Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 1

This archive is for conversations whose last comment was 15 April 2006 and at least a week old.

Top down?

How about a rule saying that articles at the top must be dealt with first? That way, we won't have people picking and choosing, creating a backlog of articles. joturner 05:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. jareha ^(comments) 05:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree and have amended the notice accordingly. The process will go more quickly if reviewers coming across this page can choose to evaluate subjects that they have interest/expertise in. Otherwise, we risk eventually having a difficult-to-evaluate article at the top, leaving the process clogged up for days. I think merely assigning higher priority to the older nominations is enough. Andrew Levine 18:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How about if an article sits on the nominations list for a certain amount of time (say seven days) without evaluation, it automatically gets put onto the Good Articles list. I'm afraid articles that are difficult to be evaluated will never be nominated. Or the list will just get piled up with nominations as more people are willing to add articles to the nominations page than are willing to go through the trouble of evaluating articles and adding them to the Good Articles list. joturner 19:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

10-day default rule

Not a whole lot of discussion on this page, so I've decided to be bold and add information regarding a new template ({{GA nominee}}) that should make visitors to pages aware of their nominations. In addition, I've added a seven-day ten-day unconditional promotion. joturner 16:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should articles that are difficult to evaluate be granted Good status simply because no one has undertaken the effort? Pagrashtak 00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I can imagine a backlog of articles that are difficult to evaluate (or that no one wants to evaluate). Ten days should be a sufficient amount of time. Remember that since everyone has veto power, you can always delist a good article after it has been put up. However, if you really don't like the rule, you can always change it. Note that it's on this page and the {{GA nominee}} template. joturner 01:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I really disagree that an unreviewed article should be listed by default. I don't see the need for a time limit, really, but if the list becomes cluttered then I'd far prefer to say that articles still there after 10 days should be removed and not added to the list. Worldtraveller 19:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Worldtraveller on both points. Do not move to good list by default. Do perhaps drop eventually. (Could one simply resubmit a dropped article after a drop? Before that, could one recruit an objective reviewer, if really wishing that?) Ten days is not much time. It is probably more productive (in eventually generating reviews) to leave nominations up for at least two or three months, even longer. It doesn't matter if there are 100 or more nominations (which in the long run eventually there will be). But, some drop deadline after a long time period, ok. Vir 19:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree per Worldtraveller and Vir. Allowing default listings defeats the purpose of GA, particularly since GA is often a second peer review of sorts before FA nomination. Air.dance 20:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree - the 10 day rule was a bad idea. What about articles already accepted under the 10 day rule? (Are there any?) IMHO, we should make them re-run the gauntlet. If we're concerned about backlogs we should have a 10 day rule that says that if the article hasn't been accepted after 10 days it is NOT good and has to wait 30 days before resubmitting. Better that than have junk articles be accepted as 'Good' through reviewer inaction. SteveBaker 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

One: Mammal classification. Truly the most not-reviewable article I've ever seen. I agree that ten days is way too short and two months is a good minimum before dropping it off the list. Nifboy 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I second re-running Mammal classification since I am the one who promoted it. I only did so because it had set there at the top of the nominations list for more than 10 days, and that was policy at the time. Dmoon1 22:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I delisted the article since, as of right now, one person can delist an article on his or her own. The article didn't look like good article material to me at all. joturner 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about this for a while - I wonder whether there isn't another possibility. Right now, an article gets nominated - then ultimately either ends up a 'Good Article' (because someone says so) or a 'Not-Good Article' (because someone says so). This creates a backlog when there aren't enough reviewers because there is no way to get an article off the list without someone saying it's good or not. But what if there were a third outcome? Some kind of article status that's better than 'Failed GA' but not as good as 'GA' that would apply to articles that were no so terrible that someone decided to fail them - yet not so good that someone would promote them within some time limit? You could even go so far as to award a 'goodness factor' to an article - perhaps the average score from however many people chose to give it a score. OK - let me do a proper proposal... SteveBaker 12:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for a better way to award GA

Proposal - Articles that are freshly nominated go onto the bottom of WP:GAN as they do now. Each person who reviews the article gives it a percentage score. 0% percent being an article that should be nominated for deletion. 100% being that this reviewer would give the article FA status if it were nominated today. 50% being the criteria for 'Good Article' status. Each reviewer appends their own percentage figure to the description of the article on WP:GAN with at most a one-line rationale (eg: "49% - good article but no references provided" or "70% - needs more pictures"). When the article has been here for 10 days - we average the scores. If an article was not reviewed by anyone, it gets an automatic 50%. But we don't give an automatic, blanket 'Good' status. We use a 'Bronze/Silver/Gold' medal - bronze if it's 50% or more. silver if it's over 65%, gold if it's over 85%. Articles would be permitted to be renominated if they fail or if they only attain bronze or silver after a minimum of 10 more days.

