" arguments have been registered: a) GA generally lacks oversight and is prone to inconsistency (at least enough so that we shouldn't be advertising it in mainspace); b) GA is a duplication of, and a diversion from, FA. Those are "honest and valid" points—even if you disagree with them. If you want to continue poking my particular vote in the ass, at least admit that, in fact, you're after the "Last Word." OK? User:Marskell: strong oppose, arguments noted, I disagree. Now go home. Marskell (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Take it easy, man. I wasn't saying that your arguments were dishonest or invalid. I was just making a joke. Geez. As regards discussion, that's what we do when we take a straw poll. It's an organized way for people to state how they feel about something and discussing that is a normal thing on wikipedia. It's beneficial because it adds value - it adds a way for people to exchange information, and that's useful. Kevin Baastalk 18:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Last word. Marskell (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose, for the same reasons as the last 5 times this was proposed/tried. Keep Wikipedia meta-information out of articles (including the FA star) Raul654 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC) When was this tried? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Numerous times (and that list is not exhaustive) Raul654 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I believe that there is a difference between someone who creates a template and just starts slapping it all over the place and someone who tries to get a consensus before doing so. But I respect those who want the FA star gone as well in their opposes more than those who seem to have a double standard. Wrad (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose: unnecessary and unprofessional pomp (same as FA star). All information at Wikipedia is expected required to conform to WP:V/WP:RS. Using an icon, as has been suggested, to convey conformance to these and other policies (or review thereof) does not speak well for the integrity of the project, which ought to be trusted to enforce and implement its content policies across all articles. Are we sending a signal that we don't trust our own model? We came here as volunteers to improve the encyclopedia; it's unfortunate that a main space icon is wanted as "incentive" or recognition for achieving that end. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC) I'd say it's just one way that we, as a collaborative wikipedia, aim to meet those goals. I really don't think it hurts them at all or sends a bad message. Wrad (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose. per Raul654. And at least until Flaggedrevs has been implemented, which will create all sorts of meta-information questions/problems/solutions. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Like what? Kevin Baastalk 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Flagged revisions (and all the background that it encompasses, from Stable Versions to Article Validation) will (probably) have an enormous impact on what meta-information we display to the average reader, depending on how we display the flaggedrev information to them. I can see from your userpage that you are at least partially familiar with the ideas, so, I'm not sure what exactly you are asking? I feel that flaggedrevs might end up as a far superior system to the current "stars" or "icons", or might include them as part of its system; Its ramifications will have a bigger and better impact than a short-term implementation of a "good icon". Does that answer your ambiguous question? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC) We will display the flagged revision as an article. flaggedrevs will have no impact whatsoever on what metainformation we display to the average reader because it will not expose any metainformation to the average reader. There is a test of it running for the english wikipedia, and as far as i understand they are using it on the german wikipedia. You can check it out for yourself. The code is written; the project is finished. There are no problems with it and there are no questions to be answered. Flagged revisions will not replace GA and it certainly won't replace FA. Only a tiny fraction of articles are FA or GA, and that is by design. On the other hand, every article will have a flagged revision, by design. This means that flaggedrevs cannot include FA stars/GA icons as part of its system; they are incompatible; one's a square peg and the other is a round hole. FA/GA and flagged revisions are completely othrogonal. So there is absolutely no valid reason to wait for flaggedrevs to be implemented before exposing GA status to readers. Whether its done before or after flaggedrevs is implemented makes no difference at all. Kevin Baastalk 18:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC) That isn't true. An article will only have a flagged revision if someone flags it. If there are multiple levels of flagging (which we could have, the extension is very customizable), it would be quite sensible to have a level corresponding to GA and another corresponding to FA. Meta-info about the quality of the flagged revision can be seen in a box on the page. I don't think anyone is saying that it will replace GA/FA, but it can certainly augment them. Mr.Z-man 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Indeed, I never said it would replace the FA/GA review systems, just that it might end up a superior method for displaying concise meta-information (it could hypothetically replace the "icon" system. and maybe the "spoken icon" will go away eventually too.) See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 23#Stable versions is coming; what standards, guidelines, and processes need to be written? for a bit of recent discussion. It is still undecided here, and is up to each wikimedia project individually, how to specifically implement flaggedrevs. Anyway, this isnt the location for a discussion of flaggedrevs, and I oppose GA icons for most of the other reasons mentioned in this thread (eg clutter (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Reducing interface complexity), etc). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose Mostly per AnmaFinotera, Karanacs. TestPilot 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose No need for it + GAs do not have a broad consensus. No one is saying they aren't "good", but the icon at the top simply isn't needed, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose That little icon is just one of the rights you get when you reach that high level of an FA. We should be proud of our GAs, but they're not FAs. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose, but then I oppose the FA icon. GA isn't that much worse than FA; it's been improving, and there isn't that much room worse than most of FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose, process is arbitrary and has been yelling, "but we've gotten better" since the dawn of time (not literally). Personally, I think these little icons do little other than stoke the ego of Wiki editors (something that is not generally in need of being stoked). Average readers have no clue what the little symbol means, and it is unlikely to have much meaning to anyone outside the cadre of Wiki editors who work in the FA/GA areas. Both processes still suffer from an inability to ensure accuracy and therefore should not be patting themselves on the back. Compliance with MOS and grammar rules is no reason to demarcate articles that have been through these processes, a distinct lack of expert editors willing to put the time in on reviews has led to this, but no one seems to want to acknowledge it, only congratulate themselves on the quality of Wikipedia's "The Simpsons" (insert any random topic here) coverage. (For the record both the FA star and the GA icon are just bad ideas, always have been, imo). IvoShandor (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose - We need less clutter in the top corner of articles, not more. Mr.Z-man 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC) The amount of clutter is not increased by this proposal, as an article would not be displaying both a GA and an FA symbol. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, it would be increased. 4000+ articles would get a green circle in the top corner if this were implemented - that would be the clutter I refer to. Mr.Z-man 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose – People unfamiliar with Wikipedia and its assessment structure will only be able to easily understand, and relate to, two article states: the very lowest (stubs) and the very highest (Featured Articles). Putting up an icon saying that the article is somewhere in between is not very definite, and can be interpreted by readers in many different ways. FAs have no problems of which the readers should be wary; GAs might still have some deficiencies, and the readers wouldn't know where to look for them. I find GA status tremendously useful, and I appreciate all the work that has gone into the reviewing process, but I believe this system is more useful to editors than to readers (that is not to say that it isn't useful to readers, but we shouldn't make too much fuss about it either). Waltham, The Duke of 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Strong Oppose: GA status is very easy to get if just two editors form a team... The iconic status will encourage this form of tag-team review of articles and will cause more harm than good. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose. Good articles don't really deserve the treatment that featured articles do. I know it's just a little dot, but I think the icon would lose all accountability if it were included on all pages. Besides, there's a tool that writes the article title in green if it's a Good Article, which is good enough for me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose - at this time. There is currently a proposal to revise the article assessment structure at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Overhaul and rewrite of the assessment scheme. I am one of the comparatively few individuals who have signed on to help rewrite the scheme, should the process ever be implemented. I think we would welcome input from members of this project, as well. But, if the rewrite does take place, and for whatever reason a grade were to be made basically similar, if not identical to, the current GA grade, then either the grade or the GA would be made redundant. Suggest that such a proposal wait until a determination on the proposed rewrite, and possible rewrite itself if it takes place, is accomplished. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose GA quality control is non-existent. A "Good Article" might be absolutely brilliant or it might be absolute dreck. Thanks to the GA process, it's completely random. Advertising the dreck to our readers with the GA stamp of approval would be an embarrassment to Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose I applaud the idea and endeavour, but having seen a few of the recent promotions and reviews at GA, I've got to oppose. Some GAs are very good, but some are also good or on the borderline. I realise they can get delisted, but promotion and review are all in the hands of one editor. The whole process is too much of a whim, and too unstable. GA is not FA, and may also confuse the reader who doesn't realise what each icon means, but also doesn't click on them. Having one symbol is simple enough. Peanut4 (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Opp. I've been watching this conversation, and I haven't noticed anyone really bring up how such an icon would be maintained. Process maintenance takes time, and since I don't see such icons as having much encyclopedic value, it's time away from the goal here. (Yes an icon could be maintained by a bot, but creating the bot takes time and involves its own form of maintenance.) Avoiding unnecessary process and bureaucracy is a trademark of GA. I also think absolute-placement CSS should be used as sparingly as possible in article space for accessibility reasons, although I acknowledge the accessibility issues are somewhat weaker now than they were in the past. Gimmetrow 20:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Never. Many GA articles are decent stuff, but the GA process does not provide an sufficient degree of scrutiny to justify tagging our articles in such a manner being proposed. We should not mislead our readers. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose. I'd prefer readers be given the opportunity to tell editors what they think is "good", rather than vice versa. I am also uncomfortable with what it might meant to a casual reader to see that one article has a GA symbol, and the next article lacks one; does the set of articles that are designated "GA", and get this symbol, correlate strongly enough with the set of articles that are "good"? I don't think so. This is basically echoing Johnbod's point. –Outriggr § 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Neutral I'm generally in support of adding the GA plus sign on the top right corner of the mainspace, as I've never thought that WP:ASR is a good idea in these cases to begin with. I've found that with a few exceptions, GA tagging has become more consistent, and since perfection is not possible in a process, I can live with the outliers. That said, I think we should wait until Flagged revisions to come forth; at that time, this issue may be moot, or we could even decide to use the tag as some sort of indicator to show the reason why the article was flagged. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I looked at that page, but didn't really understand it, or its relation to this debate. Could you explain? (Apologies in advance for my obtuseness, if necessary.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Flagged revisions would remove a lot of the impetus for this proposal, i.e. it would provide a way to know that an article was in good standing. Kaldari (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC) This is a thinker. I've read these opinions, and I agree with both the supports and approves. My experience with GA is that I've had 2 worthwhile reviewers, and 4 who I seriously questioned if they knew what they were doing - although it all worked out in my articles' favors nonetheless. Going through an FAC is a much more rigorous process, and the bronze star is something that is earned through blood and frustration. However, my entry into the world of Wikipedia has been a remarkable lesson on the tenuous nature of knowledge and information, not just at this site, but the sources we use to write our GAs and FAs. I'm astounded at the number of inconsistencies in print and on the internet. Wikipedia illustrates this nicely - some sources are painstakingly researched, and others are quickly and carelessly put together, and still others may be a mixture of both approaches. When someone up a few inches made the point that A class, or B class articles would have to be indicated on the main space, and then start and stub class - ok, why not? There are some seriously crappy articles, and a mainspace designation serves as a reminder for all readers that the quality of writing and research in an article has been assessed, is fluid, and disparate from one article to the next. In my rare conversations with people in real life about Wikipedia, most of them have no idea there are discussion pages, histories, and editors that share an entire culture behind the mainspace. So why would they think to check the discussion page for an article assessment? --Moni3 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I think displaying a GA award would be a great incentive to improve articles to GA-status, and act as an incentive to help improve them towards FA. However the promotion to GA is in the hands of one editor, so the quality between GA articles is far too great in my opinion. Peanut4 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Delisting from GA is also in the hands of one editor though, a point made higher up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Except, it isn't really, as I've also noted higher up. I delisted two articles today that clearly fail the GA criteria, in large due to referencing issues. Both were quickly reverted under claims that one editor can't decide and that GAR discussion is required. So yes, listing is solely one editor's decision, delistings really seem to nearly take an act of congress, leaving the system completely unbalanced. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) If you decided to delist, and that decision was challenged, then the next step is WP:GAR. No act of congress needed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Yup. I've commented higher up. Geometry guy 12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Neutral - I don't think having the icon will result in FA's being any less prestigious or important. I think having the icon will offer some advantages; it will indicate that at least one editor has read through the article and believes it to meet the GA criteria. It may also help weed out articles that no longer meet the criteria because readers will immediately know whether they are reading a GA or not, as opposed to having to check the talk pages. If stable revisions is implemented then I don't think the icon will offer many advantages however. I am worried that the icon could encourage abuse though, and am concerned at the lack of checks and balances. I wouldn't be opposed to a trial of the system, but can't give it my full support at the moment. - Shudde talk 04:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Voting is evil EVIL! --Carnildo (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC) EVIL!! Nihiltres{t.l} 16:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC) EVIL!!! too!!! -- Fullstop (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC) We're not voting. We're trying to develop consensus. As has been mentioned at several places in this discussion, we don't care how many are for each side; what matters is the substance of the arguments. will381796 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC) That's an untenable dichotomy, are you saying editors don't consider the "substance of the arguments" when deciding for or against? If an overwhelming majority of editors consider the arguments on one side as stronger than the arguments on the other side, then that is an argument in itself. Lampman Talk to me! 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Have you brought this subject at RfA, or is voting just "evil" when it doesn't give the right result? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Comment Please, add comments here. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Out of curiosity, will this be limited to the GA talk, or will an RFC or the like be opened to ensure a wide range of editors are aware of the discussion? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC) If we have consensus here on the talk page among GA editors, then I think it should be opened up for comment by the rest of the community through an RfC or similar avenue. will381796 (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, like anything Wikipedia, it'll have to advance 'up'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I've been wondering: if there was presently no bronze star on FA articles would anyone be arguing in favour of including a bronze star on FA articles? I probably would, so I really can't understand the resistance to recognising the quality of other articles. Seems a bit like deciding to award only gold medals at the Olympics to me. You second and third placers are just losers, b****r off. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Second place is first loser! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC) If we're going to have a GA Green circle, what next? The start "Yellow Flag"? The Stub "Pencil Icon"? I would also have to suggest the B-Class "Orange Triangle" and perhaps an A-Class "Crystal Diamond", since A-class rated articles are so hard to find... —Rob (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC) As A-class, B-class, etc., are project-specific, then they don't really come into it. (Geometry guy has a much better explanation of the difference between the FA/GA system and the A/B/start system.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, and stubs are already rather prominently indicated in mainspace. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, the Stub-Start-B-A issue is a red herring. I've explained this in so many different places that it is a great relief to see someone else taking it up. Just think about it: WikiProject assessments are reached in a completely different way from GA and FA status. Each WikiProject does it slightly differently, and the goal is to help WikiProject editors track article quality and target improvements. Contrast this with GA and FA, which are community wide assessments based on community agreed criteria. The confusion arises because most good articles are GA-Class (not all: some are A-Class, and if a WikiProject wants to rate a good article differently, that's up to them). So I would request that anyone reading this who sees another editor confusing GA with GA-Class, please politely remind them that these are really conceptually different, despite the similarity in terminology (an unfortunate historical error, in my view). Geometry guy 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I placed a notice on this at the Community portal, FYI. VanTucky 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC) On "rehashing previous debates." I had a look through the links provided by maclean above. (And I recommend that others do, too.) It actually seems to me that the issue hasn't been seriously revisited for a couple of years now. Even the last deletion review seems to have turned significantly on discussion over here (though I may be misreading that review; it was strangely one-sided compared to the other debates). Also, in that there are two arguments against the proposal: One, that such a symbol consists of "metadata" that is inappropriate in mainspace. Here, however, the consensus is that the FA stars are appropriate, and if a debate is to be "rehashed," it is the debate over the use of those stars, which otherwise is fairly settled. Two, that the GA process is arbitrary, insufficient, unreliable (etc.). Here, the case would be that the GA process has improved in the intervening two years. So this is less a rehashing, than revisiting the GA system two years down the line. Though proponents could perhaps try to demonstrate that the GA process is indeed now much more reliable than it was. There may be other arguments against that I am missing or slighting, but the notion that this debate has been done to death does not, to me at least, hold much water. But as always, I'd welcome correction. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC) It is my perception that there a substantial reactionary body in wikipedia that frequently tries to suppress discussion with the cry "Oh, not this again", without ever engaging their brains before doing so, or considering what may have changed in the interim. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Perhaps tone done the "engaging their brains" comment, Malleus? I can certainly see why it may appear that the issue has been done to death, even though I believe that closer inspection shows that not to be the case. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Not my style, I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I have previously objected to the idea of a mainspace GA dot, and to a large extent my objection applies also to the FA star: these are not encyclopedic information, but (as Jbmurray suggests) metadata. I sympathise with editors who want to get rid of all such mainspace tags. From this point of view the main distinction between FAs and GAs is not how reliably good they are, but the basic fact that FAs get featured on the main page: that may not, admittedly, be encyclopedic information from the point of view of pillar one, but it is part of the way this encyclopedia is organised, and all encyclopedias contain metadata of this type (e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica is divided into the Propaedia, Macropaedia and Micropaedia). However, I'm no longer convinced that this argument is sufficiently strong to oppose the GA dot, given that the FA star is widely accepted. Wikipedia articles are full of metadata, and the dividing line between which metadata are acceptable and which aren't is not straightforward. Consensus on where that dividing line is can change. Geometry guy 00:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC) If I may respond to that, I'm quite prepared to consider the possibility that the FA star should go, as an alternative to adding the GA dot. What I think hasn't being adequately considered though is which of those options would be the most likely to lead to an overall improvement in the quality of the encyclopedia. Arguments about metadata are interesting, but largely irrelevant, as there is already metadata on the front page, and not just the FA star. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I have added a notice to various GA-related pages (e.g. WP:GAR, WP:GAN, WikiProject Good Articles, etc.) due to sheer number of GA talk pages and some may not have watchlisted this specific page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Comment: I'm really tired of people saying that GA is not a community process. That is absolutely false. GA is a community process an not an individual one. Anyone can list, but anyone can delist as well. It works the same way anything on wikipedia does. If you add something ridiculous to an article then it will immediately be taken out. If you add GA status when it doesn't meet the criteria, someone will catch it and remove the status. Again, GA is a community process, it just works differently from FA. An individual process would be one in which one person could pass the article and maintain its status against the will of the community, and that is definitely not what is going on. Wrad (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Wrad, I don't think that's what people mean when they say "community process". They're talking about the review itself which is performed by one person. Not the entire GA system. To use a WikiAnalogy, one might say that AFD is a community process because everyone has a chance to comment and Speedy Deletion is not. This doesn't mean speedy deletions cannot be overturned, or are not (generally) performed along consensus driven guidelines. I don't think anyone misunderstands or disputes the things you're saying--there is a semantic difference about interpretation of the phrase "Community process"; nobody has a false set of facts about GA. --JayHenry (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC) The GA review process is very broad, and I feel that people are tunneling their vision far too much by only focusing on the first review. "The review itself" never really stops. If that first review was all we could count on, then it would be a problem, but it isn't a problem when delisting is so easy and simple. I can see why people are confused, but I do not agree with their conclusions. GA is not the same as AfD or FA, but it is still a community process as much as anything else on wikipedia. Wrad (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC) That is an interesting analogy. So which notion of "community process" is relevant here? Which notion of community process determines whether an article should exist or not? Is it the single AfD, or is the whole combination of AfD, DRV, article recreation, speedy deletion, salting, etc.? The latter, methinks. And which notion of "community process" is relevant to the quality of an FA? A single FAC, or the whole process of FAC, FAR/FARC? Well, I've mentioned Emile Lemoine already: passed only a day or so ago, it manifestly fails the featured article criteria. Geometry guy 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I agree. GA is a community process with a broad arc that bends toward continual improvement, just like the rest of wikipedia. Saying that it isn't a community process is not seeing the big picture. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Also, knowing if an article is a GA/FA is the first step in deciding if it deserves delisting. The call to attention of GAs with an icon would put it under greater scrutiny. That alone would increase the overall quality of GAs. --Dodo bird (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Unrelated question, but why is there a GA icon on top of this article? indopug (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC) LOL! It was added here, in I believe a good faith edit to illustrate what exactly it is we are talking about. But the irony of the green dot appearing above the discussion about its use did make my day. Geometry guy 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC) What I have noticed is conspicuously absent from this discussion is any criticism of featured lists having adopted the FA bronze star. Anyone who believes that the FLC process is any way equivalent to FAC has never nominated an article for featured list. The criteria are ambiguous, arbitrary, and poorly understood even by experienced reviewers. There is no overall assessment of the quality of opposes/supports as there is with FA, the decision whether or not to promote being a simple vote. Is that a better process than GA? I don't think so, yet it awards bronze stars. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I think it's worth noting that support outnumbers opposition 2:1 86.29.138.220 (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Strength of argument is what counts, not numbers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Indeed 86.29.139.70 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC) For the record the original deletion debate can be found here--Tarret talk 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Test-run? Over an IRC discussion, User:Will381796 and I came up with the idea of a trial of adding the GA symbol for a period of 6 months or so. This way, there would be no more discussion about what could happen. After the trial time ends, editors could make the final decision of whether to keep it or not based on actual fact, not just opinion. Thoughts? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Please find the archive of our IRC discussion here for those interested in how this line of thought progressed. will381796 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I think a trial run is the only way we will ever resolve this issue. Otherwise, it will just keep being brought up over and over again. VanTucky 01:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Yes, let's solve the biggest mystery of all... What the heck happens when you add a GA symbol? Wrad (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Chance of mini black holes. Don't say I didn't warn you. ;) /Carson 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC) In what way do you feel that six-month period would enlighten us about any of the issues being discussed here? If you can explain the information you plan to gather over this period, I would support the proposal, provided that the test run is followed by a six-month test period where the GA symbol is removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Also, we should be able to collect data from the last 6 months, shouldn't we? Basically everything on WP is archived somehow so it shouldn't be hard to get the info we need to compare life w/o the icon to life w/ the icon. I'd also argue that comparing data gathered w/ the icon to data gathered after the "trial run" would not be an accurate representation of life w/o the GA icon. The trial run should be compared to a period of time before the icon was implemented...not after. will381796 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what sort of data you feel could be gleaned from our archived discussions. There will probably never be data on the most important questions (whether our readers like the symbols, whether they understand what the symbols mean, etc.). Our answers to those most important questions are and will continue to be largely speculative, and a test run will not change this. To your second point, why would the period after the "trial run" be any different from the period before? To get a fair picture, we need to actually examine both states. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I don't care whether or not users "like" the icons. I care if they achieve a purpose, which is to improve the encyclopedia. Nobody is not going to improve an article simply because a little icon is on the top right corner that they think is ugly. There's plenty of quantitative data out there for us to analyze: how many GA nominations were there in the last 6 months? How many of those nominations were passed and how many failed? How many new members joined the GA WikiProject? How many reviews were done each month and total for the last 6 months? Then compare these results to the data generated during the test run. If we see an increase in the number of failed articles compared to the number of passed, then it may be argued that the increased presence of the icon resulted in increased submission of mediocre articles in an attempt to possibly run up individual user's "GA numbers". If the ratio stays the same or if there are more passes, then we can say that the inclusion of the icons helped increase the quality of the encyclopedia or at the very least did no harm. The comparison of these types of quantitative data to a data gathered during a time period immediately after the removal of the icons will be confounded due to the fact that some of the effects of the icon might have been long-running and not cease immediately after their removal. Also, it will take time for all editors to realize that the icons are no longer present on articles. will381796 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Well, this dicsussion will appear every year until the end of Wikitime, and people will argue based on what could happen, and what could go wrong, and what could go well. Or, we could give it a test run, and we could make our decision and reach a consensus based on actual fact rather than opinion. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC) But you don't propose any way to collect actual facts. Six months from now, we will know precisely nothing more than we do now about how the change affected the community or our readership. You can't have a "test" when you don't intend to measure or assess anything. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I'm for a test run. If it is a disaster, it'll be removed. The history of the FA bronze star is much the same: let's do it and see what happens. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I agree. If it is a complete disaster, we can remove the symbol before the scheduled end of the trial time. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC) We should only remove the symbol if something goes wrong. It should not be an automatic removal. Anyone can gather information and we will all discuss whatever people think is worth bringing up. We have a GAN report. The biggest thing would be to watch that and see if the backlog becomes huge. Wrad (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I would also be interested to see if the ratio of passes to fails changes, as well as whether there is an increase in active GA reviewers. A question: on the list of people that have joined project GA, how many of these would you say are active reviewers in that they review at least 1-2 articles a month? will381796 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I also agree with trial run. This is the same dilemma as WP:ROLL. It can't be resolved until a trial run is conducted. But I disagree with automatic removal. If it does no harm, it should be kept. And data can be retrieved easily in Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report, for those who always wonder how we get the stats for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter without counting the GAN. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC) If there's no automatic removal it is not a test run at all, it is just implementation. That's fine but it requires the strong consensus that would be expected for the implementation of this sort of change. With regard to your links, none of the interesting questions are addressed by the data there. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Your argument is funny. We can get the data right now because it's not placed in articles yet. You're just trying to look for ways to revert everything back and place the entire community into chaos once again when 6 months of trial period is over and forcing us to waste our time to go through this kind of discussion when we could have been improving articles, which is the objective of GA and FA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC) The data (of which I described to you in my response to you above) can be generated quickly enough that it should be able to be presented to the community and commented on quickly. The icons can stay in place during the discussion (few days to a week) and then removed afterwards if the consensus is that the test failed. That week with the icons being present won't affect anything and the removal for a week may confuse and will probably cause additional work. will381796 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I and many others think they are interesting questions. I think the ones you're asking are the uninteresting ones, the things we can't measure. If we can't measure them, why are they even an issue? Why do they even matter? Can't we have a test run in which the symbol's existence is called into question after six months? Doesn't that seem fair? If it works, there is absoloutely no reason to remove it. Automatic removal just seems silly to me. Wrad (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC) By interesting, I mean relevant to the dispute here and useful for resolving it. The discussion here focuses on the differences in quality between GAs and FAs, the reader interpretation of the various symbols, etc. None of the data on that page is likely to make anybody here change their mind. To your second point, the current system "works" fine. Why change it? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I think you would find widespread agreement that the symbol would provide an incentive for users to increase their involvement with the GA process, though perhaps people would disagree on the degree of the change. Unfortunately that issue is not at the heart of the dispute here. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Of course that page is relevant! If a really huge backlog builds up, then we know that GA reviews are likely to decrease and quality and the symbol is hurting the system. On the other hand, if the number of GAs goes up and we get a lot of good, solid reviewers pouring in, it will be great! The dispute here is about backlogs. Backlogs will tell us a lot about reader interpretation. If people see the symbol and think "I want that" and make good articles then that will show in the numbers of open nominations on the GA report. It's that simple! I have no idea what you're trying to say about my second point. I was just trying to say that things which aren't measurable don't really matter. If you can't detect anything wrong, then there is no reason to get upset! Wrad (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC) There is a difference between things that are absolutely not measurable and things that are really really hard to measure. In this case, it would be really really hard to measure whether ordinary readers are confused by the GA icon, but I think that is a more important question than whether the number of GA nominations goes up. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC) In my experience, any time you're trying to figure out what the "ordinary reader" is thinking you come up with nothing but guesses and conjectures. Any number of case studies in one direction can be opposed by an equal number with an opposite response. I have never seen one work. What rules on wikipedia is what the editors think the reader is thinking, not what the reader actually thinks. It isn't just really hard to measure, it is impossible to measure. Wrad (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC) What is confusing about the GA symbol that cannot be said about the FA symbol? You click on the symbol, if you're curious, and it takes you to a page that clearly explains what the symbol means. It's impossible to confuse the icon as part of the article because it is clearly located above the horizontal line that separates the article's title from the body of the article. The only true test of something are quantitative results. If the symbols are "confusing" then we should see a corresponding decrease in GA submissions over that time period, shouldn't we? will381796 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I don't see any of the oppose commenters who are talking about backlogs. The main thrust of the opposition concerns the quality of GAs and whether readers will understand the symbol. Readers (i.e. the massed tens of millions) are not going to up and decide to write a good article because they "want that." Their perceptions of the symbol and what it means will be not registered in the good article backlog in any way. I don't see how you can characterize the dispute as being about backlogs. Care to clarify? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (outdent) It appears to me from reading the above that the main reason for a "test run" is to see if the number of nominations goes up and more GA reviewers pour in. Rather than do a test run here, has anyone thought of mining the data already available at FAC? I'm not sure when the FA icon was added, but it seems as if we could mine the FAC logs from the 6 months before and after that and see if there was actually an increase in nominations above the already to be expected increase due to more users (anyone taking statistics now?). That could also tell us whether those nominations were of higher quality (i.e., a greater percentage passed). Karanacs (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC) It's a good idea, but I don't know that those results would be comparable to what we'd see with GA. FA has, as long as I've known, had mainpage advertisement space, so FA is automatically much better known than GAs. So there's never really been a time when FA were banished to the depths of the talk page headers. lol will381796 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Ummmm. If we have a six month trial, there is no way in a cold cold eternity that anyone will muster up the energy to start a discussion to get rid of the green dots, no matter what the results of the "trial" are. The whole issue of a green dot id trivial, as G-guy says, but I would not have thought that adults would stoop to such a degree of dissembling. I am disappointed in the crew who are arguing for it. Simple honesty limits the discussion to an up-or-down !vote [Don't fall even further into this hole by running to the refuge of quoting WP:AGF at me.. we all know what I said is true... a "six month trial" is a permanent change, end of story.] Ling.Nut (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC) I am quite flabbergasted by your apparent belief that your opinions have the status of facts, and that anyone who doesn't share them is in some way "dissembling". "We all know ..."? No, I don't know, and neither do you. If it's no big deal, then why make it a big deal? Let's just try it and see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Wow. Someone on WP is disappointed in me because of my opinion. I feel so special now. Also, is it appropriate of you to be changing the words of another editor, even if it is a typo? Just curious...will381796 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Was that meant for me? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC) haha...no. Ling.Nut. will381796 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Obviously, this is the case. A test-run that is open-ended is the same as implementation. This is the same gimmick that was used to ram through the rollback feature, it is not new. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (undent) Look. It is completely appropriate to fix typos, and more than a little childish to point it out... But whatever. Moreover, six months will equal an eternity, regardless of whatever the results of the "test." I would be mildly surprised if anyone even revisits the discussion 6 months from now, and shocked if more than one or two have the energy to care. Again I say "But whatever." I teach teenagers, and know that arguing with them is a battle of energy levels. In this debate, my energy is depleted. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I suggest a lesson in civility for your comparing us to teenagers, as well as a lesson in assuming good faith in your apparent belief that all that support this proposition are some how acting poorly. It is inappropriate to edit another editor's comments w/o their consent. Otherwise, I could go throughout the entire encyclopedia "editing" everyone's comments and correcting their spelling and grammar (and possibly the meaning of their statements). With that said, there are plenty of people that oppose the entire icon proposition, so I'm sure that at least one of them would muster the "energy" (as if it takes any real energy to begin a debate on WP) to begin this discussion again in 6 months. I'd rather run the test and see the results and then have this discussion again in six months to go over the results rather than having this Great Green Dot Debate re-emerge every 6 months from now until eternity. will381796 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC) It is completely inappropriate to in any way alter another editor's posting without their permission, and in no way childish to point that out to you. Perhaps you've been teaching teenagers for too long, and have forgotten how to interact with adults? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I'll let you have the last word. As is usual in these debates, anyone who is foolish enough to speak the truth is charged with incivility and with violating WP:AGF. Lather, rinse, repeat. I should never have tried. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC) The Spanish Wikipedia seems to do this: [10] STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Aesthetics Although it doesn't look like a consensus is forming, I'd like to get a sense of editors' feelings about the GA symbol itself. I honestly don't think I'm saying anything controversial in suggesting that this is not a terribly aesthetically appealing image. Please don't think of this in terms of your anchoring to pro-GA or anti-GA but whether, regardless of your sentiments in the conversation above, if there's potentially a more appealing and more subtle piece of ornamentation we could be using than a green plus sign within a bright green dot? --JayHenry (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I don't understand when you say "it doesn't look like a consensus is forming." Numerically, support has hit two thirds. The arguments against don't seem overly compelling...of course, I'm a supporter...but there has been no killer neagative argument. Still, the debate ought to last at least a week. So we will see. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC) That seemed a bit strange to me too. At the moment there's a "yes" supermajority. It should run a few more days though. Lampman Talk to me! 19:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC) First, consensus isn't based on the "number" of editors in favor of something (as I'm sure you probably know). Second, lets not judge the quality of other people's arguments, especially when you're the opposer of such arguments. Anyone can say someone's argument basically "sucks" (in so many words), it doesn't actually mean they're right. Regardless, given how this outcome will affect so many articles, I would believe that it would be best to broadcast this in more locations and bring in some Administrators for a more neutral judge of consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I'm doing that. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Certainly numbers are a factor when making a decision. No-one - administrator or not - can simply overrule a vast majority on the pretence of some inherent "neutrality". Lampman Talk to me! 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Read WP:CONSENSUS, numbers don't make a difference. It's based on the weight of the argument (which is what an Administrator would hopefully measure). If 30 people said "yes", and 15 people said "No", and those 15 people had much stronger arguments for saying now than the 30 people that said yes, then consensus would be in favor of the 15. The reason being, anybody can appear and cast a "vote", but few stick around to actually provide a valid reason other than "i'd like it".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC) If you're saying that everybody above who supports the proposal is arguing on an "i'd like it" level – all 35-40 of us – I think that's a bit arrogant. Personally I’m in favour, but I have no problem admitting that there are intelligent, weighty arguments for both sides. Yes, I’ve read the policy, and it's a beautiful exercise in saying a lot without saying anything at all. We should certainly have a lengthy discussion, bringing all relevant arguments forth – maybe some will change their mind, maybe a consensus will form. But the fact remains that at the end of the day a decision has to be made. There can be no compromise here: either a plus sign is placed on top of GA articles or it's not – there can be no half-plus sign. There is no magic measuring rod to assess the strength of arguments; you're given no such instrument when you’re given status as an admin. Neither do you get the ability to entirely detach yourself from controversial issues and act with absolute neutrality. I'm not promoting democracy here, all I'm saying is that when the decision is made, and an overwhelming majority of editors prefer one option over another (exactly because they find the arguments for that option stronger), that fact should at least be taken into account. I hope nobody's mad enough to argue against that? Lampman Talk to me! 23:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (ec)Since the poll started support has been fluctuating between 60-66% and this will probably not change over the week. Generally, from the somewhat high participation rate, lack of any over-whelming support/oppose, and no powerful arguments making participants change their position, I'd say its a matter of taste: some have their reasons for liking it, some have their reason for not. The lack of entrenched camps battling one another, hopefully means, that the outcome of this will not leave any ill-feelings, either way. I'd say the take-home message is that GA is finally settling into a niche and establishing its own identity. Oh, right, and I'm neutral on the symbol's aesthetics: looks fine but I wouldn't object to a change. --maclean 20:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Hmm... everyone completely ignored the actual point I tried to raise. I honestly didn't want to argue the numerical threshold needed for consensus here, and I foolishly forgot that most Wikipedians want consensus to be a synonym for majority. I've struck the objectionable comment, which completely undermined what I thought was a clear attempt to have this discussion be about something different. I specifically started a new thread hoping to see if anyone had any thoughts about the symbol itself. --JayHenry (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Most wikipedians do not want consensus to be a synonym for majority, so you have replaced one comment that will not be well received by another. Weight of argument is what counts. Numbers provide a clue to weight of argument: as at RfA, if 70 percent support, it is a good indication of consensus, but you have to check what people are actually saying to see if there really is consensus. The side issue about aesthetics would much better be raised on another occasion, not in the middle of this discussion. Clean-up tags are not aesthetic, but so what? What relevancy does this have to the discussion? Geometry guy 20:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Just above someone says we cannot overrule a majority. I wasn't intending to create a strawman, but simply to respond to the comments above me... I thought since people were having a discussion about attaching more prominence to the symbol, and possibly moving it to the main space, it would be a reasonable time to discuss the aesthetics of that symbol. I honestly didn't think anyone would argue that this was heading toward a consensus and I honestly thought a discussion about the symbol would be an area where we could find common ground. --JayHenry (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Sorry that your discussion was derailed, and for my part in it. I'd just like to add that I never said "we cannot overrule a majority"; my argument was somewhat more nuanced than that. Majorities can and frequently should be overruled, but when an overwhelming majority feel a certain way, and present good arguments for their position, an overruling should not be taken lightly, and "I'm an admin, I know better than all of you" simply won't do. As for the aesthetics, why not a silver star like James26 mentions above? Lampman Talk to me! 00:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I understand now and am sorry if I misrepresented what you were trying to do. I've made my own attempt to find some common ground below, but it could equally well be misunderstood. Geometry guy 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I think that if this were implemented, we would need to come up with something more along the line of the bronze star. I mean, I don't know why they chose the "bronze" star for FA. A "gold" star would seem to me to be more appropriate for the best of the best...or a diamond...or SOMETHING. But I'd like it if the icon showed more of the hierarchical relationship between GA/FA...GA<FA. I have no idea what an appropriate substitute would be though. will381796 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (Note to the opposition: all I'm doing is discussing symbols, not making an assumption which side will win.) Why not pick the symbols that convey the right information even before someone hovers the cursor over it? Clearly, the idea of a bronze star was to not oversell the product, but FAs are much, much better these days than they were years ago; either give them all a gold star, or only upgrade the ones to gold that have gone through the newer more stringent process. GAs could take silver. If some form of higher accountability is desired for GA, then substitute the silver stars only as GAs are determined to meet the higher standard. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC) What is with the opposition/side/win terminology? This is not a vote! The only thing that wins from consensus is the encyclopedia. Anyway, I quite like the fact that the GA dot is a bit weird because it encourages anyone who notices it to hover over it, and if you hover over the icon at the top of this page, you will see immediate encouragement to click for further information. In many ways a weird symbol is better than a shiny badge. Geometry guy 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I don't have any strong feelings about it, but see the principle of least astonishment for principles of good user interface design. One of the professors in Greensboro is well-known in the field; I'm sure she'd love to weigh in if invited. Yes, odd things get more attention, but at the cost of making the entire interface feel less intuitive. If by "shiny" you mean "gaudy" (and that will probably be the #1 objection), simply reduce the size of the stars until they are noticeable without being gaudy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I would be very much against variously coloured stars, for a number of reasons. I just don't see the problem here. And I'm not impressed by irrelevant hypothetical arguments from authority. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC) The problem is that the GA icon is more attention grabbing than the FA star and it should be the other way round. Can off topic discussions in this section be moved elsewhere or hidden with some fancy template? --Dodo bird (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC) In case anyone is interested in issues of user interface design or graphic design, the link I just mentioned is a good (and short!) page, and graphic design is also quite good, with many good links. I completely agree that there are other factors here that might determine the best symbol, and if whether there's a symbol at all matters very little, then what symbol it is matters much less. But really, why review articles when I might be able to choose the color of the star? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Bicycle sheds, pillar five and all that I have to be honest, I have considered several times striking my tentative support and starting a rant under neutral. Maybe I still will :-) The issue as to whether there is a little green plus sign in the top right hand corner of GAs is, from the point of view of improving the encyclopedia (cf. WP:IAR, whose purpose is not defined by anarchy, but by Pillar Five), utterly trivial compared to all the other things there are to be done. I've opposed the idea in the past, and have supported it now, but whether there is a such a green dot or not, I actually don't care. I subscribe to WP:DGAF, and encourage those who do to think about how much they really care, one way or the other. It seems to me that this is a Color of a bikeshed issue: something of relative unimportance, that nevertheless generates a lot of discussion, cf. WP:BIKESHED. There aren't really any utterly compelling arguments in favour of the GA dot, but nor are there any compelling arguments against. Much the same could be said of the FA star. Hence we end up with demotivating stalemate. What I do care about is improving the encyclopedia, and the health of the content review processes which contribute to that. Part of that is how well these processes interact. I guess I don't need to tell anyone the history of GA, but it seems to me that we are emerging into a more mature era in which most editors recognise the value of all content review processes, even if they all have their imperfections; they are all supported by dedicated editors and aren't going to disappear. Many editors contribute across the full spectrum, from WikiProjects to GA to peer review and FA, but the interaction between the processes has still not completely recovered from its history, and I find myself wondering whether the situation would be better or worse with a green dot on GAs. My feeling is better: it would help heal the historical chip on GAs shoulder and encourage more editors to create good articles. But the bottom line is still WP:IAR: will a green dot help to improve the encyclopedia? The green dot itself is such a trivial issue. Why not try it and see? Geometry guy 21:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I agree with you on this. It's not really a big deal, and the benefits are clear. You know me Geometry Guy, often as not we're on the opposite side of this type of discussion on GA matters. I tend to be tied to maintaining "business as usual" when it comes to the working order of GA. But adding one small symbol, for an entrenched article assessment project that is going ahead at full steam and isn't going to die anytime soon, is a net positive to me. A lot of the opposition seems to be based on a general negative opinion of GA as whole, which isn't particularly related to the merits of a little green dot. VanTucky 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Also agree. I'm not going to go hide in my room and cry if this doesn't pass, but if it is really harmless (or at least, if we acknowledge that there is no way to know the outcome without trying it) and most people want it, why not make them happy and give it a whirl? Wrad (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Honestly, I'm sorry I posted on this at the Community portal. All it's brought is people rehashing the "GA is bad, so no symbol" argument, rather than hearing from people who care about how GA works. This is one of those times I think it's important to consider that we run on consensus, not a plain vote majority. Not only is there currently straw poll majority for the measure, but opposes (like a lot of the most recent ones) that don't even mention a symbol, just complain about GA, should be discounted as irrelevant. VanTucky 22:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC) That would surely be the common sense approach. Unless there is a convincing argument not to, and I haven't seen one yet, why not let's try it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Okay, well as a first step I've created Template:Good Article, but it needs some fixing, such as that I don't know how to change it from class="metadata topicon" id="featured-star" without killing it. Anyone want to help? VanTucky 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Such pre-emptive steps, however innocent, are not helpful. Check out the logs for Template:Good article: you chose the version with the capital A which has only previously been created once. With a lower case a, it is a whole different story. Please also read maclean's common sense and helpful approach, and the links provided to many previous discussions of this issue. I think it was a very good thing to post at the community portal, because it is vital to draw attention to the change in mood compared to those previous acrimonious template deletion discussions. This one, by contrast, has been quite good natured and stimulating. Geometry guy 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out the logs for the small a version. I deleted the big A version, for now. I disagree that it's rushing however, I think it's time we give this a try. VanTucky 23:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Thanks for responding so quickly, but without an impartial close to this discussion and a sense that times have changed, giving it a try is likely to meet with immediate resistance from anyone involved in deletion matters. I started this subsection in an attempt to add some focus and sense of perspective to the discussion, not to bypass it. Geometry guy 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Hear hear. I like Geometry Guy's approach. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC) View GA as a gadget Not sure how many people know about this, but if you go to Special:Preferences, click on "Gadgets", go to "User interface gadgets" and click the box for "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article.", you'll be able to view not only the GA on GAs, but the current assessment of any article. Now I know this doesn't address some of the reasons people want the GA icon, but I figured it might be interesting to people in this discussion anyways. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) I think that should be the default view for all readers. Let people know how good we think an article is, not just whether it's a stub or a FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC) If we're going to do that, we need to end the silly assessment drives where people "assess" about 10 articles per minute based on length, infobox, and number of things in the references section, pretty much everything but actual quality. Right now, any assessment below GA is basically worthless because the odds are good that the assessor didn't even read the whole article. Mr.Z-man 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Ned, thanks for bringing this up. I too wonder how many people are aware of it. I think it might even be a satisfactory alternative for the green dot proposers. - Neparis (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Argument-by-argument summary for/against GA icon inclusion in mainspace

