Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:20, 6 May 2008

This page, a part of the Good article talk page collection, is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to go retrieve it.

Current Archive location: Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?/Archive 3

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by .

Good and featured articles named opposite of each other

This page in a nutshell: One or the other; not one and the other.

I think this is awkward, but the article "WP:What is a featured article?" redirects to "WP:Featured article criteria", but "WP:Good article criteria" redirects to "WP:What is a good article?". Could we please just choose one, stick with it and move the pages accordingly? I believe both pages should be named "WP:Good article criteria" and "WP:Featured article criteria". — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been raised before. No one objected to such a page move, but nothing happened! This time, I'll move the page unless anyone objects. Geometry guy 10:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Geometry guy 13:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 08:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

There seems to be some issues relating to the interpretation of the stability clause of WIAGA. Specifically, this GAR discussion: [1] seems to show that there are differing opinions on what makes an article stable. Perhaps we need to assess where consensus lies on this. I have outlined some of what I perceive as the major interpretations below. Perhaps we can come to a consensus on one of these. Feel free to make any comments on these or propose your own interpretations as you see fit. Also, these views are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason to NOT support multiple interpretations. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation 1

Stability means that an article shows no potential for change or growth. Any article where new information may be added in the future is potentially unstable, and thus unfit for GA status under the stability guidelines.

Support

Oppose

This interpretation seems far too restrictive. All wikipedia articles are expected to evolve, and this interpretation seems to stifle change. We want good articles to continue to change. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, all articles should have potential for improvement. Epbr123 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well duh. Was this question rhetorical? VanTucky ^talk 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not a good idea. Wrad (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope no one has this interpretation; not even FA status requires cessation of change. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Few articles are entombed in amber. Majoreditor (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per VanTucky :-) Geometry guy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this would be a bad move. No article would qualify. - Shudde ^talk 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation 2

Stability means that an article is unlikely to show major changes in the near future. While no one can predict future developements, if new information is likely to arise in the near future (say next 2-3 months) then it cannot be stable.

Support

Believe it or not, I think I'm closer to this view (even though it was written by someone who opposes it). It depends what you mean by "major changes", of course. I don't think "new information is likely to arise" is a sufficient disqualifier, but "the article is going to have to be mostly or completely rewritten" should be a disqualifier. For a specific example of that, imagine trying to nominate United States presidential election, 2008 for Good article any time before 2009! That article clearly isn't stable, in the sense that even if there aren't any debates about it, its most important parts will have to be completely rewritten as the next year progresses. Marking it as any kind of quality is futile, as it will clearly be completely different in a few months. This is opposed to an article about a lower tier presidential candidate, the article about whom probably won't be affected that much. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer this to Interpretation 3, per AnonEMouse. Although, it's often hard to judge what is meant by "major changes". Epbr123 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support but not the 2-3 months bit. Exact time is artificial and nonsensical. But articles need to be stable in terms of major revisions so a review can be conducted. If an article is inevitably going to be altered beyond recognition during a review or hold period (no counting requested changes of course), then there is no point in reviewing. VanTucky ^talk 01:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with phrasing change to "if new information is reasonably expected to arise" (not that this is going to be written into policy). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support. I think there is a case to be made that GA is inappropriate for articles where the most significant or important content has not yet been written. Geometry guy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Support. If it is established that the article is going to be "remodeled," we should hold off on granting GA status until the major editing is done. I don't think this should ever be used to delist an article though; as long as its quality continues to be high it should stay GA. I have a feeling that this isn't why this "interpretation" was created though. My comments here are more related to going about the nomination/confirmation process sensibly rather than the criterion of whether an article is of "good" quality. Dwr12 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