I think this would work better than the present system because:

1. There is less pressure put upon reviewers. I'm loath to reject articles out of hand when they are marginal - and I'm nervous of promoting something that might be controversial. So I tend to read them and say to myself "I don't feel qualified to either accept or reject" - so I do nothing. However, if I could award it a 65% score then I'd probably do that for every article that shows up on WP:GAN.
2. The system is less open to abuse. Right now, a single person can accept or reject an article for purely personal grounds. What if there is a Pokemon hater here who rejects all pokemon articles 'just because' - or a StarTrek fanatic who has a strong bias to promote all Trekkie stuff regardless of quality? We have zero safeguards right now.
3. It gives shades of goodness. With the proposed system, authors of articles that get a gold medal should consider going to WP:FAC. Authors who get only a bronze will be aware that they have a shot at FA but need to do a lot more work to get there. Articles that get a flat zero can be recommended for deletion.
4. It allows articles that people can't review (perhaps because they are deeply technical or something) - but which aren't obviously terrible to get at least a bronze medal - rather than being simple rejected.
5. It gives some sort of quality metric to the discerning reader.
6. It prevents backlogs.
7. If the system turns out to work well, it could become a requirement of FAC that the article already has a gold medal.
8. One reviewer might give the article a controversially high or low score - but the rest of us would see that and make extra efforts to check articles with suprisingly high or low scores. This would allow more people to contribute realistic scores and bring the average back into a sensible range. However, people should be cautioned against using a higher (or lower) score than they would otherwise give it just to outweigh some random vandal.
9. Keeping the list of nominees short gives a bigger chance that every article will get at least a cusory read over by several reviewers.

SteveBaker 12:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Eugh. Voting. Percentages. Democracy. Ew. No, I think you'll still have the problem of people not wanting to review certain articles. Check out WP:AA; it went fine for natural disasters, extinct mammals, and '80s comedies, but African countries? It's come to a screeching halt now. Only four reviews of 15 different articles in nearly two weeks. Nifboy 18:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is no way to force reviewers to review difficult articles. Short of paying them to do it or threatening to shoot their pets if they don't - I don't see a way to do that. So what do you do about hard-to-review articles? My proposal says that they don't get rejected - and they don't get a gold medal - but something in between. SteveBaker 04:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

But not all hard-to-review articles are equal, nor is the quality of the article constant once they're rated. My problem with numerical analysis is that articles are dynamic, and improve over time. Unless you want to repurpose GA to be a part of WP:STABLE... But numerical ratings are asking for trouble in the form of articles being nominated for re-rating every few edits. Nifboy 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Then what is the point of reviewing anything - or awarding any kind of 'status'? If you take the view that giving an article a numeric rating is impractical because it may change - how can you justify giving it a 'Good/Not-Good' rating or a 'Featured/Not-Featured' ? There has to be some idea of relative constancy - most non-controversial articles change rapidly until they are reasonably correct - then level off and see only minor changes and corrections. There are (of course) articles that undergo titanic upheavals from time to time - but those are just as likely to change from 'Good' to 'Junk' or 'Featured' to merely 'Good' as they are to change from 65% to 50%. Note that I don't suggest we 'award' a fixed numerical score to an article - I merely wish to use it as a way to allow more than one person's opinion to count in GA/N and to award shades of quality rather than a strict up or down decision. SteveBaker 06:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Subject sections

I've split the nominations into a few sections. Maurreen 20:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the split really serves any purpose here. That is unless we split the articles using the same categories as the main good article list. However, there are so many categories there and so that would be over-the-top. joturner 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Importance of Article Count

Is the number of articles up for nomination really important? People constantly forget to update the nomination count (and the split sections will only make that worse). I think we should just remove the pointless piece of information. joturner 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Simpsons