Based upon the above discussion/straw poll, this section is for listing each argument for and against the inclusion of the GA icon in the mainspace for articles that have been passed to GA status. This section is not for the debate of each point so please keep your commentary out of this section. Feel free to re-word the arguments if you think that the way the initial contributor worded them does not adequately project the true meaning of the argument, and please, add more arguments (based upon above discussions) if you notice that any have been omitted. will381796 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for inclusion

• The GA icon will provide "mainspace" advertisement of the GA process to editors that may otherwise not know that it exists (because they may not peruse talk pages).
• GA icons may provide incentive for improvement of articles to GA status, thereby increasing the quality of the encyclopedia overall.
• GA icons may provide incentive for additional editors to become involved in the GA review process.
• Editors/reviewers involved with the GA process would like recognition for the time and effort that they place into improving/reviewing articles for GA.
• Provide more transparency to the GA process.
• GA icons will provide incentive for articles to be improved to GA status versus the much more stringent (and time consuming) effort of improving an article to FA status.
• GA Icons represent achievement even though it is not the best work of Wikipedia. (Example: Silver and bronze medals were handed out in sport competition in addition to gold medals to represent achievement.)
• GA icons may inform readers that the article has been through and passed a quality review.
• GA icons may inform skeptical readers of the existence of quality control processes on Wikipedia.
• GA icons are widespread practice on other language encyclopedias. (The Spanish, Chinese, and French Wikipedias have been cited as examples that have already been doing this for some time.) The only 2 languages that do not have such practices are English and Japanese.
• GA icons provide an additional reward for nominators who have worked to reach GA-class.
• GA icons recognize high-quality work that is of insufficient length to ever meet FA standards. Many articles cannot become FAs merely because of length, not the quality of the work. Pushing on to FA for recognition is, for these article, not an option.
• Using the icon has never been tried in the widespread way required to really see what it would do except on foreign wikis, in which it has proven relatively harmless.
• The issue has been clouded by the historical origins of GA, leading to a perception that the community is against the GA process. Other Wikipedias have not been impeded by this historical baggage; this disparity needs to be rectified.
• Good quality article's status should be shown to the general public and not just mostly Wikipedia editors.
• Per Pillar 3, anyone can edit, and all content that someone might want to edit should be in mainspace, rather than in invisible comments, subdirectories, or the talk page. This is why innumerable tags show up in mainspace, even though many editors wish they didn't. If the results of the Good Article process, or status as a Good Article, is something that readers might want to have input into, then Pillar 3 requires notification in mainspace. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguments against inclusion

• GA does not hold its articles up to as much scrutiny as FA and therefore is not deserving of mainspace recognition like FA.
• Neither FA nor GA should be represented in mainspace; neither is a guarantee of article quality.
• Meta-information in Wikipedia articles should be minimized and the GA icon is an example of such meta-information. Subsidiary:
  • FA alone should be recognized in mainspace, because FA alone is considered Wikipedia's best information.
  • Neither FA nor GA should have consideration in mainspace, as both are meta-information. No article should have a meta-indicator in mainspace regarding quality.
  • Both FA and GA should have meta-indicators, as representing our top two content processes.
  • If both FA and GA are recognized with meta-information, all agreed upon Wikipedia ranks should have the same.
• The GA icon may serve as an indicator to readers that the article is factually correct, when in fact, it might not be.
• The meaning of the icon may cause confusion to readers.
• Readers may perceive the GA icon as comparable to the FA star, diminishing the uniqueness of the latter.
• The GA icon would cause a greater backlog at WP:GAN because people would take it as a competition to write the most GAs.
• The GA process does not provide reliable talk page links to the review processes which led to the article's current GA status.
• This has been proposed and rejected many times before.
• The current version of an article, to which the icon is attached, may not have undergone any content assessment, and may not meet the good article standards. Readers have no easy way to see what has been changed since the rating was applied.
• Any article whose editors want this type of recognition can push the article to featured status. All articles are eligible for featured status, and there is no length requirement.
• The GA process allows a single reviewer to promote the article (meaning it could just be one person's opinion); the FA process requires consensus of multiple reviewers (promotion is product of consensus).
  • How to identify GA reviewers who do not understand the criteria?
• Where GA icons have been tried, there is no hard evidence that they have been beneficial to the editing community or the readership.
• GA articles may represent a minority of articles that are of equivalent quality, to an extent that is not comparable with FA-standard articles.
• Registered users already have the option of displaying an article's quality assessment in the meta space underneath the title
• Having a special icon for GA would appear to elevate GA above A-class in quality assessment

Meta-arguments

• "Adding a GA icon is a trivial matter" vs. "Adding a GA icon is a serious issue".
• "A GA icon is a recognition that the GA process is a good thing" vs. "A GA icon has nothing to do with the overall GA process".
• "GA is not a community process" vs. "GA is a community process". And "what is a community process?".
• How will flagged revision affect FA and GA?
• Is the current GA icon the most appropriate for such purposes?

Proposed outcomes to this debate

The following are several proposed solutions/outcomes to this debate. Please add more if something has been omitted. will381796 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• The status quo remains with GA information remaining solely on the article's talk page.
• GA icons are added to all current and all newly promoted good articles.
• GA icons are added to all newly promoted good articles and all previously promoted good articles so long as they undergo another review.
• GA icons are added to articles that pass the GA sweeps process.
• A trial-run is performed, during which the GA icon is added to good articles on the mainspace and its repercussions analyzed at the conclusion of the trial period. Data will be collected in order to determine whether there are any true detrimental effects of having the icon in mainspace.
• GA process is improved in order to ensure a higher reliability.

Shut down?