This is only slightly less restrictive than #1, and there is no reason to assume that an article will become unstable if new information is added. There is no reason to think that achieving GA status is the closing of an article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article assessment should be based solely on the article's merit, not its subject matter. --maclean 04:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's too restrictive. Plus, we should not be in the crystal ball business. Majoreditor (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my partial support, I largely oppose this version. I actually beleive there may be a consensus here for something inbetween interpretations 2 and 3. I like Jayron's idea that this should be viewed as a broadness issue as much as a stability issue: I think that provides a better focus. It also ties in with Wasted Time R's distinction between the articles about a current event, and articles which may be affected by a current event. And, not surprisingly, I share Majoreditor's point of view that the crystal ball business should have no part in GA. If editors imagine an article may become unstable, it can be delisted when it does become unstable, not before. Exceptions to this need to be carefully thought through, and I think they should be limited to the kind of articles mentioned by Wasted Time R. Geometry guy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Oppose. Not sure whether to side with G-Guy or G-Guy; hm. I agree largely with what the supporters said, but if we're considering, say, a November US Senate race, I think you could write a Good Article in September. In fact, people tend to be most excited about the races while they're going on; if you tell them "no soup for you, come back in November", at least half and maybe all of them might lose interest by then. But I wouldn't want to review an article on, say, the US Cabinet in December, when it's going to change completely by the end of January. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation 3

Stability means only that the article is free from edit warring, and is not the subject of a content dispute.

Support

The information in an article is covered by the "broadness" criterion, not stability. If an article is up to date, and relatively complete, then broadness is met, even if the article shows potential to change in the future. Stability should ONLY apply to a situation where two or more editors disagree in good faith over the content of an article (vandalism and obvious POV pushing exempted). There is no reason to assume that new additions to an article, once time passes and new information comes to light, will NOT be up to GA standards. If they are not, the article can be delisted or brought up to GAR, but as long as editors agree on the content of an article, it is stable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree here. If an article is missing a broadness aspect that is present in comparable articles and that the missing information is known to be occurring in a near-term future event, that's failing "broadness", not being unstable. --MASEM 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional agree. In addition to edit wars and content disputes, there may be articles which should be excluded due to instability, such as a recently-released movie where editors are still crafting the article. Majoreditor (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agree, although I think a good case has been made that some articles have an intrinsic stability/broadness issues, which should exclude them temporarily (i.e., within a definite time-frame) from GA. Geometry guy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an appropriate and succinct interpretation of stability for a good article; it definitely removes the part of the standard redundant with "broadness". I've always disagreed with the current stability practice, but was not motivated to change it when we were doing the condensing of the criteria last year. After all, it encourages users to stop improving an article for some time. Appropriate wording would be "It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of ongoing edit wars, content disputes, or current events." — Deckill er 02:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Interpretation 4

If an article is the subject of a currently unfolding event, then it is unstable. Events expected or predicted to occur have no bearing on the current stability of a GA candidate, and are not a quick-fail criteria.

Support

This has always been my interpretation of the stability clause. VanTucky 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the phrase "is the subject of" is ambiguous. It could mean that the subject of the article is a currently unfolding event, or it could mean that the article may be affected by a currently unfolding event. In the former case, I tentatively support, in the latter case I oppose. As I say below, I believe there is consensus here for an "Interpretation 2.5", which is roughly inbetween interpretations 2 and 3, with editors differing slightly on where they stand inbetween these two interpretations. I must say, I have found this discussion very productive, and have noticed many editors (including myself) moving from their initial positions in the light of good argument and commentary. Geometry guy 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what if it said "the article is about a currently unfolding event", possibly with some kind of qualifier like "exclusively" or "primarily"? VanTucky 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That second sentence is a bit dodgy, but I always though this was what it mean't (as well no edit warring). How can an article written now on the 2008 Beijing Olympics possibly be stable, even if there are not edit wars? - Shudde ^talk 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