The Simpsons article has been GA nominated, despite already having this FA nomination. This seems pretty strange to me, is this really necessary? Poulsen 15:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Given that I see only one "support" and like ten objects and/or opposes, yes. Nifboy 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You've gotta have references - even for a 'Good Article' - so given the FA comments, there was very little point in posting it again here without fixing the problems. (OK - now you have references! Carry on, don't mind me!) SteveBaker 17:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Labatt Park

As I can reconstruct things, Labatt Park was nominated by User:BoojiBoy here to be accepted by the same user 15 hours later here. I've gone ahead, removed the GA status and relisted the article. Poulsen 22:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Failing nominees without reason

I've noticed a few fails recently, particularly Data (Star Trek) and Padmé Amidala, that were not given any rationale on the talk page of the article in question. I don't think that's very helpful and is actually listed as a requirement for failing an article. Thanks. Jumped the gun. Air.dance 23:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I though that too, but if I you check the history of each talk page you'll see a small notice below each FailedGA template. Poulsen 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right, I didn't see that. I wonder if there should be a requirement to list it under its own header? Air.dance 00:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good idea. I noticed the same thing too. However, I would say that failing an article without reason can just be reverted outright. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion?

I recently failed Queen (band), and subsequently got screamed at which actually made me feel really bad.. Anyway, the point was that I got screamed at for failing someone's "amazing" article.. these were my complaints:

== Recommended changes ==

1. Inline citations shouldn't be bulked together
2. Explain terms "arena rock", "hard rock", "glam rock", "heavy metal" and "progressive rock"
3. Fix this grammar error - "metal, and progressive"
4. Do not use terms such as " later in the article", either use "see below" or link
5. Explain the term, "commercial music video", explain that it means "music videos"
6. Remove minor "crest" information from the introduction

1. 1. Prose band members and "As instrumentalists" into paragraphs
   2. Replace terms such as "(e.g. "Sheer Heart Attack")", via prosing using words like "such as" or "including"
   3. Don't use italics for long sections of paragraphs
   4. When listing members (in the second section) use "*" if you plan on not prosing
   5. Don't repeat words, "able to create strange and unusual sound effects" & "able to create sound effects with his guitar that were so unusual".
   6. Be bold, avoid terms such as "He added some special instruments here and there".
   7. This is a very poorly written section " he played each chord separately in a different take, then the producer merged them to form the entire part.[11]"

1. 1. 1. The History section is a brick, split up into different sections rather than a huge area with dates seperating the wall. Eg - "The Beginning" (1968 - 1970s)
      2. Avoid terms such as "(aka Wreckage)", use book English instead.
      3. Don't use words such as " kicked off".

(I'm not attempting to dig through this paragraph, I guess you can get the idea).

1. 1. 1. 1. Prose these findings or ad in a Wikitable.
         2. Don't stockpile inline links.

Further Points

1. Convert chart numbers into a wikitable
2. Remove "fansite links", example "one of the biggest Queen sites "

This article still has a long while to go, but keep working! --Highway 16:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I got screamed because of it.. and the nominee replaced it again. Second opinions? Highway 21:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's look at your criticisms:

1. Inline citations shouldn't be bulked together -- Fixed.
2. Explain terms "arena rock", "hard rock", "glam rock", "heavy metal" and "progressive rock" -- These are links - if someone needs explanation, it is but a click away.
3. Fix this grammar error - "metal, and progressive" -- Whether to put a comma before the 'and' in a list is debatable. WP:MOS allows either way.
4. Do not use terms such as " later in the article", either use "see below" or link -- Fixed
5. Explain the term, "commercial music video", explain that it means "music videos" -- Gone
6. Remove minor "crest" information from the introduction -- Still there - I agree that it's a bit detailed for the intro - but this is "Good Articles" and not "Featured Articles" so I think we could let that slide.
   1. Prose band members and "As instrumentalists" into paragraphs -- Disagree - it's easier to read with sub-sub-sections for each artist.
   2. Replace terms such as "(e.g. "Sheer Heart Attack")", via prosing using words like "such as" or "including" -- Fixed
   3. Don't use italics for long sections of paragraphs -- Fixed
   4. When listing members (in the second section) use "*" if you plan on not prosing -- Fixed
   5. Don't repeat words, "able to create strange and unusual sound effects" & "able to create sound effects with his guitar that were so unusual". -- Fixed
   6. Be bold, avoid terms such as "He added some special instruments here and there". -- Still there - this didn't bother me too much - but I guess it could be improved.
   7. This is a very poorly written section " he played each chord separately in a different take, then the producer merged them to form the entire part.[11]" -- Not fixed, I agree that words like 'nailed' don't belong in an encyclopedia. This could be better written.
   8. The History section is a brick, split up into different sections rather than a huge area with dates seperating the wall. Eg - "The Beginning" (1968 - 1970s) -- Not fixed, I agree it's a bit indigestible.
   9. Avoid terms such as "(aka Wreckage)", use book English instead. -- Fixed
   10. Don't use words such as " kicked off". -- Not fixed - I agree that htis is a bit informal.
7. Convert chart numbers into a wikitable -- Not fixed
8. Remove "fansite links", example "one of the biggest Queen sites " -- Not fixed - I agree, this is contrary to the MOS on external links. This is a VERY common failing of Wikipedia articles and it's hard to tell 99% of people that it's wrong. Take a look at Lego for example...it passed as an FA - and the list used to be over a hundred links long!! (It's shorter now).