Is it time to shut down the poll? Ten days, no consensus. Considering that this is a sympathetic forum, 57% is hardly enough. Marskell (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the poll runs until 7 May,

1. this poll has been widely advertized so it is 'not' a sympathetic forum.
2. consensus is not a vote but built on arguments: 7:5 for the proposal is suggestive of consensus.
3. standard polling time is two weeks.
4. a closing admin Sam (talk · contribs · count) has already agreed to go over the arguments and determine consensus.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Marskell (who understands "polling" on Wiki as well as anyone) has accurately pointed out that this one has run its course (and the only person who suggested the May 7 date, I believe, was me). The poll wasn't widely advertised initially, so of course the early "votes" were biased in favor of the icon, but even with the friendly forum, the proposal hasn't gained consensus. It's time to take from the information gleaned here and focus on solutions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It was put on the Community portal and the Village Pump from day one. How can you say that isn't well advertised? Wrad (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • For example, that was the first time I'd ever heard of the Community portal (sorry :-), I wasn't aware of the poll until I saw it mentioned on Jbmurray's page, and I very intentionally did not mention it at FAC early on, so spurious accusations wouldn't be directed at me (for a change :-). Notice how and when Raul eventually became aware of the poll. The early poll results were biased by the friendly forum. Had the poll been conducted at one of the external forums (like the Village Pump), I'm not sure the results would be the same. At any rate, even considering the friendly forum, consensus to alter article space has not been achieved, and I suggest moving to the solutions phase is best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Curiously, the Village Pump had a poll occurring on its own space with 66% in favor of the symbol. I kind of think most people against just thought it wouldn't go anywhere and when it started to show promise, determined to stop it. Wrad (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Another reason early results are biased is that because it's a perennial proposal that is routinely rejected, possibly many people didn't bother. At any rate, we can discuss all day or the rest of the week, but to alter article space, broad consensus needs to be achieved. Do you disagree that consensus sufficient to alter article space has not been achieved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I believe that it is contentious and useless to argue either way when you're not the person who decides. Just causes problems and stirs up arguments. I just feel like all the accusations of biased forum and lack of communication whatnot are widening the GA/FA divide and are not helpful, nor are they true. If we'd really been trying to schnooker you guys, we would have closed after a few days and started putting the symbols on before you knew what hit you, so let's just not make that assumption, sound good? There's nothing wrong with coming in late to vote on something you didn't think would pass, just don't start accusing us of cheating because we had the lead early in the game when you weren't even trying. Wrad (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
            • What a perfectly strange and revealing "us vs. them" post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need broad consensus to alter article space, you just need to click the edit button located at the top of an article.--165.21.155.15 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That works until the first revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think that if this discussion is kept open in its current form for much longer there is an increasing danger that it will become acrimonious. I've already seen too much "us and them" talk, and I've just about had enough of hearing how crap the whole GA process is, and by implication that I've been wasting my time, not to say dishonestly reviewing articles. Whether this poll stays open or not, I'll not be watching it any longer, else I may soon succcumb to the temptation to state my opinion a little more graphically. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

After 72 hours half of the current support votes had arrived and it was tracking in favour. Since then, it's slipped to 50/50. It's unlikely this dynamic is going to change, barring some outside intervention; we've had a total of eight votes on the second and third (4/4). There's obviously not consensus and I don't see the point in dragging it out. (Even with a +70% supermajority we'd still need to ping Jimbo for an opinion.)

I went through it on ATT (except an order of magnitude larger and on the opposite side of the ledger). The sympathetic forum creates an early support surge, but people who arrive later are less likely to have been previously involved and less likely to say yes. I'm not suggesting there was something nefarious about holding it on this talk. But clearly, clearly—if only as a watchlist matter—this is a friendly forum. Marskell (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus is not based on the numbers of pro versus the number of cons; consensus is based upon the strengths of the arguments. If you have 200 people going in one direction and 50 going the other way, but the 200 people are supporting their decisions with opinions or misinterpretations of guidelines and policy, and the minority of !voters support their decision with facts and guidelines and policy, the 50 are the ones that make the stronger argument and consensus should go their direction. I'm not saying that's what either side of this debate are doing; I'm just getting annoyed with all the talk of counting !votes. That's why we've brought in an independent and unbiased admin to analyze the arguments and make a decision based upon those. If it was a simple count of the numbers, anyone could do close and an admin would not be necessary. So stop with the counting of the number of !votes and just wait for the admin close. will381796 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right, arguments. I have just counted five "I like it" or simply unexplained support votes and none such oppose votes. I am not including "per X" votes, which are numerous on both sides. Waltham, The Duke of 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're trying to turn this section into an argument. Stop. There are several that are something along the lines of "I just don't like it" or "I think it makes it look cluttered." Those are opinions just like the "I like it" !votes are. will381796 (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't force someone to make a statement in order to support or oppose, nor stating it ahead of time that everyone must state a reason. It's not fair to those who voiced their opinions and have their views to be discounted at the end because of a new "criteria" that filters out !votes near the end of the poll. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I simply cannot understand how this is not a vote if people do not have to show that they have a good reason to support or oppose, that's all. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but we ought not to be forced to take an opinion seriously if the person expressing that opinion does not know why they have it in the first place. Waltham, The Duke of 11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Mine might have looked like an I like it vote, but if you read carefully, I make my arguments all over the discussion. I certainly hope you didn't count mine among your five, though I fear otherwise. Wrad (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have good reason to fear as you say. It turns out these things are never reliable... (sigh) :-) Waltham, The Duke of 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just closed the debate. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your commentary Sam; I'm sure it will be useful in moving the GA (and FA) processes forwards. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again from me too. I think everyone who has contributed to the poll, no matter how they !voted, or for what reason, can take something out of the discussion and your excellent summary and closing statement. That was a lot of work! Geometry guy 10:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no option but to agree that the closing statement constitutes a superb analysis of the situation, and that it should be seriously taken into consideration by all involved parties. Waltham, The Duke of 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

2:1 milestone crossed

Just to draw attention to the fact that the GA:FA ratio (mentioned in a previous post) crossed 2:1 today. Special thanks to SandyGeorgia for holding off a couple of FAC promotions so that the milestone was crossed this morning. At the moment the number of GAs grows approximately three times faster than the number of FAs, so the although the ratio may cross 2:1 a couple more times, it will soon be stably larger. This observation also means that the 3:1 ratio will never be reached unless we can up the rate in which GANs are processed.

Anyway, that is just food for thought. After all the issues raised in recent discussions, this might be a moment to celebrate the fact that GA is providing independent oversight against well defined criteria to so many articles, and hence is helping to address the major problem that Wikipedia faces: more than 95% of its articles are very poor, with no independent oversight at all. Geometry guy 10:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This calls for a celebration. Champaign to all! I feel generous today. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 11:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Has Sandy already talked to you about making this a Dispatch article for the Signpost? This would make a great stand-alone article, since we haven't had one on GA yet. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; there's a tentative suggestion to have a dispatch on GA related matters on 19th May. Geometry guy 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to beat G guy up if he doesn't take the 19th slot :-) And just to clarify, I didn't intentionally withhold promotions :-) Archiving FACs requires having only two tabs open, so I can easily do that when I'm on my laptop. Promoting FACs requires four more open tabs, and a spreadsheet on my main computer, so I only do that when I can get to that computer and fully concentrate on six open tabs. I pointed out to G guy that the ratio was reached on his predicted date because I hadn't promoted for three days :-) We'll probably bounce up and down around the ratio for a few days because FA promotions usually decrease GAs (if a GA is promoted FA, it's removed from GA), but by the 19th Dispatch, the ratio should be firmly established, and G guy can also cover the icon poll. By the way, thanks to Sam for doing such a fine job of summarizing the issues in a neutral way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Last time that happened, I was in hospital for weeks :-) Looks like I'd better do the 19th... Geometry guy 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Redesign of symbols

FA top star

GA lower star

GA star alone, per suggestions.

GA star with the colors and cross from the good article symbol

I have created a "two star" design pattern for the top right corners of articles, showing a clear hierarchy in the icons between Featured Articles and Good Articles.

The advantages of this are:

• A higher rating denoted by multiple stars is a universal and easily-recognized convention.
• The FA star is golden and elaborate, and clearly meant to be superior to the plain black GA star.
• There is a clear symbolism of FAs building on GAs.
• The GA star with an empty box above looks "incomplete".
• The venerable form of the FA star is retained, and can continue to be used without the box everywhere it is normally used now, except on the top right corners of articles.

This should be considered a conceptual design at this point, very much open to improvement.--Pharos (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the empty star, but I'm not so sure about the box thing. Little military-ish. Drewcifer (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this idea, I think it should be either the GA button or the star. "Ranking" boxes would look cheap and un-encyclopaedic. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 10:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. There's enough controversy adding a single symbol to the top of the article. Turning this into two symbols with a more complicated interpretation is probably not the best route to go. will381796 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, a GA article could have just one, empty star, and a FA article could have just one, filled star (i.e. no change). Kevin Baas^talk 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, since several people have suggested this now, it appears I overdesigned this. I can see the merit of just a simple 'empty star' too.--Pharos (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, we now have an svg of the GA star alone, per your suggestions. Thanks to User:Cradel at the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve for creating this.--Pharos (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested below adding some brief text: ^{This article has passed the good article criteria.} But then one might argue that the same should then be done to FA (^{This is a featured article.}). And this would be a whole 'nother proposal altogether. Kevin Baas^talk 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No position on whether to add words, but if you add them, I'd prefer GA inside or underneath the star, or maybe "Good article rating". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion from the approve section of the straw poll: . Apparently they are already doing this on the spanish wikipedia. (example) Kevin Baas^talk 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like either of these. The Good Article symbol on the English Wikipedia is the symbol you see currently. To add a different one to articles would either be confusing, or necessitate a complete switch to the new symbol, imo. VanTucky 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I say switch. From what I understand, some people opposed the GA icon articles because of how it looks there. So we're entertaining alternative icons. If an alternative icon can be found that more people like, then by all means we should switch to it - completely if necessary. But the point is that if we can make it look good there, that'll eliminate an objection. FWIW, I like the spanish version the best. Nothing says "reviewed" like a check-mark. Kevin Baas^talk 20:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying no to the button's design, opposes are either saying no to all symbols or no because of the way GA's are reviewed. Adding text, boxes, colours, etc will change nothing.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 20:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Upon review of the "oppose" section I see you're right nobody is saying no on account of the aesthetics. Apparently I was mistakenly attributing comments made in the "Aesthetics" section to oppose votes. However, some of the comments in this section constitute "saying no to the button's design" in the context of it being placed in the upper right corner of GA's. And as far as I understand it, that's what led to the current discussion. Kevin Baas^talk 21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but since talking about the wrapage, when we can't agree on the gift, is stupid, I think we should all focus on other things, like making this other wicked idea a reality. That's frigggingggg aawwwweesome!! Is that a project you are working on? is that being discussed?--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just a proposal I put on Wikipedia talk:Stable versions (Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions#Branchless_stable_version_-_Kevin.27s_mods). Apparently Wikipedia:Flagged revisions is what's going to be implemented. Flagged revisions is probably easier to program, but I don't see how it's much different than WP:GA w/permalinks. And I think we really need a much more democratic solution that will always have a public revision for every article. I could go on, but this isn't the place for it. Suffice it to say it's not implemented and not currently being discussed. I've never done any coding for wikipedia, but I know it would require some new database tables and it would be a substantial project (requiring a full testing environment, etc.). One that I'm not ready to work on, esp. when I don't have any clear idea on whether it's going to be taken up in the end. Right now it's just an idea. Kevin Baas^talk 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, User:Indopug did specifically mention newbie confusion over the hierarchy of the symbols in their oppose.--Pharos (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the present GA button, which I prefer to the green tick. I don't like the idea of coloured (or uncoloured) stars either, as it implies some kind of gold, silver, bronze ranking system. GA may be a step towards FA, but it's at least equally likely not to be, for all sorts of reasons. The two processes are, to some extent at least, orthogonal, although hopefully complimentary. It seems appropriate therefore to use two quite different icons. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A star is bad not for purely aesthetic reasons (though I'm not partial to it), but because the last thing we want is to confuse GA and FA. That will really bring the wrath of the community down on our heads. VanTucky 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised that the current symbols do not clearly indicate that FA is superior to GA. Using a related symbol that is clearly "deficient" (the 'empty star') could address this problem.--Pharos (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of the symbol is not to clearly indicate that FA is superior to GA. The point is to identify it as GA, and link to the main GA page, which says in it's very first sentence that GA is a step below FA in quality. Not only that, but the empty star is just plain ugly. VanTucky 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of putting the symbol on the front side is to make GA status visible to newbies, who do not normally click through every little thing. As part of making that status visible, I think the meaning of that status should also be made intuitive, because again most readers will not click through everything (but I do think that intuitive designs encourage greater participation in the long run). I am open to any suggestions for improvement of the 'empty star' (or, "not-quite-fulfilled star", I should say) design. For example, it might be more appealing (while retaining its same intuitive meaning) if the outer border was a green color, like the old plus symbol.--Pharos (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What about this version I made (bottom image) -- Cradel 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I quite like that! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That green star rocks, lol its better than the featured star. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 19:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my concern, actually. At small resolution in the top corner of an article (we use only 14px), it will be hard to tell that the FA star is supposed to represent something superior to the GA star with your current version. If we took your version and "hollowed" it out while keeping the green border, that could still keep it jaunty while being intuitively "plainer" than the FA star.--Pharos (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What about this one then ? -- Cradel 10:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool! You get my vote.--Pharos (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Indent) - thats not our problem, we should try to make the symbol as good as possible, if the FA star seems inferior well maybe its time that was updated too. Anyway, dont we have a consensus yet to at least stick a symbol up?Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If only...

If only everyone who has commented on this topic could now go and read (or ideally review) an article that is up for GAN or for GAR, it would make the GA system still more of a community process.

Meanwhile, if nothing else, this discussion has drawn attention to the GA process. Let us hope that more people help out as a result. --216.19.185.160 (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Experimental design

Let's say that we try this out. As editors above pointed out, we need something to test. So here's what I propose.

• Set up a random sample of GAs; this will require coordination on how many we have and how many users can watch over them for data collection. Obviously, if we want to test global effects, we should prolly pick a whole mess of old GAs and then tag every new GA that gets promoted
• Record statistics. Whatever we want, but I think that reassessing each GA for a look at quality vs. quantity is interesting. Subjective, but interesting. If we have the mean number of articles promoted before the test, then we can just compare the number promoted after (over six months) to a normal model, get a z-score and test our variables that way to see if there has been a clear, significant increase or change period.
• Conclusions and such.

Just putting down my thoughts on how to go about; obviously, it needs fleshing out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea, but, if the effects of the icon are to be tested, shouldn't all current GA get tagged with the icon? I mean, part of the effect of the icon will be the result of individuals stumbling upon random articles and seeing the icon and thinking "hey, what does this icon mean?" If we're only tagging a select few of the current GAs, then aren't we in essence reducing the "intensity", so to speak, of whatever effect we hope to see. And how would we decide which articles to tag? From what I understand, all of the GAs are currently undergoing a quality check in what they call "Sweeps." In addition, if we're only going to select a sample of all GAs, I think that will increase the work needed to A) add/remove the icons (as it will probably make it more difficult to program a bot to tag select articles rather than all GAs) B) collect information on specific article's. I like your overall design, but that's the only thing I would look into further. I'd be for implementing the icon on all GAs versus a select few. will381796 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In an effort to promote the GA sweeps process, I would support the tagging of all articles with the symbol that undergo a successful GA sweeps review. That way, articles that get the symbol have undergone at least two GA reviews, probably by two different editors, so the quality issue is addressed. We might get more participation in sweeps, too. This could ultimately lead to a system whereby GA reviews are done by more individuals at the initial WP:GAN level, and ultimately undergo a second review later on by a more experienced reviewer, in which the symbol is added (sort of a two-tiered GA system). Dr. Cash (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We already have Sweeps going on. It's just that the progress is slow due to the limited number of experienced reviewers. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Apply?