If the article IS the unfolding event, then yes. For example, the 2007-08 NBA season would be ineligible for GA status, but not because it is unstable, it fails broadness. The full season is not complete, so it is impossible for the article to be complete. On the contrary, the National Basketball Association, which is the SUBJECT of an unfolding event (its current season is incomplete, and thus, is an unfolding event), could be a GA and reasonably meet both the broadness and stability requirements.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, same question as I pose to Geometry Guy above. If it's changed to specify that the article is the unfolding event, then can we add it? I think that's a fair compromise. VanTucky 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Wrad (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would add it under the broadness (not stability) criteria. Again, for me stability means that the article is alternating between competing versions. An article which is specifically about an unfolding event is not necessarily unstable, just incomplete. For me, putting this under stability stretches the definition of "stability". As a broadness issue, it is a clear thing: The event is incomplete, so the article is incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding it to the regular criteria isn't what I'm going for. The point is to add it to the quick fails, so you can quick fail an article that is incomplete, unstable, whatever you want to call it, because it's about an unfolding event. VanTucky 04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jayron. Wrad (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Sounds good to me. I would avoid conflating it with stability, but if you were to say something like "Articles specifically about an unfolding event may be quick-failed until the event itself is complete. Articles about participants in or other articles related to unfolding events, but not about the events themselves, should undergo a more thorough review." How does that sound? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great to me, thanks Jayron VanTucky 05:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think it is quite important to have a discussion section for this debate, so I've added one. My own view is that it is sometimes helpful to exclude articles from GA because they are inherently unstable, but this needs to be done with care, and we need to be clear why we are doing it. The obvious example is films which have not yet been released. The point about such articles is that the majority of the content of the article has not yet been written, so it is a bit pointless to judge whether it is a GA or not. This discussion was sparked by presidential candidates. In that case, if the candidate has a well-developed article, and the presidential issue is being absorbed into the article as current events unfold, then I see no objection to listing the article as GA. On the other hand, there is a case to made for likely candidates without well-developed articles that the article will change substantially. My own view, expressed by my joke Good articles precrime department, is that we should judge articles how they are, not by how we think they will change. However, I acknowledge that in some cases it makes sense to exclude articles from GA if there is likely to be a substantial change or addition to their content in the immediate future. Geometry guy 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WIAGA states a stable article “does not change significantly from day to day”; perhaps we should more precisely define “change”. There seems to be an important distinction between adding content and altering existing content. Although perhaps not the case in every instance, it seems that adding content is healthy growth to be expected, and encouraged. The criterion, after all, is broadness, not comprehensiveness; an article can be broad, yet still lack content. Altering content, however, is more troublesome, as it’s indicative that the content has not reached the maturity needed to satisfy the stability requirement. I’m of the opinion, therefore, that the stability criterion kicks in only in the latter case - the broadness criterion, obviously, being applicable in the former. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rationale behind the 'stability' criteria is to not allow the article improvement/validation process to be used as 'dispute resolution'. GA/FA should not be used to give someone an advantage by validating their preferred version (while in conflict with another version). Its not for vandalism (easily reverted) or articles subject to change (see comprehensiveness), but for prevention of gaming-the-system to validate one (contested) version. --maclean —Preceding comment was added at 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article meets the criteria, besides the ambiguous stability bit, why not just pass it? I thought that was the whole reason it was so easy to delist the article if it went wrong, anyway. Precrime indeed! Wrad (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would exclude from GA consideration (especially in proposal 3) articles about an ongoing fixed-length processes that haven't concluded. For example, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Magic Tour (Bruce Springsteen), and Dundee United F.C. season 2007-08 cannot be GA until the campaign/tour/season they describe has finished. By contrast, main articles about (unfinished and sure to have future developments) lives or histories, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bruce Springsteen, and Dundee United F.C. all can be GA (and, in fact, currently are). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is reasonable to expect that an article on an ongoing event with a definite "end time" wait for GA status until the end time has reached. The problem is with articles on subjects with indefinite or ill-defined "end times" such as BLPs. For example, I think that an article on John Smith, who is say a U.S. Congressman, should not be considered unstable if he is currently running for congress. He's ALWAYS going to be up for re-election in the future, and it seems unreasonable that we sumarily delist every article on every politician when them come up for re-election. It presupposes that the new information that will be added will cause the article to fail GA. It is equally likely that whoever worked on the article to get it to GA will be sure that the new info added will also be at GA standards. We should fail articles when they become bad, not when we ASSUME they will become bad in the future. If the article is up-to-date and current, and is on a subject of ill-defined or indefinite time period, then I see no reason to fail on stability grounds. If we failed every article likely to change in the future, then NO living person biography could EVER be a GA under those standards. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, Jayron. Majoreditor (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Me too. Geometry guy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've all completely missed the point of my rationale for quick-failing Mike Gravel and its implications for the criteria. This only about quick-failing articles that are reasonably expected to change significantly in the immediate future, not the indefinite future. Saying articles must never change in the future to qualify for GA is not just stupid, it's in contradiction with the whole idea of Wikipedia as a constantly updatable encyclopedia. But articles up for GA must be stable enough for a review to take place. When it's a ongoing election or music tour, then it's not. There is a completely reasonable expectation that the content not only will change, but must as events unfold. This rationale doesn't apply to the indefinite future of say, a living person. The future events in the life of a person do not impede a GA review. VanTucky 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think other editors have missed your point. If an article is unstable from day-to-day, then it cannot be reviewed meaningfully. The guidelines already state that. There is no point in reviewing an article which will change significantly over the week or two in which a review takes place. However, that is different from predicting an article is about to become unstable without evidence. If the article is about a well-established individual rather than an unfolding current event, then most of its content is stable. This is the point where there seems to be some consensus, and I think it is a reasonable consensus. Geometry guy 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When the article is already the subject of a currently unfolding event, such as an election, then it doesn't matter if other parts of the article are stable. It's about the part that isn't. There's no gray area here, an article either is or is not the subject of a current event. If it is then it should be failed until that event is over. VanTucky 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I partly agree, but I place the emphasis is on the word "subject". In this case the article may be affected by a current event, as all articles can be, but the subject of the article is not an evolving event, it is a biography of a person. Geometry guy 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a further point of information, not only is Hillary Rodham Clinton is a GA, but Barack Obama is an FA. Geometry guy 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misunderstand at all. The article is not titled "Mike Gravel's 2008 Presidential campaign" which WOULD be inherently unstable. Its is titled "Mike Gravel" and THAT is the major difference. The level of new information likely for a politician running for office is akin to an Athlete competing during the season; and yet it is unreasonable to quickfail all articles on athletes currently competing under the guise of "He's got more games to play very soon, and the article will likely change, so it is unstable". If it is not significantly changing, it is not unstable. If it may change, wait to see what the changes are. A lot of really good changes does not make an article unstable. It makes it still a really good article. All change is not instability, and potential change is not always instability. In a few cases it may be, but in most cases its called "reality". --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. An article should not be shut out of GA status consideration unless it has or should have a "current" tag on top of it. Wrad (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential resolution of issue