So - what's the score?

Out of your original 18 criticisms, 11 of them are either fixed - or unjustified according to MOS - or sufficiently debatable that I, personally disagree with you, 7 problems remain where I agree with you that there is a problem - and it hasn't been fixed.

So - are those seven things sufficiently serious to warrant de-listing? I'm not sure.

For sure though - you should go back to the talk page and offer words of encouragement and thanks for promptly fixing two thirds of the serious problems.

I agree that this wouldn't make Featured Article - but I really think it's in pretty good shape for a 'Good Article' - I think it meets all the GA criteria.

IMHO, you should leave it on the GA/N list and let another (dispassionate) reviewer decide whether to accept it or not.

SteveBaker 00:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The nominee replaced it, and it was failed by someone else within about 20 minutes. I agree it's on the way to a good article, but the nominee needs to kinda let it go just a little bit. Highway 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess if the nominee had attended to most of your concerns in a prompt manner - there isn't really a reason not to resubmit it quickly. I'd be very concerned if the article had been renominated WITHOUT taking account of your complaints - but that really wasn't the case here. Anyway - if someone else re-removed it - then at least there was a second opinion - and hopefully that person had the courtesy to explain why it needed to be re-removed on the article's Talk page so that the editors can fix up the next round of issues. SteveBaker 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, User:CorbinSimpson did it, there's a discussion on his talk page between him and the nominee. By the way, what's the lowest the nomination list has been? I had it down to 29 yesterday, and then there's about 4 more added.. so many articles.. so few hardasses :P Highway 13:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Unbureaucratic?