A lot of people are opposing the GA dot over the "one person makes the decision" argument. I suggest that once the article has passed GA statues, in order for it to be given a GA dot/star/whatever, the/a nominee must apply for it. Then, someone else gives it a second review to be 100% sure it is indeed GA standard and the dot can be awarded to the front of the article. In essence the dot confirms that the GA review was double checked and is indeed a trusted GA article.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then comes the question - what are we awarding: GA status or the little GA dot? will381796 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the dot shouldnt be used at all to say "hey this is a GA article" maybe the dot should indicate "hey this review has been double checked and hell yeah its GA worthy, no question about that". An application process does a number of things, 1st it would only give a dot to articles that truely deserve it, 2nd bad GA from long ago will be rooted out, someone will put a GA article up for application and a reviewer will clearly get the opportunity to see its no longer a GA article and delist it entirely, in essence its also a double check on old articles that has been GA for ages. This way people who oppose on the "one person makes the decision" argument loss, with this method at least 2 people must have reviewed it before its allowed a dot. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Shame, people arent taking this option more seriously, i think some of those who oppose might just support with this idea. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be a little late, but I strongly oppose the usage of a star as a GA icon and the inclusion of any icon denoting "merely" GA status in the main namespace, both for the same reason: it intrudes too much on FA, and implies quality that isn't there. (if it was, it would nominated for FA status. If you care for more details, see that big red box a few sections above this one.) The star, in my opinion, is trying to steal the thunder of FA. We "feature" articles (and other content) to readers because it is of the highest quality; the GA and assessment programs are primarily for editors in "in-house" sorting and classification.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Improvements in GA process

So, the Great Green Dot debate (aside: can we go ahead and archive that entire discussion and all related discussions on this page?) has been put on hold again due to no consensus. Seems like the great majority of arguments against were related to defects in the GA process. Are there any ideas of what we can do to improve the process? Let's throw out some ideas of things we can do so eventually this argument cannot be raised against us. will381796 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Require that articles be reviewed by more than one editor and that both editors agree to passing. Failure for these multiple editors to agree will lead to article failure (but this would be open to GAR). will381796 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Require that a review by a "junior" reviewer be confirmed by a more senior reviewer prior to listing the article as GA. will381796 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Require stricter enforcement of WP:V in all articles. will381796 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Temporary suspension of new GA nominations so that GAs promoted prior to some arbitrary date can be re-evaluated; this would also allow for GAs that were FAN but were failed to be reviewed to ensure that the FAN failure was not due to basic violations of WP policies and guidelines. will381796 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Require that all promotions to GA are accompanied by a thorough review from any reviewer involved (I've seen too many "Okay/Bad" "Pass/Fail" reviews and these are unacceptable and don't help anyone). No article is perfect (not even FAs) so every review must provide suggestions to the article, even if suggestions are unrelated to GAN. will381796 (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All too complicated: all you have to do is systematically review the FAC archives and promotes to assess the quality of GA reviews and reviewers. I could, (right now, but I won't do that) name a dozen current and recent GAs that recently were archived at FAC because they have unintelligible prose and glaring grammatical errors far below an acceptable standard of basic English (and I'm no prose guru, so when I can see them, that's bad :-), or use non-reliable sources. It will only take a few months of this kind of retrospective assessment to figure out how to address the issues. This isn't rocket science; it's just a matter of looking at data that is already provided for you in two monthly FAC files. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying all of those needs to be implemented. I'm throwing out ideas. Take what you like, discard the rest. I definitely was not proposing that all five of my ideas be implemented. They are simply possible responses to GA process criticism. will381796 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Simplify, simplify, simplify. The basic issue is twofold: We need to take better care that articles are meeting WP:V and have no glaring grammatical errors. Brilliant prose is not required, but we'd better be able to understand what you mean. If we really crack down on these things I think the rest well follow as we continue to brainstorm. Wrad (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me also say that I'm not sure that I agree that GA requirements for WP:V are the same as FA requirements. WP:V states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." FA requires that EVERYTHING have a citation, like one or two for every statement made. GA just follows WP:V. that was my impression. FA goes above and beyond, while GA just meets the mark. This needs to be clarified. Wrad (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In no case, should any Wiki article be sourced to blogs and self-published sources (unless the exceptions at WP:V are met). And I am not talking about brilliant prose; I am talking about basic, fundamental English. I am not a prose guru and my prose stinks. When I can find fundamental English and grammatical errors, we're in trouble. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all that, but I'm referring to something you said quite awhile ago in another conversation, that sourcing has the same requirements for FA and GA. I've never thought that. Wrad (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. That came out of WP:GVF, which should probably be fixed, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should rush into either analysis of the discussion or making proposals for change. I also think that any changes to GA should be aimed purely at improving GA, not at "getting the green dot"; the two may or may not be related. I would like to suggest a couple of days reflection. Checking out the FAC data is one useful thing we could do first. However, for something completely different, can I encourage editors to look at this request for help with the Good article reassessment backlog. Thank you :-) Geometry guy 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not a rush. I've only been involved in GA for a month and I have seen areas that do need addressing and I do agree with some of the critic's responses. If we take it slow and let everything die down from this green dot debate, then nobody is going to want to focus on anything that needs attention or changing. If changes are needed, then we need to do the analysis now while everyone's mind it on it now. I'm not proposing that we institute any of these changes...simply that we start thinking about things that might need to be done if we're ever going to hope to get a reputation as close as FA's. The little icon is just a cherry on top of a better encyclopedia. will381796 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

While it may seem a bit heretical to the ethos of the process, what if GA admitted that the best reviewers should be the only people promoting? In the short term this would slow down the throughput but, properly done, it might rehabilitate the process in the eyes of many. I don't think Sandy, for instance, is saying all GA promotions are bad—but enough of them are that some people don't trust GA. So start with the five or ten best reviewers. You wouldn't need to permanently limit it: others could earn a spot, which would ensure continued interest in the process. I don't doubt other bright minds have come up with something similar (hence "junior" and "senior" reviewers above). This seems a good way forward. Marskell (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that defeat the whole point of Wikipedia? Peanut4 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. People with more experience are always the ones able to make the big decisions. See admins, bureaucrats and FAs as examples.

Are you saying they'd be the only ones that can promote or the only ones that can review? If they're the only one's able to review then I'd suggest we also suspend new GA nominations because the backlog would get too huge if only 5 or so people were able to do reviews. If you're saying they're the only one's able to pass, but new people can continue to review, then I think that's a good idea. It would give a bit of oversight and ensure that at least 2 people have taken a look at the article. Would also provide a learning opportunity for new reviewers. will381796 (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Will, review but not promote. You'd still want new input, so you'd let new people review. But you'd limit the final decision. Properly fleshed out, this could be a good thing for GA.

As the intervening comments indicate, some would find this antithetical to what GA is ideologically. And it could also be seen as moving close to an FA structure. But we should be practical, not ideological. GA obviously has a trust deficit but it has also been excellent in motivating people. Move to a handful of trusted reviewers, with room for growth, and see where it goes. "GAship" (approved to promote to GA) could become like adminship, for instance. Marskell (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This ties in with my clearing house idea (discussed elsewhere). Instead of editors passing GAs directly on talk pages and adding them to WP:GA, they instead provisionally pass them and post them to central clearing house, where a panel of (three to six?) review the GA pass, update the talk page (avoiding those clerical errors that make me crazy :-), and add the final pass to WP:GA. I've also spoken to how you would determine "trusted" reviewers, because there are currently some very prolific GA reviewers passing some not-good articles. The methodology to choose the panel could be a derivative of what I do on the FAC awards. Wikipedia talk:FAC#April FAC stats You can look in the FAC archives to see where the good and less-good GA passes are coming from; quite simply, on which GA passes are significant grammatical and sourcing issues uncovered at FAC? I've also questioned why GA is unlike any other process in articlehistory, where there is an archived file (FAC, PR, FAR, AfD, etc.) in history, and a page where all passes/fails can be reviewed. If GA had files, you'd have more accountability and be able to review your own data. I've always hesitated to give my ideas here, because someone will probably shoot me, so do what you will with those. Username Omitted 21:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a central place. It will help us be more organized and aware. Wrad (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was also not intending to let these great ideas drop. I have unindented them. My main worry about automation has always been accountability. If there is a central place to deal with accountability then all the rest can be streamlined and automated so that any editor can contribute and we can have a fast efficient system. Geometry guy 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The only trick to it would be to establish a group of editors who can close articles. I believe this group should be established by vote or something... Never done it before. I would prefer that this group have finite terms and that people cycle through so the system stays fresh. Wrad (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You could go with a group voted in with finite terms or you could start with a small initial group and allow it to grow based on some approval mechanism. The former would be more accountable but the latter would allow the process to scale to a larger size. You also need to, gently, inform the prolific but not so great passers what they are doing wrong if they are to be part of an established group. In the poll, for instance, there seemed to be an idea that GAs need only kinda, sorta follow V. Marskell (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should go with the latter - probably just use some group voting mechanism to allow it to grow (a discussion at WT:GAN should do it). Sign me up as a supporter of this idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to repair something that is not broken? The GA process work resonably well in my opinion. All proposed layers of additional bureaucracy may (and likely will) simply stall the process altogether. Or if they don't, the result will look like FA2 or FA light or superFA, depending on the number of layers. Ruslik (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the criteria for GA are sufficient, and that if they are made more stringent, GA will be almost indistinguishable from FA, and it will become redundant. But the important thing is that the criteria are understood and followed, which is not always the case. I just looked at the recently promoted Jessica Alba. Now this is not to criticise any particular reviewer, but the article is nowhere close to adhering to criterion 1, with excessive use of quotes and single-sentence paragraphs. What we need is, in the simplest way possible, to make sure that the criteria are met. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 11:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problem is not with the GAN process itself. Will381796's suggestions would merely increase bureaucracy and backlogs. The GA criteria, which demand that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct" and "in-line citations from reliable sources", are also not at fault. However, to conduct good reviews, reviewers must understand and apply the criteria well.

What we need to improve is the quality of reviewers and reviews. For example, the guide for GA reviewers tells me to "check for the following" ("the following" being a restatement of the criteria), but does not tell me how to do so. How do I, a non-native (actually near-native) speaker of English, evaluate the prose? How do reviewers determine whether a nominated article is NPOV or broad? If we approach WikiProjects for reviewers to help clear the backlog, we will need a better guide to teach them how to review well. Note that I have not gone through the mentorship programme and thus cannot assess how successful it has been.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Bugger increasing the bureaucracy. Simplicity is both a virtue and a vice with GA, but I think we need to consider ways of helping improve the project without increasing bureaucracy. - Shudde ^talk 12:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

But will it increase the bureaucracy? All it will do is centralize decision making some. The process can still be streamlined in other respects. Maybe we need another poll :). Marskell (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Centralized decision making is a synomyn for bureaucracy. Ruslik (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, there are two main areas where people criticize: 1) the variation in the quality of reviews/reviewers and 2)the lack of accountability in the GA process. The second issue is more of a technical issue and can be solved with some slight changes to how the GA process works. For example, Sandy mentioned more than once that the GA promotion is not linked to the article history like FA promotion is. Is this something that can be solved? The first criticism needs to be addressed by, like others said, increasing the quality of reviews. If making it a little more difficult or a little more time is needed to get an article promoted, then I think that's a small price to pay to ensure consistency in review quality and reviews that follow the GA criteria. I wasn't saying my ideas were the only ways to accomplish this. I would appreciate any other options. But questioning whether or not the GA process is "broken" or not is a little silly as we just finished receiving massive criticism during the Great Green Dot Debate of 2008 (that rhymes...lol) that clearly pointed out areas where we need to improve will381796 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue 2) can be adressed by filling actionXlink field in the ArticleHistory template. There is no need to change anything. Ruslik (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the third main area: the backlog, which your suggestions will worsen. Note that I do acknowledge the problems that you raise; I just find the proposed solutions inadequate. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Issue 2 is not addressed by filling in a field in the ArticleHistory template in any case, because that link will be broken as soon as the review is archived from the talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think issue one needs to be addressed quite quickly. Graeme Smith was passed today at this diff. I'm not sure overall it's a good enough biography of a top international cricketer, but that's beside the point, when you notice the amount of easy mistakes such as grammar, spelling and MOS problems. If any further suggestions to add the green dot are going to be brought forward, then this needs to be addressed promptly. During that debate, a lot of contributors added about the process involving one person / the community as opposed to the FA process. I know there's a huge backlog at GA, but my own personal suggestion, would be for at least two people to review each GAN. Peanut4 (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

One diff proves nothing. Do you have statistics demostrating how many artcile were listed, but should not? What is percent (10, 20, 50% ?) of those articles in the overall number of listed articles in a month, for instance? What is a criterion for the good GA process? Ruslik (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, OK. People here, as Sandy has already done generally, are pointing to some specific passes that probably shouldn't have gone through. This thread, in the main, is examining the idea of limiting things to "best reviewers" to ensure that doesn't happen. Be it a voted committee with a numerical cap, or a group that can grow without a cap, aren't Will's 1 and 2 addressed by a mechanism that chooses people who promote? A set group would have less variation (1) and more accountability (2). And that doesn't have to mean a massive increase bureaucracy. The current process can accomodate it.

So, should we more formally examine this idea? I guess I am suggesting another poll: "Should GA have identified people to promote?" I think the outsiders (from FA, like myself, or just general editors) would support that. I'm long past the point of "hating GA." It's been awesome in terms of motivation—I'd just like to trust GA. This could be the significant reform that allows people to trust it. Marskell (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused... Do you mean allow anyone to review but have a smaller group of editors with the ability to "close" reviews? Wrad (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Marskell here. What we need is a two-pronged process: 1. A review exactly like the one we have now 2. A smaller group of trusted editors to have a quick look at articles that have been given a "pass". This is not to be a second review, which would slow down the process too much, it's only to answer one simple question: has the first reviewer understood what is required by a GA? If not, that reviewer should be taken aside and educated a bit, before reviewing any more articles. This way the simplicity of the GA system is preserved without adding too much extra bureaucracy, while we avoid letting the weakest articles through the system. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 21:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Suppose a review writes This exellent article fully satisfies GA criteria and I will list it as a GA article. My question is: What should those trusted editors do? Should they check the GA criteria themself, in other words to review the article again?. Ruslik (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is an excellent idea and would fully support an elected group of promoters. But, I don't necessarily think that they need to have any kind of term limit. WP admins don't have term limits and are not re-evaulated after a certain amount of time. I think that this idea will also help to cut down on all of the very short & unhelpful reviews that I've seen lately. I would still like to push for there to be some requirement that all reviews be thorough and have a fully written-out review provided for each review. I've seen far too many reviews with simple (+) or (-) stating whether or not a criteria is met w/ little to no explanation of what needs correcting. Reviews are not helpful if they are not thorough and it will be impossible for any GA promoter to analyze the quality of a GA review if the review is composed of nothing more than a pass/fail review w/ no comments. will381796 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What is a fully written-out review? I think it depends on the article. If the article is really good a reviewer may have nothing to say about it except that it is a good article. Long reviews are usually written about bad articles. Ruslik (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Quality reviewers are in short supply. This proposal would burden them with more duties, making them burn out quickly. Replacing them would be difficult, because inexperienced reviewers would not be given the opportunity to gain experience. Backlogs would increase further. Thus I believe that training of new reviewers and a better guide for them is the way to go. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I my view all these proposals are steps in the wrong direction. The long-run role of GA should be to identify the many articles which are not our best material, but are at a satisfactory level with which a general reader would be quite happy. With the substantial growth we would hope to see in this category of articles, the GA process needs to be flexible and simple. When processes on Wikipedia become laden with creep and bureaucracy (RFA, FAC to a lesser extent) they tend to show slow or negative volume growth and this would really limit the value of the GA process to Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a little bit besides the point - we're not discussing what the GA requirements should be; there seems to be general agreement that the current criteria are adequate. What we're trying to figure out here is how to make sure that those criteria are met, while adding as little extra bureaucracy as possible. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very much to the point, and I really couldn't agree more with Christopher Parham. If GA's ambition is to become FA-lite then it will simply wither away, and deservedly so. I, for one, became distracted by the great GA dot debate, and although I haven't changed my mind on that in the slightest, it has concentrated my mind. What's more important? Letting through a few dodgey articles or encouraging a general improvement in all articles? What's more important? Adding bureaucracy in a vain attempt to satisfy those who will always oppose GA simply because it isn't FA, or sticking to the principle of a light-weight process? What's most important is to encourage a wide-scale improvement in all articles, not just the less than 1% that currently go through any kind of independent review process. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The process tends to determine how the criteria are enforced. For instance, process determines to what extent does "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct" require that the article be thoroughly copyedited, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly true - some of the criteria are subjective, and I've seen perfectly good articles held up by nitpicks. But if we leave the interpretation of the rules entirely up to any user with an account, does that not make the GA status meaningless? Are you suggesting we change the criteria to make them less ambiguous? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 00:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There are already procedures in place to deal with the outliers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but it's better to prevent than to treat. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 00:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Indeed the wiki system is more or less dependent on the opposite working just fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is more a matter of the stringency of enforcement than the ambiguity of the standards. "Spelling and grammar are correct" is quite unambiguous as a standard but there are a wide variety of options in enforcing the rule. As far as what I want, if it were up to me GA would abandon the nominations-based model and return to its original structure. I think the good article system then would be far more useful to Wikipedia than what currently exists, as at least it could push through a meaningful volume of articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here at all. What exactly is "the project"? The "original structure"? What are you trying to say? Wrad (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see my use of the word project was confusing (in some places meaning GA and in others Wikipedia) so I altered it. Apologies. The "original structure" was: there was a page and editors added links to articles they thought were of good quality. You can see this in the archives of WP:GA presumably. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

When Worldtraveller came to criticize his own creation, he emphasized that GA was supposed to be focused on articles that could not become FA—mainly those that are too short. See first edit summary here. "Purist" suggestions to move back in that direction have been roundly rejected for two years. GA has simply evolved too much. At this point, what Christopher is suggesting is a new process entirely. A mass tag/list drive that could sweep through the encyclopedia checking for minimum acceptability. GA is not that. A Good article is supposed to be a good article in a recognized, accountable way. If it's going to be truly accountable, we need to replace "anyone" with a known group of people. Marskell (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There's some interesting ideas being raised here! I'm coming to the view that we do need to address the passing mechanism for GAs, and I think Marskell has proposed the most workable suggestion. We have many incredibly consciencious and talented new reviewers coming through, but unfortunately it's never their work that gets noticed and remembered by the rest of the project, just the minority of unsafe reviews. If we can do something to improve either quality or credibilty, it's got to be worth a try ;) As an aside, the sweeps are clearly not keeping pace with new reviews (for which I take my share of the blame), and unless we can guarantee the consistency of new GA passes we'll end up overwhelmed there too. EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any harm in suspending new nominations while sweeps catch up? will381796 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless we have more participants, sweeps won't be complete till 2010 (and this is not a joke). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that sort of make the point of this thread?