Per discussion with VanTucky above, the quickfail criteria has been changed to indicate that articles specifically about incomplete events may be quickfailed. Articles about subjects related to incomplete events (such as participants) should be given their due full review, and not assumed to be either instable or non-broad for that specific reason. Given that change, is there still a need to consider changes to the stability and/or broadness criteria at WIAGA, or is the matter closed? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with it as it stands. VanTucky 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we've reached a nice consensus. I'd like to add a phrase such as "with a definite time-frame" somewhere, because there are articles about incomplete events which will never be complete, but should still be eligible for GA. To give a slightly silly example: Evolution is ongoing! Geometry guy 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well???? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the new criterion to match the style of the existing criteria and added the time frame condition. While we're working on QFC, would anyone care to address this? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with the consensus that has been reached here, but I'm not sure where it's been implemented. Can we have a link to a diff of the change in the criteria? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go (it's been reworded slightly since this edit). It's the entirety of the fifth WP:QFC. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of criteria

Criteria 1b reads, "[the article] complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." This sounds like it does not include the Manual of Style main page, but only the six subpages listed. Is this intentional or should 1b be worded slightly differently? --jwanders^Talk 07:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not sure; I believe consensus was to only include those six. — Deckill er 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone see the practical difference between 2a and 2b? 2b specifically requires inline citations, while 2a says articles must be referenced per WP:CITE. These are equivalent, as near as I can tell; can we get rid of one? --jwanders^Talk 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stability revision

Per a discussion at WP:GAC, I've revised the stability clause to:

It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

Is this acceptable? VanTucky 00:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I agree. I would even go so far as to add an AfD debate. On FA, a couple of articles were under going AfD at the exact same time as FAC. The article were kept and became FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, looks good. EyeSerene^talk 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, though I would immediately fail any article on both GAC and AFD as that indicates it is part of a content dispute, unless the AFD is unquestionably frivolous and disruptive. (I immediately delisted the Denial of Soviet Occupation article, because of the OR, NPOV, and AFD tags). Will ^(talk) 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA symbol on article page

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images

I have noticed a number of articles being submitted to FA that fail our non-free image policies. Obviously, the majority of these articles have passed GA. Whilst images are briefly discussed in the GAC, there is no requirement for the article's images to pass WP:NFCC (which, let's face it, is policy) - there is only a requirement for them to have fair use rationales. This means that articles which actually fail a major Foundation policy are being promoted to GA, which is plainly wrong. I suggest an alteration to wording of;

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images. In this respect:

(a) any fair-use images used comply with Wikipedia's fair-use policy WP:NFCC;

(b) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(c) the images ~~are appropriate to the topic, and~~ have suitable captions.