What happened here? Last I remember, Good Articles was a simple place to record that an article was better than average. Now, we have reviews, good articles failing to become Good Articles, processes, bureaucracy etc - in other words, it's just like FA :) Queen (band) recently failed because it was "poorly written". Bohemian Rhapsody similarly. I wish all Wikipedia articles were this "bad". Stevage 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It is still relatively unbureaucratic by WP standards! And Good Article still isn't a top-quality hallmark; it is, however, a useful sign that an article is on the right track. Interestingly the original format was exactly the same as the original Featured Articles (originally called "Brilliant Prose") mechanism! As a quality-assurance measure it has moved on to requiring a two stage nomination-review process (which was the step that FAC moved towards before it adopted its current form), but it still (a) only requires two people to go through with a promotion, (b) still only requires one person to delist a good article and (c) the criteria used for assessment have not been strengthened (though they have been clarified in some cases). The WP:WIAGA conditions are, and always have been, in some respects stronger than the featured article criteria were until relatively recently! So long as criteria exist, it is no surprise that some articles are deemed to have "failed" them. Another good thing about the new "bureaucratic" system is that it is acting as an informal peer review - WP:Peer Review has been very slow recently, with relatively little feedback coming back, and that is often unstructured ("this article is pretty good, well done" isn't terribly cuseful). The fact that a reviewer has a checklist of things to look for (e.g. are the image tags up to date?) means that the project channels specific and actionable insights from previously uninvolved editors back into articles at a rate greater than many other WP processes. I remain optimistic about the potential of this project both to identify quality content, to improve existing content (especially articles that fall just below WIAGA criteria, but also those articles that get promoted but still get actionable feedback) and to act as a motivational token of congratulations to those editors who produce quality but not necessarily featurable content. TheGrappler 18:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I was going to make the point that Queen's article had more written about it because of GA than it had in peer review! Nifboy 18:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My ears are burning! I am tough on GA candidates, yes, but Queen (band) and Bohemian Rhapsody failed on fair grounds. Queen was failed by two seperate people and Bohemian Rhapsody had 2 improper sentences in the intro! You can see all my reviews here, as you can see I'm not prejudicing against Queen. I am somewhat of a Grammar Nazi, most likely because I'm an in-training journalist, so I tend to think about grammar and word choice etc. Bohemian Rhapsody was actually one of the better articles, I could sit and read the big chunks (I can lose steam after the 5th College career of a dead baseball player at 11pm) of the article, which allowed to find more information. Well I'm sorry if everyone has a problem with my reviewing style, leave comments if you have a problem. Thanks, Highway 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Highway - I'm not criticising your reviewing style, I'm making a scapegoat out of you :) No, seriously, I think you apply the criteria fairly and justly, I just believe that the criteria are too harsh for what was a deliberately lowered standard of quality for "good articles". Certainly, there should be criteria that must be met - but these criteria should, IMHO, be generous enough to allow, say, 10% of WP articles to pass. But I am clearly outnumbered. :) Stevage 08:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It has to be said that neither Queen nor Bohemian Rhapsody are genuinely bad articles. A lot of people criticise the GA project because many of its articles are actually, in their opinion, pretty bad, but I guess these people don't spend enough time looking at stubs/cleanup/random page. In my opinion the content of WP is getting better all the time - I come across far less EB1911 text dumps now, while the standard of the featured articles has also improved incredibly since the criteria have become more rigorous to pass. It is my view that criteria actually raise standards, especially if there is an incentive to meet them (e.g. GA/FA status) and the WIAGA criteria are both pretty tough (in so far as 95% of articles don't meet them) and eminently achievable (in that every WP article could, with work, be brought up to that standard). We ought to acknowledge that most articles will never go through the FA process simply because it is so strenuous and many editors have other things to do! Therefore we need a relatively unbureaucratic alternative. I wouldn't want to see the good article noms page turn into an equivalent of featured article candidates! TheGrappler 09:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think the process is very unbureaucratic. As I read articles I find many that I think are well written, referenced, have images and are stable but are too short to be FAs, I stick them on the nomination page, and without any further input from me they either get a helpful dose of suggestions on how to improve them, or they get listed on the page. Great! The simplicity of the process doesn't mean, thought, that the criteria don't need to be met. 'Good' is not just 'better than average', but 'worthy of a place in a version 1.0 of the encyclopaedia, even if it's not among the 0.1% of article that are our very best'. I personally am quite harsh if I review GA candidates and I'm glad to see others are as well - the end result of detailed reviews is that the article ought to get better. Worldtraveller 20:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, we ought to be wary of instruction-creep, I guess. However, at the moment, the system seems to be coping with the weight of the nominations (it hasn't ballooned to a 2 month reviewing delay and a 200+ articles-to-be-reviewed list) and doing fairly well with quality assurance (those articles that have been removed from the list tend to be ones from the pre-nominations page days). Therefore, there's no real need to meddle with the system, unless we can see a very good reason to do so. TheGrappler 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Update count

Part of the approval process is listed as : Remove it from the list and update the nomination count at the beginning of the section. I removed the article from the list when I was done, but couldn't find a count. Either I missed the counter on this page in which case in needs updating (I found the one on the GA list easy enough), or the instructions need to be fixed. I would be bold, but its best if someone double checks that I wouldn't be just adding a second mistake to the first if I did get it wrong. -- Sfnhltb 01:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The nomination count is on the good articles page, and most likely the one you updated. There's one right next to the list of articles in parentheses and one at the top of the page in bold. There is none on this page. joturner 02:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sfnhltb is right to be confused - I spotted the problem a couple of days ago but forgot to change it (too busy browsing elsewhere!). I've edited the instructions now; there was a hangover from a system where there was a nominations count too.TheGrappler 03:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had a feeling that notice might have had something to do with the previous system where there was a counter on this page, but it kind of seemed like it referred to the count on the good articles page. But it's good to have a clarification. joturner 03:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This page specifically listed 3 (!) counters to be updated - nominations count on this page, section counts and the total count on WP:GA itself. I've cut out the reference to the nominations counter, so hopefully all is well now! :) TheGrappler 03:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)