I remember when I first started talking here, Homestarmy (who, sadly, seems to have stopped editing) was doing a one-man job of sweeps. That was early 2006. Given the massive growth in nominations since (which isn't a bad thing, on its face) it seems impossible that a few people, however dedicated, could informally handle sweeping through. (Is the definition of "sweep" codified somewhere, incidentally?)

So, if you formally dedicated decision making, wouldn't you be providing a way of doing your sweeps in advance? When you give a dedicated position to someone, it really does motivate them. And it allows you to track throughput better. GAship could be like Arbcom (defined terms) or like adminship (ever growing, with defined entry); that can be agreed upon once the basic idea is agreed upon. I understand that an egalitarian process like GA might not want to move that way, but...it could solve the bottleneck problem and the credibility problem at once.

Anyway, I've just re-formulated my (and I think Will and Wrad's) idea for the fourth time. What do you do 'round here to, um, !vote on something like this? Marskell (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems inconsistent on the one hand to argue that a few people can't handle the sweeps, and on the other to argue for a system that effectively means that every article has to be swept by a few people before it can be listed as a GA. Perhaps I've missed something though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is inconsistent only if new nominations are not suspended. If new nominations are suspended, then everyone involved in the project can focus their attention on the Sweeps thus decreasing the time it would take for all articles to get swept. Once our house is in order, and we are sure that all current GAs meet current GA guidelines, we could reopen for new nominations. The new nominations would be processed under the new system whereby each article is reviewed by one reviewer and then each review is verified and passed by an elected "GAdmin". This would allow us to keep a consistent quality of passed GAs by ensuring that all passes were correctly done and appropriate. If new nominations are not suspended then there is no way that anyone is going to catch up sweeps and thus we'd continue to have sub-GA articles within our ranks. At least that's how I see the current proposal as acting. will381796 (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it may be that I am not fully understanding this proposal in that case, or even what it intends to achieve. How can a review be evaluated without also looking at the article that's been evaluated? I've seen some nonsense earlier about a few trusted reviewers looking through "full reviews", but I've come across not a few articles that tick every box, and don't need much in the way of review. Why don't we all sign up to the GA sweeps process, and make that more efficient? The really important issue, I believe, has so far been completely obscured by this navel-gazing. The history of the GA review is lost as soon as the article's talk page is archived. That's where accountability begins and ends. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. There are many sub-FA articles within the ranks of FA. I don't see anyone getting very upset over that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it would be nice if everybody signed up for sweeps. Just like, in managing WP:FAR, I'd like everyone to sign up for reviews. (Note, Malleus, that FAR has worked for two years to eliminate the sub-FAs—we have "gotten upset" about it.)

Sorry, I didn't mean to in any way disparage the FAR process, but so far as I'm aware the articles submitted to it are rather randomly chosen, as there is no sweep process. It may be though that my understanding is imperfect. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

More or less right. Deliberately, there is nothing like a sweep process on FA. We agreed early on that there would be no grandfathering of old articles, but also no "sweep" to eliminate them. We've waited for articles to appear at FAR. With some quibbles, the process has worked. Marskell (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

But hey, few sign up and mean it, for anything. Here's a fact: when you vest a person with a responsibility, rather than informally expect it, they are far, far more likely to carry it through. That's my experience, both on Wiki and IRL. I think Will's idea of "GAadmin", similar to my idea, is sound. Let the reviews carry forward, and then, before awarding the green dot, have a trusted reviewer look at the page and approve it. That's all: what's crazy about it? Marskell (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Either way, Sweeps have to be done sooner or later. Here's my one last desperate attempt to ask anyone who is interested in reviewing GAs to step forward and let me know that they're interested in sweeping. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd offer my services but you guys are looking for experienced reviewers for sweeps. I've only got like 8 reviews under my belt so I doubt I qualify. will381796 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubted that I qualified, but I offered my services nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

With so few completed I am not qualified at all, though I like GAs and what they stand for, not sure where this discussion has left them, and where to go next. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 06:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't advertisement rule number one? Is there a page that will explain the procedure and the expectations/requirements of a sweeps participant? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is, here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally, we planned NOT to advertise but to place a tiny link in an out-of-reach page that is uncommon for casual editors to reach there. Original theory is that only experienced reviewer will spot the link and click on it. But that kind of failed so we did a recruitment cycle on Community Portal (which was quite a success) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm wanted there, and I don't know if I have time (considering I'm helping at GAN and GAR, and writing myself!), but I could help out with sweeps occasionally. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, we would love to have you there. I do recognize the timing constraints of attempting to do the Sweeps, GAN, GAR, writing articles, keeping up with your watchlist, working with other WikiProjects, reverting vandalism, etc. Unfortunately, I've given up reviewing GANs and writing articles for the time being until the Sweeps are completed. I'm hoping that I'll have more time this summer to knock out a lot of the Sweeps, as I'll be directing the majority of my focus there. However, with the current membership at Sweeps, and the number of articles left, each member would have to review ~100 articles to complete the rest of the unreviewed articles. If we get any new members, this will continue to decrease the amount of reviews per person, and also speed up the process. If we have more people working together, reviewing articles at a faster pace, I believe more members will be willing to work harder and new members jump in if progress is being made. If anyone is interested, please do consider looking over the instructions, and if you can only do ten or twenty (or whatever you want), we'll be that much further at completing the process. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We still have 30 sub-categories that are open and require sweeping (particularly transportation, history, and media sections). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Icon for Physics and astronomy

Can we get a better icon for this section? Here's one suggestion:

Physics and astronomy

Good idea and something atomic is a good option. It isn't completely obvious that this represents an atom however: can anyone find an even better image? Geometry guy 11:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree; a crescent is not exactly bringing science to mind; on the other hand, an icon depicting an atom with the electrons orbiting it will not only be science-related but also remind its viewers of the solar system. Two birds with one stone. Waltham, The Duke of 11:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the crescent of the moon is quite a good symbol, but perhaps it could be solid in colour. Perhaps the moon should appear with the earth. The atom is not a good symbol of most of mechanics or motion, and the image presented above may be mistaken for a flower. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The icon just needs to be recolored, so that the electrons are a different color than their paths. Then it'd look fine. Pal Jasper (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Best not to mention the confusion caused by the school-taught 'Solar system' atomic model then... ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. --.:Alex:. 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of runestone article

I see that Greece Runestones has been listed under "literature". Runestones can be called "art", "memorials", "obituaries", "documents", "corpora" and so on, but they are not "literature".--Berig (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What would you suggest? EyeSerene^talk 12:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. The only runestone that is usually categorized as "literature" is the Rök Runestone, but it's a special case because of its references to Norse mythology. Usually runestones fall under linguistics in Scandinavia since linguists are the ones who have the expertise to study them. However, runic inscriptions are also referred to in works on history, art, archaeology and literature so they are a special case.--Berig (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My personal feeling is to place them under " Archaeology", but I think it's probably one of those articles we'll never classify properly. The categories it's in don't help much either. There could be an argument for a new classification ("Artefacts" perhaps?) under Archaeology, but I'm reluctant to contribute to the category bloat on WP:GA ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although I don't think archaeology is an ideal category for the Greece Runestones, it already covers some quite similar articles such as Funerary art, Singapore Stone and the Ring of Pietroassa.--Berig (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. I'll move it - thanks for the help ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I noticed it is actually listed as a History GA on the talk page... EyeSerene^talk 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!--Berig (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome ;) EyeSerene^talk 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the point?

Over the last few days I've idly looked at a few of the new GAs as they've been listed. Out of that half a dozen or so I've felt in two cases that the article was so far short of the GA criteria that in one case I delisted it and in the other here I will very likely be delisting it as well.

There is clearly a very serious QC issue here. What is the point in a sweeps project that, even if it ever completes its self-appointed task, is then faced with another mountain of shoddy GAs? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Once flagged revision comes, then this problem will be solved. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I totally agree with you Malleus Fatuorum. And it's on some of the simple things too. It's objective whether an article is long enough, the sources are good enough or the scope wide enough, but some of the GAs I've seen passed have typos, spelling mistakes, poor grammar and scores of MOS issues. Peanut4 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it won't be solved, because these poor GA listed articles will still be poor GA articles. This has to nipped in the bud. Any reviewer passing poor articles ought no longer to be allowed to review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you should probably have a chat to the said reviewer. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I already did.[11] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a mechanism to prevent someone from being disruptive by listing lots of articles (like... above 10) that shouldn't be promoted? I'm not stuffing beans but this is the best worst way to waste experienced reviewers' time for a vandal. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I, too, have noticed an uptick in the amount of quite poor GA reviews. While some reviews are just poor (e.g. little actual comments (e.g. a template and a quick, 'congrats'), but the article still mostly meets the criteria, there are other poor reviews of articles that don't come close to the criteria. I think I've spent more time doing second reviews of articles and QC lately than reviewing new nominations. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See a few threads down, and the suggestion for using subpages for reviews, in the manner of peer reviews and FACs. This solves archiving problems, making old reviews immediately accessible, but can also be used to encourage reviewers to provide lengthier comments. As part of my original suggestion, I considered the possibility of discouraging the "quick congrats" by keeping the review "open" for a minimum period, and encouraging comments from others. Regulars can drop into reviews-in-progress, leave a few comments or express concerns/encouragement; might eliminate the need for 2nd reviews and delisting, and other QC concerns. Gwinva (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Roads vs. Other GAs

It seems a problem is growing with the road articles that are passing GA, that are very short and according to Derek.cashman's opinion, that insignificant routes (that no one is gonna read), such as shown in New York State Route 308, shouldn't be GAs, and that the more significant articles should be passing for GA. I feel its ok to have small route GAs as long as they're comprehensive and broad.

In the case of Route 308, Derek delisted the article for 2 reasons, small lead, and the history section was complete enough. The first reason, to us is not a problem, but the second is. Route 308 is only 6.19 miles long, you're not gonna expect too much on the highway, compared to something like New York State Route 17, which would have to be really comprehensive because its a longer route, and has construction and designation history. 308, and like many others, have only designation history. Us at USRD feel anything pre-designation isn't necessary for GA and would be more suitable to be A-class. As long as the article has the major history written, its defined as good enough for GA, along with a few other small things.

However, if this is a problem, feel free to bring it up. USRD is open to new suggestions on how to improve. If a mass delistment is necessary, then be it. But a solution has to be made.^Mitch32^contribs 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is GAs place to be judging whether an article is significant or not. That belongs to the AfD process. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, the discussion Mitchazenia brought up was to determine whether short road articles can be listed as GAs. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely aware of that. How is what I said not related to that discussion? Wrad (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the way I read your comment, it seemed to me that you thought Mitchazenia's comment was to determine whether the article is significant, when it seems to me it's more about the listing of road GAs. I may have misread it, though. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If an article can survive AFD, it can theoretically go to FAC, so I don't see what should be different in the GA process. If there's a question about the significance of the article, that is within the purview of the deletion process. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina for an example. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What are the notability criteria for roads? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Mainly state-maintained roads/formerly state-maintained routes and higher. County routes are not as notable, but notability has been established in a few.^Mitch32^contribs 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the particular case of New York State Route 308 I'd have to agree with the delisting. Not because the article's short, but because it lacks breadth and it's not well written. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to bring up some examples of short roads that are comprehensive for their size and some of the long ones.

Short:

1. New York State Route 344
2. New York State Route 359
3. New York State Route 368

Long:

1. New York State Route 12
2. New York State Route 18
3. New York State Route 31

All six examples are B-class articles. Now would the three short ones be able to reach the same GA standards as the three long ones. To me, this is the problem.^Mitch32^contribs 00:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Breadth is more important in a GA than length. I've looked at a few of the road GAs, and am surprised many of them passed. To my mind, broad coverage of a road requires more than discussion of the route. How about geography: hills, land formations, topography? Did this require engineering issues? How about the ground: what is the soil/rock/ need support? relaying? What prep needed doing to make it? Who planned it? What about bridges and other structures? what type are they? When were they built? What is the landscape like? Important sites/views? Social history: local response to roads? campaigns for/against? controversies? funding? What did people do before? state land or compulsory purchases? Safety: major accident black spots? death and accident tolls? Tricky corners? Local effects: susceptible to flooding, or subsidence? Who uses the roads? Major trucking route? holiday makers? local commuters? farm traffic? Traffic flows: problems at certain times of day? Bottlenecks? How many cars use it? Policing: regularly patrolled? which jurisdiction? Speed cameras? tickets? problem with boy-racers? Slow tractors? and so on... Look at New York State Route 210 (selected at random). How many of the above questions does this address? Compare with (another random) A500 road, which is broader (not perfect, but better) and addresses some of these issues. Gwinva (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So should we make this a special checklist for a road article to be come a GA in addition to the usual criteria and automatically fail any road article that does not satisfy all of the above? --Polaron | Talk 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Good idea! But seriously, it's hard to claim that an article is "broad in coverage" if it raises more questions than it answers. A GA doesn't need to be definitive; it does need to be more than one-dimensional. Gwinva (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of something like "genre checklists" for particular types of articles. I've raised this before, particularly regarding film articles. It would seem necessary to work with the relevant WikiProjects, however. When I have time, I hope to move ahead with this, again at least for film articles, and if nothing else in an informal manner: i.e. write out what I expect of a GA film article, and run it past others. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

While mainly sarcastic, I was also a bit semi-serious. It would really be helpful if there was a checklist that is WikiProject-specific that could be used to determine whether an article is sufficient for GA or not. If this is done in close cooperation with the WikiProject, it would be much easier to review an article (thus reducing backlog) and it would also help reduce nominations that would have little chance of passing. --Polaron | Talk 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some "guides to reviewing X articles" would be a helpful resource for reviewers (and nominators). It may be that there is a backlog in, for example, TV & film noms, because there are few reviewers who are confident reviewing them?? But such guides should be illustrative, rather than prescriptive. Otherwise they may become detrimental to the GA ethos: leading to quick "tick the box through the template" reviews or, at the other extreme, creepy hoop jumping and fails on technicalities. (Letter rather than spirit, and all that.) Gwinva (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset)- Some of the questions you raised Gwinva have been debated in the past, and declared uneeded. See New York State Route 174's FAC for example, and the trouble there. The most fought-over ones would include, the safety and traffic flow questions. No one posts a police control PDF or anything like it. All that exists for that is the Traffic Data Report which estimates what amount of traffic has been on each road. Major accidents have been declared non-notable, as I have tried in the past for that. Everything else may exist, but I'm not sure. History sections are really tight for roads. Also, polaron: Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes/Pre-Good Article checklist is what TMF gave me as a check-list.^Mitch32^contribs 10:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as an additional comment, for the time being, I have relisted New York State Route 308. While I still think that there may be some issues with some of the road articles, mainly with not being comprehensive enough, perhaps I was being a little too bold by just automatically delisting it then and there. So I apologize about being so blunt. I think, however, that we've started an interesting dialogue here, and perhaps we should look at ways to better verify the comprehensiveness criterion of WP:WIAGA, since this particular one doesn't seem so cut-and-dry (unlike things like images or reference citations, which is more or less just checking). Perhaps in the next couple of days I'll take a closer look at some of the road GAs and see if I can offer any suggestions to WP:USRD on how to improve their comprehensiveness -- assuming they'll still listen to me after being such an asshole,... Dr. Cash (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Its ok, man - We can discuss this on WT:NYSR if you'd like, and move it from here.^Mitch32^contribs 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

On a side note...