This should be a non-controversial change. Black Kite 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it obvious that all of these articles have passed GA? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll rephrase that :) The vast majority have, though. Black Kite 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of it, except the first part of (c). Appropriateness to the topic is an extremely subjective matter, and if something obviously does not fit, it's mere common sense to object to it. But codifying topical appropriateness in to the criteria not only opens the door for some unnecessary battles with nominators, but adds to the complexity of the criteria unduly. People already have a hard enough time understanding that having images at all isn't a failing criterion, let's not add more to worsen the matter. I think changing (c) to just say: "the images have suitable captions" is better. Other than that, I absolutely agree with you. Just like checking the history, looking over every image description page is one of those easy to overlook practices that needs to be done every time you review an article. VanTucky 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's redundant - if the images aren't appropriate, they fail WP:NFCC anyway. I have refactored (c) to reflect this. Black Kite 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the current criteria have:

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.^[4] In this respect:

(a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[5]

Two separate changes are being proposed here, an addition to (a) by Black Kite, and a removal from (b) by VanTucky. The argument for the addition to (a) is that WP:NFCC is policy and so must be followed. However, policy and guidelines exist to reflect consensus, not to determine it. This is something which has not been taken on board at WP:NFCC, which is subject to dispute and disagreement as to precisely how restrictive Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines should be.

I believe it is entirely adequate and appropriate for the good article criteria to refer to WP:Non-free content and WP:Non-free use rationale guideline, which reflect both the policy and the consensus application of it.

Concerning the removal from (b), I would first note that it has nothing to do with (a) or WP:NFCC since it refers to the appropriateness of the image for the article, whether or not the image is free. The argument for removing it appears to rest on a misunderstanding that this is an addition: in fact it has been in the criteria for some time.

The current criteria cleanly separate the copyright issue from the issue of appropriateness of image for article. See, for example, bikini, which probably has both free inappropriate images, and non-free appropriate images.

I therefore don't support either of these changes. Geometry guy 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which fail a core Wikimedia Foundation policy should never be promoted to a status which suggests they are amongst the best articles the encyclopedia has. (I am aware this is happening already, but it shouldn't be). Images which fail WP:NFCC can be removed at any time from an article, which obviously suggests that the article is unstable and shouldn't pass GAC anyway (criteria 5).Black Kite 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GAs are not intended to be "the best articles the encyclopedia has"; they are intended to pass a basic standard of good quality indicated by these criteria. Also, please don't invoke one GA criterion to interpret another. Instability is a very specific issue.

Emphasising again "core Wikimedia Foundation policy" does not help to endear me to your cause. I suppose that you are referring to Pillar Three. WP:NFCC is an interpretation of Pillar Three; but, being an interpretation, it is only core Wikimedia foundation policy to the extent that it is supported by consensus. I am actually a strong supporter of a robust non-free content policy, but declaring it is the GA regime by dictat is not the way to garner support for it. Instead you need to convince editors on the ground and build consensus for it. Geometry guy 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said "amongst the best", not "the best". The reason that non-free policy is core can be seen far more easily than looking in WP:5P; one only needs to look in the top left-hand corner of every Wikipedia page, under the globe. Every article should pass WP:NFCC, not just Good or Featured ones. Thus I cannot see why there can be an objection to making sure that GA reviewers are aware of our copyright policies. Black Kite 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is rhetoric again. The current guidelines already make GA reviewers aware of copyright issues and images are frequently challenged by reviewers. The guidelines may not have been as clear in the past, and GA reviews have variable quality by the nature of the process. That does not mean the guidelines have to be changed again. Geometry guy 11:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no requirement for images to pass our copyright policies in the criteria, just a requirement that they are tagged correctly. This is clearly not the same thing, and the number of articles arriving at FAC, having passed through GAC without this being checked, is proof of this. Black Kite 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is such a requirement: "fair use rationales [must be] provided for non-free content"; it is not possible to provide a fair use rationale per WP:FUG if the the image doesn't meet WP:NFC. Your final comment defies logic: the same argument would prove that WP:V is not a GA requirement because many GAs arrive at FAC with unreliable sources. Geometry guy 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of fair-use rationales is a red herring, though. A non-free image can have a completely correct rationale with regards to NFC, but still fail multiple parts of NFCC if it is not being used appropriately. Black Kite 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal and the resulting discussion is a very good example of why I decided to leave the GA project. I never saw it as some kind of filter for FA. I simply, and now I see naively, believed that it was an effort to improve the overall quality of the encyclopedia. So what that article can sometimes get to FAC without fair-use rationales? That's a matter for the FA review to address. So long as the perception of GA as FA-lite persists it is a waste of time IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus and others: It's impossible not to feel for hard-working editors who go to some trouble to prepare images for their articles. However, WP's core policy on non-free content is just too important not to take a central role in strategically including or excluding NFC. It behoves all of us to read the WP:NFC policy, including the basic rationale, which goes beyond the legal requirements of most jurisdictions, with good reason. Please support Black Kite, who is very skilled in advising and monitoring in this policy area, and has the project's interests at heart. TONY (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I am rather pissed off at being singled out in these disagreements. Especially given the implication that anyone who dares to disagree with the great and the good does not have the project's best interests at heart. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Black Kite has the project's best interests at heart and see that he/she has been helping out at FAC. However, I don't buy argument from authority. For instance, I discovered recently that one of FAC's image gurus had misunderstood a basic principle of international copyright law. Quality of argument is what matters and being very active is not the same as being very skilled.

GA takes non-free content issues seriously, and the guidelines reflect that: for instance, Tony, they already link to WP:NFC. Image use is frequently challenged by GA reviewers and is checked routinely at GAR. The current wording could be tweaked (e.g., I'd agree to adding the word "valid" before "fair use rationale" in case that is not obvious from the wikilink), but adding redundant information and linking to a disputed checklist will not improve it. Geometry guy 11:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point, though - it's clearly not checked routinely. Linking to NFC is fine, but that's only the image guidelines - the non-free policy is not referenced at all. As an example, a couple of recently listed GA articles that fail NFCC - Reservoir Dogs (decorative album cover), Martha Logan (3rd image clearly adds nothing to understanding and is not discussed in text, and a solid argument could be made that the 2nd one doesn't either). I think it's unfair to editors that they can bring articles to GA, but when they come to FA their images are removed - they could quite reasonably say "why wasn't I told this at GA?" Black Kite 11:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 2nd image does not fail NFCC Criterion 8. That image shows the character's opening scene, which was widely discussed in the media, that image is a screenshot from the scene. I'd gladly provide a quote from the New York Times. Additionally, I'd note NFCC Criterion 8 is under dispute as a policy, therefore applying it is, disputed. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, from the New York Times, though reading the article would show this content anyway

“

Jean Smart's first on-screen appearance as Martha Logan, perhaps the most memorable character debut in "24" history, consists of her looking into a mirror, assessing her make-up and proclaiming, "I look like a wedding cake" just before dunking her face in the bathroom sink.

”

Satisfied with image 2 now? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, I'm indenting to clarify the thread: if you object, please undo my reformatting of your replies. Anyway, these comments illustrate the disputed and subjective nature of the WP:NFCC checklist, especially criterion 8. It would also be possible to argue that there is enough critical commentary on the Reservoir Dogs soundtrack to justify the album cover image. It isn't the job of GA to take sides in the non-free content debate, but to reflect consensus.