I nominated the article M54 motorway a while ago, but it has been under review for more than two weeks, which strikes me as a little odd! I know GA has huge backlogs, so I expected to wait, but I fear the user may have forgotten about it (and the Channel Tunnel article, too). Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Improving the GAR process: Use 'Start' and 'B-Class' as buffers

Most seem agreed that the GA review process is in bad shape, and there are some good ideas floating around regarding possible reforms. But it strikes me as odd that there appears to be no effort towards redefining the lower classes on the assessment scale. I think the GA review process could still work quite well if the rest of the scale were to be developed with an eye towards preserving the value of GA status. Why not (1) give clearer, more stringent requirements for 'Start-' and 'B-Class', (2) require that an article go through informal review by non-contributors for those classes, and (3) require that any article must have attained 'B-Class' status prior to becoming eligibile for GAR nomination? IMO, 'Start-' and 'B-Class' should be serving as filters against GAR being swamped with unqualified articles, but at the same time should not add to the collective administrative headache. Developing and extending the requirements for 'Start-' and 'B-Class' ratings appear to me as the first logical step in helping to alleviate an overload on the GAR process - and a rather efficient one, all things considered. And though it would not solve the problem entirely, increasing and/or specifiying the requirements for the lower ratings can only help the project in the long run. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 02:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's hard enough to find reviewers for FAC, GAR, and PR. Yet another peer review process isn't going to help.

IMO, the easiest and simplest way to improve the GA process is to improve the quality of the GA reviews. The simplest way to do that is to improve reviewing skills. Majoreditor (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we take this to WT:GAR please; this page is getting rather long. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Aryaman is confusing GAR with GAN. As Majoreditor (and I, in previous discussions) said, we should focus on improving the quality of reviewers and hence the quality of reviews. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN is the first step in the GAR process - hence the usage. Anyway, of course it would be great it we could "improve the quality of GA reviews". But if such improvement could be affected through policy, then please go straight for "improving article writing skills" and save us the trouble of reviewing altogether. :) —Aryaman (Enlist!) 12:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts from a new reviewer

There is an ongoing discussion regarding improvements to the GA process, and a general feeling that something should be done. The major concerns seem to be transparency (solved by using subpages) and quality of reviews. As a new reviewer, I offer you my impressions, which may be of interest. Firstly, let me make clear that I am not new to the GA process: I have had three of my own articles rated GA, and have provided peer reviews, advice and assistance to others preparing for GA, and have witnessed discussions such as the Green Dot Saga. But I made my first review here just a few weeks ago, and have only reviewed 3 articles (linked if interested), all of which I have archived on subpages. (I initiated the discussion about subpages above, but I am sure the idea has been mooted before.)

I think the actual process/ethos is good, and there is no need to introduce more stringent processes, such as support votes, oversight reviews and so forth. In fact, the current system allows a personal, interactive process. As a reviewer, I entered into dialogue with the nominators, fixed a few minor things on the article myself, and so forth: it became a collaboration. That, I think is a strength of the current system, and would be weakened by bureaucratisation. Such reviews require an investment of time, but they are rewarding; they're certainly more interesting and more useful than "drive-by quick-passes". But how to encourage new reviewers to engage in such reviews? (or, what took me so long to get around to contributing?)

Personally speaking, I think the header of the WP:GAN page is not helpful; the templates do not seem inviting or encouraging to new reviewers. At first glance, they make the reviews seem simple: Pick One. Pass it or Fail it. Or, maybe, put it on hold. Gung-ho drive-byers can take it at face value. They pick an article, add the templates, and pass it as instructed. Others, like me, think "Hmm, it can't be that simple", assume it's part of some great complex project, and never quite get around to reading all the stuff so they can understand it. (And the more you investigate, the more there seems to be!) I think these two problems (lack of obvious encouragement for good reviews / easy process for quick reviews) could be lessened by changing the header. Keep the "how to nominate an article" etc but replace the rest with something simpler, like (really rough idea):

Want to review an article? You do not need special qualifications or approval to review articles. Reviews can be carried out by any registered editor who is familiar with the good article criteria and the [process for reviewing]. You can also contribute to any [open review]. Click [here] for more information.

Linked page then runs through the instructions for setting up subpages, how to review and so forth, and then tells you the things you have to do once you've passed (or failed!) an article. Keep it simple: there are useful "good ideas for reviewing" pages which can be linked.

Also, I'd merge the "under review" and "on hold" status into "review open" and suggest that all reviews stay open for a set period. (eg at least 3 days). The template could read something like "Review opened by so-and-so; comments and contributions welcome on [sub page]". When appropriate, the review is closed by lead reviewer (ie the one who opened it), who then determines pass/fail. This would encourage second and third opinions, minor contributions, novice reviewers trying their hand at a few comments and so forth, but is not reliant on it: reviews can be closed after minimum time, regardless of whether anyone else has contributed. Most reviews would probably carry on as they do now, but the drive-bys would probably reduce, new reviewers would find it easier to dabble or observe, and some articles would benefit from comments from a number of people.

Excuse my rambling; it's quite possible these ideas have been discussed and rejected before, or I've missed something important, so feel free to pour as much cold water over these suggestions as they warrant! Gwinva (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While I was wittering on here, I see Geometry Guy has proposed a working party above; I am thus quite prepared for you all to ignore this, and humbly submit my thoughts to the attentions of the future working party. :-) Gwinva (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Subpage naming

I like how you use the subpage as the archive for review. But we need to be consistent towards the naming format of such reviews. Should it be...

• Wikipedia:Good article nominations/<article name> (nth review)
• <article name>/GA review (nth review)

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend keeping the format as simple as possible: either

• Wikipedia:Good article nominations/<article name>/n or
• <article talk page name>/GAn.

It is essential to number the review: here n is the number of the nth review. I think there is general feeling to go for the second option, but for almost all purposes, it makes no difference and is purely a matter of psychology. Geometry guy 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Everybody tries to improve GAN process. However nobody seems to realise that it will require changing GA delisting process too. Now everybody can delist an article after leaving comments on the talk page. How will this process work if you proposal is implemented? Ruslik (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like the first format (the one that starts with "Wikipedia:Good article nominations") better because it is consistent with the formatting on GAR. GAR is using this formatting: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/<article name>/<n> OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that makes sense OH, - if we're not consistent from the off, we can guarantee there will be a proposal at some later date to harmonise everything... EyeSerene^talk 09:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For consistency's sake, the first options should be used. As stated above, either idea would work, but a discussion would inevitably begin to change the way if we were to use the second option. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 12:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to have "Wikipedia good article x/article name/n", since this is consistent with other reviews (peer, FAC etc) and makes searching easy: if anyone wanted to look at old reviews they can search for articles starting with "Wikipedia good article, etc". However, is there a need for "x"? ie. Is there a distinction between "Wikipedia good article nominations /article " and "WP:Good article review/article"? Surely the nomination is the first review? 2nd review is undertaken later to see is if it is at that current time worthy of GA status (ie assessing past failed and past passed to see if GA status has changed)..and so on. Is having two types of subpage merely confusing? Gwinva (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Combining nomination and reassessment processes would be quite a radical overhall. I'm not against it, but for the moment I'm working with what we've got. Note that nomination is not just for the first review: an article can be nominated multiple times and failed, then finally listed; then it can later be delisted (a reassessment process); then it can be nominated again. Geometry guy 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) The issue raised by Ruslik about delisting is a good one. In the first approach where GA reviews are stored on a subpage of GAN of the form

• Wikipedia:Good article nominations/<article name>/n,

the most natural thing to do is store individual reassessments on subpages of GAR of the form

• Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/<article name>/n.

It would be easy to program the templates to distinguish between an individual reassessment (which would be transcluded onto the article talk page), and a community reassessment (which would be transcluded onto WP:GAR as they are now). Thus all reassessment activities would be stored together in historical order.

In the second approach, where GA reviews are stored on a subpage of article talk of the form

• <article talk page name>/GAn,

it would be more natural to store individual reassessments (delists or proposed delists which are rescued) on subpages of the same form. Thus all GA activities, except community Good article reassessments, would be stored together in historical order.

So there are subtle differences between the two approaches. Another is that subpages have a hatnote which links back to the parent. This is why I thought there would be a mild preference for article talk subpages. However, I'm entirely happy to go for WP:GAN and WP:GAR subpages if that is the consensus. If I think of any other technical issues which affect the choice, you can count on me to post them here. Geometry guy 23:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Improvements in GA process: suggestion to improve transparency

I agree with all those who suggest the GA process is not yet perfect. Having read through the above discussion, it seems clear that one of the main problems is transparency: it is not always clear why an article was passed, who passed it, and how rigorous the review was. It would be a simple matter (ie. not increasing bureaucracy or making the process anymore complex) if all reviews took place on a subpage. Take a look, for example, at the article history box at Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs. The peer review, A class review and FAC all have clear links to subpages. The GAN has no link at all (other than diff) and the GA sweep links only to a small section on the talk page, which will get lost with archiving. Why is the GA the only one lacking transparency? Suggestion: 1. the review instructions on the GAN header should provide instructions for creating subpage, and request that review takes place there. 2. When passing (or failing) reviewers should use an article history box (with links and diffs) rather than the Template:GA. Further possibility Currently, with peer reviews and project A class reviews, the nominator creates the subpage by pasting a template on the article talkpage. The current GAN template could be altered to allow this. Inviting reviews There has been some debate above about having a team to oversee the passes. Instead, why not a more open review system? Discourage fly-by "this passes" listings, and suggest reviews stay "open" at least three days (whatever) to invite other comments. It would be impossible to transclude the subpages onto the GAN page, but the listing should include a link to the review page, and other reviewers invited to make comments. The final decision on listing should belong to the reviewer who "opened" it. People can make one or two comments, or offer support, or disagreement. This keeps process open, collaborative, and supportive of editors time. Many editors do not have time to perform a full review, but have time to read an article and raise a point or two. Sometimes, a concern leaps out at one person but not at another. Some are familiar with MOS, some might be familiar with reliable (or unreliable) sources, another might run down the noms checking for fair use rationale, and tick that they're checked. It's also a good way for new or tentative reviewers to familiarise themselves with the process and criteria. This could be advertised more clearly at the top of the GAN instructions, and encouraged (how many ever respond to the "under review" tag's "other comments welcome"?). But a pass is not held back (after required days) if no one else comments. (ie desirable but not essential.) Thoughts? Gwinva (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed several GA reviews recently where the GA review is started in a new main section, something like 'GA review'. Some comments are posted there, and they are responded to. Then, when the article finally passes, the reviewer starts a new MAIN SECTION again with something like 'GA passed'. And some of these have other, unrelated sections between the review and the pass. I don't think it helps the process to put the 'GA pass' in a totally different section from the 'GA review'. As we already have enough problems with keeping archives of GA reviews, this is almost certainly going to make the problem much worse. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; my suggestion above was too wordy, and it's confused myself on a re-read. My suggestion was actually simple. To clarify: All GA activity (review and pass) should take place on a subpage, in the manner of peer reviews and FACs. This can be linked to from the Template:ArticleHistory, which is placed at the top of the talk page and remains there even after talk content is archived. Gwinva (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I like how you did it in this case. It's an extra step, but I think it's a worthwhile, good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. No more links lost when the review is archived. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

remove indent: as long as the sub page is from the article talk page or article page so linked with that and not the reviewer and there is clear instructions on how to set one up I think it is brilliant. Go for it. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a subpage of article talk is best. My own thoughts on the division of labour here are that the nominator generates the subpage, linked from the template, and the reviewer provides the transclusion of the subpage as a review section in article talk. Together with (ideally) automation of the GAN page itself, the nomination process could be like peer review: the subpages would have the form [[Talk:Article Name/GA1]], [[Talk:Article Name/GA2]], and so on and the GAN template could direct the nominator to the next free GA review subpage. This would contain the nominators username, date and the case for nomination. The reviewer would edit this page, adding their name and preliminary (or perhaps final) review and transclude it onto the talk page. The review would proceed as usual, but at the end the information would be in place for a bot automatically to provide a permanent article history link to the review. Geometry guy 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of moving GA reviews to their own subpage. This will bring us in line with the other review processes, and allow for easier archiving. Perhaps the subpage could be created when the nominator adds the {{GAN}} template to the top of the talk page (e.g. add template and provide the link to the next incrementing GA1, GA2, etc page as a parameter; then click on the red link in the template to open the nomination). Dr. Cash (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's right: it would actually have to become {{subst:GAN}} so that the template can automatically find the next free GA1, GA2 etc. page, but then a click on a link could not only generate the page, but provide advice on completing the nomination.Geometry guy 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea to transclude the review (while in progress) onto the talk page. The nominators and others working on the page can easily access the comments, in much the manner they do now. Gwinva (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we try this? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I think we need a process accompanying with that. See the sub-heading below. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) I'm willing to set up demo templates and a process description. Without automation of WP:GAN, it will be more work for nominators, but I am also willing to describe carefully how it could work with and without automation. Geometry guy 21:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to go ahead with this. There's a fair amount of support (and for automation too I think...) EyeSerene^talk 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New GA Process

Since we're going to put them into a sub-page format, it would be a waste not to use the new page to its potential. We need a process to stop the "I feel like this is a good article so I am promoting it" feeling and catch all poorly written articles before they got promoted. Inside each of these GA-nomination sub-page, there should be a vote system. This is my proposal (adapting from a combination of other languages' GAN system):

• Articles must have at least 1,500 words (to restrict any articles that won't even meet DYK criteria)
• Each nomination lasts for 1 week.
  • During this period, the nomination must gather 5 net support vote. Each oppose vote cancels one support vote.
  • Those who oppose should comment on their reasons, and relate them to the good article criteria.
  • If the concerns are not addressed within the time period, the nomination is considered "not promoted". (This is to reduce the number of articles in "on hold" status for an extended amount of time)
    • Reviewers are reminded to be less rigorous towards MoS, but proper grammar and spelling is a must.

We can decide or change the #'s below later, but please comment if you agree with this system in principle. And if you have anything else to add, remove, or modify, feel free to voice your opinions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make GAN a mini-version of the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. In my opinion, the current system is fine. What we need to improve is the quality of reviewers. Better reviewers mean better reviews. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of that I'm afraid. IMO Hildanknight is quite right, GAN ought not to try to be an FA-lite. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We'd need five reviewers, at least, to promote an article to GA. I presume these reviewers should furnish more extensive feedback than I like it, preferably of the quality solicited by item three of the review process guideline. In light of that, then I believe this proposed new process would cause most nominations to fail for lack of participation. I think the dragon that this proposed change hopes to slay is that of the 'drive-by reviewer' who does little more than checking off {{GAList}}; five editors presumably furnish enough redundant cross-checking so that flimsy reviews are canceled out. I don't think we have enough reviewers to make this process work. To my mind, the basis to most criticism levied at the Good article project stems not from a defect in process, but in a shortage of editors who know how to conduct the process effectively. To that end, we should look to process improvements that enable editors to make more effective use of their review time, or help new reviewers understand what constitutes quality reviews. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I am absolutely against any sort of length restriction on GAs. If it is long enough to be an article, then it can also be a GA. Wrad (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head Gosgood. GA needs to look at ways to improve the quality of its reviewers, not its process. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the rest of this is a good beginning, but I would like to see how the separate page thing works and let it run awhile before trying anything like this. I also think the "net five" may be a bit more than we can handle right now. Wrad (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One high quality review is much better and more widely appreciated than five brief comments. What we need to do is enhance both the accountability and the fun of reviewing good articles, so that reviewers will know that they need to produce a good review, and also they really want to produce a good review. Ensuring every review is permanently linked is a step towards the accountability issue. We also need help for reviewers when nominators get argumentative or discouraged, and that often means helping the nominator as much as the reviewer. GAR is a reasonable recipe for the first problem, but perhaps not ideal for the second. I've had recent experiences helping out at Group (mathematics), where a detailed second opinion generated some enthusiasm to improve the article, and at White Mountain art, where a nominator needed encouragement to work with a reviewer. Both were a lot of fun. Both also originated with posts at WT:GAN, but this forum is not always very nominator-friendly, so I wonder if there is any way we can encourage nominators to seek help when they have problems with the review process before resorting to GAR? Geometry guy 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The simplest way might be to insist on template messages for concluding reviews, which will have all the appropriate links present. I know a lot of us give links to GAR etc anyway, but there's perhaps more we could include (eg WP:GAN/M). Other than that, we could perhaps publicise a list of experienced reviewers willing to give second opinions and oversight, mediate disputes, help out with the noms process etc (again, WP:GAN/M might make a good starting point). EyeSerene^talk 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Permanent linking is something that's got to be addressed. I'd pretty much given up on the GA process after the green dot debate, but my faith in it is slowly returning. Let's not give GA's detractors an easy shot, by saying they can't find the review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to echo something else that Geometry Guy said. The most rewarding reviews are where the nominator and reviewer work together to get the article through GA. I fear that sense of collaboration may be diluted by this proposal to move GA towards FA-lite. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, scrap my proposal. But we need someone to actually make a guideline on the new format, instead of just supporting the idea but not contributing to the actual process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be possible to implement the above proposal with only a superficial resemblance to FA (in criteria if not process), but I do have concerns about introducing voting. We would probably need to either restrict votes to regular GA reviewers who know the criteria, to avoid WP:ILIKEIT votes getting articles through, or we'd need one or more official 'promoters' who could judge the voting on its merits... and if someone's doing that, then why not undertake the review anyway? Voting would also, in my view, de-emphasise what I believe is GA's strongest suit - the idea that a GA review is a collaborative, personal, educational process. There is certainly a need for some kind of oversight, but I think throwing more than, say, two reviewers into the mix would be counterproductive. EyeSerene^talk 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit) Sorry, OhanaUnited. We got edit-conflicted; your post wasn't there when I clicked 'save'. I'm not trying to argue against something you've already withdrawn :P EyeSerene^talk 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, no one likes edit conflict. If we restrict votes to regular reviewers, then there's no opportunity for newcomers to participate. We need a merit system (or some sort). So can we all brainstorm and tell everyone your thoughts? (I already presented mines, now it's your turn) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But we can use some threshold like the 1,500 characters imposed by DYK. If the article can't make it to DYK, chances are it won't meet GA criteria #3 OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with any length requirement. GA was made explicitly for very short, high quality articles. The criteria is about breadth, not length. It's very important to retain this aspect of GA if it is to be a decent counterpart to FA in the future. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

1500 characters is really short. It's more like the length for a start-class article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohana, an article with less than 1500 characters will probably fail our broad criteria. If it doesn't, there should be nothing arbitrary stopping it from being a GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we want to add more "bean counting" items to the GA criteria. This seems like it will only attract more simple "bean counters" to the GA reviewer ranks; part of the GA review process is being able to actually read the article and judge whether it's well written or not, without necessarily looking at the purely subject and easy-to-find criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my previous comment, the "current system" means "one nominator and one reviewer". I do support the idea of conducting GA reviews on subpages, thus making them easier to keep track of. A major concern, however, would be GA reviews conducted before subpages for GA reviews are introduced. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we have any new ideas? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to set up a small group of editors to come up with ideas, and I will propose this below. Geometry guy 00:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Amending the Wikipedia 1.0 assessment scale - community input requested

(cross-posting to several noticeboards)

We've had a considerable amount of discussion discussing the merits and drawbacks of the current assessment scale, and it has resulted in two proposals. The first consists of moving the {{A-Class}} assessment level below {{GA-Class}}; the other is the addition of a new {{C-Class}} scale between {{B-Class}} and {{Start-Class}}. We'd like the community to voice its opinion about these proposals here. Thanks, Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

C-class might take extra work in making all the grade changes and there might be extra scope for disagreement and problems with consistency. I think that it is a good to move the A-class to below GA class. Snowman (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the introduction of a C-class rating because B-class articles range from "board, decently written and referenced" to "long but unreferenced, badly written and poorly organised". With the introduction of the C-class rating, articles in the former category will keep their status while articles in the latter category will be downgraded to C-class. As a result, a B-class rating will be worth more. WikiProjects (especially those focusing on areas which are poorly covered) may thus organise "drives" to bring many articles to B-class status. However, moving A-class to below GA-class may not be a good idea, especially if a C-class rating is introduced. Some WikiProjects only give A-class status to articles which have passed an internal A-class review; such reviews tend to focus on content, while FA and GA focus on non-content issues. We should encourage more WikiProjects to have A-class reviews and lowering the prestige of an A-class rating will not do that.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. C-class shouldn't be there. People underused start class and overused B-class, IMO. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If B-class has been overused, introducing C-class would be a way of fixing that. If start class was underused, well i think that probably has to do with its name: "start"-class - people would probably category short articles that aren't exactly "stubs" as "start" - which are probably pretty few. Kevin Baas^talk 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually consider Start-class to be the equivalent of a C grade, so having an explicit C-class seems seriously redundant. I can see the benefit of moving A-class below GA, since it would help keep the individual wikiproject ratings separate from GA & FA. However, sometimes I like to use A-class as a way of giving a GA+ rating on an exceptionally good GA nomination, so I'm kind of indifferent on the A-class proposal. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the following theoretical examples will help explain my view of the differences between the new B-class, the proposed C-class and the current Start-class.

• B-class: An article about a chess player with good sections covering his career, personal life and contributions to chess theory. It is fairly well-referenced but does not meet GA criterion 2a. Although generally detailed, the article misses a few important points. The prose contains a few errors but is largely readable.
• C-class: An article about a country with good History and Geography sections, stubby Politics and Culture sections and an Economy section with little information. There are a couple of fair use images which lack rationales and very few references, while the prose is poor but readable.
• Start-class: An article about a movie with a detailed Plot section containing two screenshots, as well as an Analysis section which is full of original research. Entirely written from an in-universe perspective with poor but comprehensible prose, the article has no references.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My own view is that we need to decouple the Good article process from the WikiProject class scale. We are trying to improve the good article process, but trying to do with one hand tied behind our back by a poorly thought-out umbilical cord. Is GA better or worse than A-Class? Is chalk better than cheese? WikiProject assessments and community-wide (project independent) review processes are completely different beasts.

I think we need to drop the confusing idea of "GA-Class". The best way to do that in my view is to rename GA-Class as something else: B+-Class for example. Then GA (as in Good article) will have nothing to do with the Stub-Start-(C?)-B+-A Class scheme. I have expressed this in more detail in this thread, but it has already produced misunderstandings, demonstrating further the confusion between GA (abbreviation of Good article) and GA-Class (WikiProject assessment). We can't go on talking at cross-purposes like this. Geometry guy 19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree (as one of the confused :P). The trouble is, "Good Article", "GA", "GA-class", and even sometimes "A-class" (and any permutation of these) are used interchangably. I don't really care what we rename things to, as long as we remove this illogical crossover. Incidentally, do any WikiProjects actually use GA-class? EyeSerene^talk 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that GA-class short be dropped from the article assessment scale for the reasons stated above. Kevin Baas^talk 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some WikiProject do. And I (as one equally confused) think the two systems need to be separated. —Aryaman (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now added a generic option where editors can !vote in support of the separation if they wish. I encourage editors here to participate. Geometry guy 10:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, just a thought here, but it seems to me like if we totally remove GA from the assessment scale, leaving FA there, it would somewhat isolate this project and remove it from the whole rating system altogether. So GA could eventually become obsolete, as the natural progression of articles would go from stub-->start-->C-->B-->A-->FA. Why go for GA when you should just go right for FA? Although I'm sure the FA reviewers would love this proposal because it would possibly signal the downfall of GA,... Dr. Cash (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, not all articles can be assessed by a suitable WikiProject, and GA and A currently look for different things. It's a good point though, and perhaps we need to more clearly define what we expect of each review process before we can settle on a hierarchy. EyeSerene^talk 17:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to wind me up or what? :lol: :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Why go for GA when you can just go for FA?" is a question best answered by ensuring that GA provides good feedback and a good review so that editors want to use it (and they do!). However, what we could do is provide a version of the Class templates with a green dot, so that there would be a difference e.g. between A-Class (with GA dot) and A-Class (without GA dot). This could increase the visibility of GA at WikiProjects: at the moment it is not possible to tell from the Class assessments whether an A-Class article is a GA or not. Geometry guy 18:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Shall we drop FA-class as well? Why are there little or no misunderstandings regarding FA-class? Can WikiProjects rate an article as FA-class? Where would articles that attain GA status, but do not meet the criteria for A-class (or fail a WikiProject A-class review) stand on the assessment scale? Answer these semi-rhetorical questions and you will understand why I oppose dropping GA from the assessment scale. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'GA-class' was added to wikiproject banners such that it should be used in the same way as the 'FA-class', to denote an article that had passed a GA review. If FA can prevent wikiprojects from assigning an 'FA-class' independent of FA review, I don't see a reason why we can't do the same. But I have yet to see specific examples of wikiprojects that actually add a separate 'GA-class'; if they do, we need to step up our enforcement, IMHO,... Separating GA out of the assessment scale will only serve to devalue GA and lead to its underutilization and ultimate demise. Plus, it would increase the backlog at WP:FAC, and FAC reviewers would start complaining even more about a ton of increased nominations for articles that don't even come close to meeting WP:WIAFA. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(←) Rumours of the demise of GA have been greatly exaggerated. It is somewhat thriving: e.g. look at the backlog. Given that WikiProjects can promote to A-Class without going through GAN, the existence of GA-Class is clearly not the motivating reason for editors wanting to use the GA process! They want the green dot of community approval, not the green class.

Let me reply to the non-rhetorical among Hildanknight's questions. There are several reasons why there is no confusion about FA-Class: first, it is a simple equality FA=FA-Class, in contrast to GA=(GA-Class plus some of A-Class); second it is at the top of the assessment scale, so it is completely clear what it means; third, at this top level there is no doubt that the article has been thoroughly assessed both for content and style. Concerning where GA's should be placed, well my own preference would be to rename GA-Class as B+-class, and I would hope that most WikiProjects would either rate a Good article as B+-Class or A-Class, just as they are currently either GA-Class or A-Class. However, that is a matter for each WikiProject to decide: the WikiProject assessments are for their own purposes, and talking about "enforcement" is not helpful. I again refer to the example of Talk:John von Neumann. There is no universal article assessment. It is an illusion. Geometry guy 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea where to add this...

Could someone please give María del Luján Telpuk a home (and update the topic parameter on the talk page if needed); I've got no idea where to put it. Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How about Theatre, film and drama -> Actors, models, performers and celebrities? It's tenuous, I know, but I can't see it fitting anywhere else. EyeSerene^talk 11:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an article on a cultural phenomenon and should be listed with other such phenomena. Geometry guy 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Did as G-guy suggested (and I was contemplating that); thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense I suppose, although personally I wouldn't have thought of looking there if I had this article in mind. There's nothing at present that categorises 'personalities' (ie '15 minutes of fame'-type people), but I hesitate to suggest yet more subdivisions ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You can never have enough subsections. I propose a María del Luján Telpuk subsection for these special cases. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded then. I like the way it rolls off the tongue. EyeSerene^talk 08:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a better way to naviaget this list?

I have trouble finding articles and even sections on this page. Could we do some sort of "show" table contents that gives more detail, or are people navigating this page in a way I don't know about that works well? We've got stuff like Arts and History but it's hard to tell what you'll find under those sections, and you find a bunch of sections when you may want only one. Is there a better way beyond massive scrolling? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I've discovered. A ToC would be a big help, to be honest. EyeSerene^talk 11:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the page would benefit from a TOC, but that could be because I know the page like the back of my hand by now. It isn't terribly long, so with a little bit of scrolling, anything should be fairly easy to find. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I experimented with the ToC, and it's way too long for the page, IMO. It could be useful if you don't know your way around the page, however, so it might be a good change to consider. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't fit well, you're right. Maybe a more detailed links section at the top would be better? EyeSerene^talk 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do I put this?

I just passed Towson United Methodist Church. I was originally going to place it under Philosophy and religion, but there really isn't a place for it. Should I place it under architecture? Nikki311 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like the logical place to me. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

GA subpage

Because GA nominations are now on a subpage, there's no way to access it after the bot archives it. I was able to fix the temporary Failed GA template, but when the bot archives it there's no way to go to it again. Can this be fixed? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 00:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the changes to the failed GA template. I don't think that's going to solve the problem, since you're fixing the 'GA1'; GA reviews may not always be GA1; they might be GA2, GA3, depending on which GA review they are. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This should now be fixed: there is a page parameter in FailedGA and other templates to indicate the subpage number. Geometry guy 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Working party on GA reform

We've had plenty of discussion here on issues facing the GA process, and there have been several ideas proposed and discussed for addressing them. My view is that we really need a small working party of committed editors to consider these discussions and come up with proposals for a way forward. They would work with each other on a separate page, and once they had reached a consensus, they would put forward one or more proposals for change here.

There are issues as to how to choose the editors who would be involved, and how much to involve other editors in the discussion process, but if it is done well, such a set-up could be better than a sequence of threads on the latest idea, followed by no consensus or a stall. Do others think this would be a good way forward? Geometry guy 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this has my support. There are lots of ideas being kicked around, and a clear consensus that changes are needed, but the details need hammering out (and, as you say, the last thing we need is yet another stalled proposal). EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support and nominate G-guy and EyeSerene (for a start) for said party. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm in? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohana definitely needs to be in said party. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also support Epbr123, Derek.cashman, Nikki311, and Malleus. bibliomaniac15 03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I hereby nominate Dihydrogen Monoxide; how could we have missed him out? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I reluctantly accept. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can help out with this, too. Though we really need to have a clear plan and agenda. It won't be very effective if we just come together, bang out some random thoughts and pie-in-the-sky wish list ideas for GA, but fail to test and implement them in the end. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a not-so-short-shortlist of people I recommend that wasn't mentioned above: Nehrams2020, LaraLove, VanTucky, Ruslik0. Is Canadian Paul still around? He's active but not reviewing. I think he's one of the best GA reviewer we have. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Paul quit GA reviewing in a huff; I always said he, Nehrams2020, and VanTucky (though not necessarily in that order) were GAN's best. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in like this, but while CP oficially retired, he came back to review Lazare Ponticelli upon my request. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove no longer participates in the GA process. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate bibliomaniac15 mentioning my name, but I would like to excuse myself from this working party, for personal reasons that I would prefer not to go into here. I very hope that whatever comes out of it will help to raise the profile, trustworthiness, and most importantly the effectiveness of the GA process. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward now we have some names...what's the plan? Party needs some sort of agenda, something to actually work towards. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to participate! VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So... when should we get started? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend implementing changes in incremental steps, rather than all at once. No sense overwhelming people and confusing the hell out of everyone. I think we should start by formulating a method for transferring GA reviews to sub-pages within article talk space, and creating permanent archives. Based on several comments I've seen in these talk pages so far, I think I can take a wild guess that we probably have consensus for going forward with this, and clearing up our system of accountability should be the #1 priority. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As a (relative) newbie, I'm happy to sit on the sidelines and occasionally throw in suggestions. If you want to drag me into things, just yell. Process work is what I do for a living outside of WP :) Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Although I only started actively participating in GA-related discussions recently, I would be happy to put forward ideas for the working party to consider. In my opinion, our two highest-priority suggestions are conducting GA reviews on subpages and better training for new reviewers. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We've already started to address the issue of GA reviews on subpages. Please see this discussion. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you need one more, I'll join in on the discussion. I'll be happy to help with anything that improves the process. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I nominated you already... OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, thanks! Just wanted to make it official, or make sure there wasn't already too many people. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Will we have a specific page just for the reform? Or continue using this page? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Specific page is a good idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am relatively new to GA reviewing, but have contributed to a few discussions here recently, and am happy to continue considering these matters with you. But you may already have enough people, in which case I will not be offended if you do not take me up on this offer. Gwinva (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer having specific page for the reform discussions. However, will the members of the working party own it or will others (like me) be allowed to participate in the discussions? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought the point of a "working party" would be to only have them discuss it. So join the party—I have no objections to you. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If they want me in, I will join. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The working party is a good idea, but no one seems to have taken it the next step and started it (unless I've missed something). To get the ball rolling I have a draft discussion format at User:Gwinva/Working. It is only rough, and may not be what you had in mind. It's basically a pointer to the issues which need addressing, and a few subheadings, under which the various discussions can take place. Feel free to move it to a subpage here, copy and paste elements, restructure it, change the headings (etc) or totally ignore it. Gwinva (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a good start: I've moved it to WP:WikiProject Good articles/Reform and started the talk page. Please watchlist and sign up if you are interested. Geometry guy 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yo. I came here to follow up on a thread I posted to last week... curiously it's missing. >_>

Anyway, I ctrl-f'd my name and saw I'd been nominated for the work group. I've been out of GA for 8 months, but I just cleared all but like 5 pages off my watchlist a few days ago. Considering I played a major role in the reforms of '07, I'd be delighted to participate in this year's discussions. Lara❤Love 15:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Lara. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's great to see you returning here Lara (I saw also the note at WT:WGA). I think your contributions to the working party will be very valuable, especially as your time away will bring a bit of fresh objectivity (tempered by experience) into the discussion. Re your talk: I missed you too :-) Geometry guy 21:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay Lara! :-) giggy _(:O) 01:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)