It wouldn't be possible to argue that, because the amount of critical commentary about the album cover is precisely nil. Certain points of NFCC might be arguable in some cases, but certainly not in this one. Black Kite 14:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting interpretation: regarding when covers are permitted, WP:NFC says "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Notice that it says "Cover art from various items"; here the item is clearly the album. Then notice that it says "critical commentary of that item", not "critical commentary of the cover art". There is a spectrum of views on non-free content, and many would consider it appropriate e.g. in articles on albums to use the album cover under fair use. Geometry guy 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, I did not say that reviewers check image use routinely: this is by nature variable and unreliable; GAR refers to WP:Good article reassessment. I should have Wikilinked, since you can't be expected to know about GA processes. However, you ought to know the structure of the non-free content guidelines: "Linking to NFC is fine, but that's only the image guidelines" ?! WP:NFC includes WP:NFCC as its first section! Geometry guy 13:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC is technically a guideline. It does, however, contain a transclusion of WP:NFCC, which is policy, in order to make NFC clearer (because people were assuming that NFC, not NFCC, was the "official word" on non-free images). The problem with linking to NFC is that the first thing people see is "guideline", not "policy", which is why it is best to link straight through to NFCC. Incidentally, I looked through the GAR archives and the very first "Keep" that I found fails NFCC (Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Final Fantasy Mystic Quest/1). The images weren't even mentioned. I don't wish to appear overly critical, but do you see now why I suggested the change to the criteria? Black Kite 15:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, that's rather unfair; it's not a question of disagreeing with "the great and the good" (who are they? certainly not me!), it's a question of making sure that our policies are consistent across the article process. As I said above, it would be much easier for editors to approach the rather daunting FAC process if they didn't have to cope with numerous objections to their images; far better to get this basic tenet of policy sorted out at GA. Black Kite 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony and others should stop trying to make GAN an inferior cousin of the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. Since we are reviewing the criteria regarding images, could the criteria be more explicit in stating that images should never be required for an article to become a GA? This would make things easier for the anti-fair use brigade (who will have less work to do when article writers choose not to include images in GANs) and those whom they frustrate (like me; finding a free image of, for example, a Singaporean actress is difficult, if not impossible). As for the issue at hand, I agree that articles which contain blatant copyright infringements should not attain GA status and do not mind "valid" being added before "fair use rationale". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good point, actually, as I suspect that sometimes images are shoehorned into articles purely because of that criteria, and of course in some articles it is difficult to find free ones, so non-free ones are used which then fail our non-free policies. Black Kite 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of writing and an absense of reading going on in this thread! Which part of "It is illustrated, where possible, by images... The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles." states that images are required for GAs? Geometry guy 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with the "where possible", the criteria still suggests that images are a plus point for an aspiring GA. Anyway, this is off the point; which is that it is only images which are fair use violations that need to be dissuaded. Black Kite 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be as obvious as you think to non-native speakers of English. I only understood the footnote after reading it thrice. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if the "not" was italicized? Geometry guy 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 207: / Line 207: @@
 :::::::Steve, I'm indenting to clarify the thread: if you object, please undo my reformatting of your replies. Anyway, these comments illustrate the disputed and subjective nature of the [[WP:NFCC]] checklist, especially criterion 8. It would also be possible to argue that there is enough critical commentary on the Reservoir Dogs soundtrack to justify the album cover image. It isn't the job of GA to take sides in the non-free content debate, but to reflect consensus.
 :::::::: It wouldn't be possible to argue that, because the amount of critical commentary <i>about the album cover</i> is precisely nil. Certain points of NFCC might be arguable in some cases, but certainly not in this one. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<font color="black">Black Kite</font>]]</b> 14:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
+::::::::: Interesting interpretation: regarding when covers are permitted, [[WP:NFC]] says "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Notice that it says "Cover art from various items"; here the item is clearly the album. Then notice that it says "critical commentary of that item", not "critical commentary of the cover art". There is a spectrum of views on non-free content, and many would consider it appropriate e.g. in articles on albums to use the album cover under fair use. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 :::::::Black Kite, I did not say that reviewers check image use routinely: this is by nature variable and unreliable; GAR refers to [[WP:Good article reassessment]]. I should have Wikilinked, since you can't be expected to know about GA processes. However, you ought to know the structure of the non-free content guidelines: "Linking to NFC is fine, but that's only the image guidelines" ?! [[WP:NFC]] includes [[WP:NFCC]] as its first section! ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 13:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 :::::::: WP:NFC is technically a guideline. It does, however, contain a transclusion of WP:NFCC, which is policy, in order to make NFC clearer (because people were assuming that NFC, not NFCC, was the "official word" on non-free images). The problem with linking to NFC is that the first thing people see is "guideline", not "policy", which is why it is best to link straight through to NFCC. Incidentally, I looked through the GAR archives and the very first "Keep" that I found fails NFCC ([[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Final Fantasy Mystic Quest/1]]).  The images weren't even mentioned.  I don't wish to appear overly critical, but do you see now why I suggested the change to the criteria? <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<font color="black">Black Kite</font>]]</b> 15:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 217: / Line 218: @@
 **: Even with the "where possible", the criteria still suggests that images are a plus point for an aspiring GA.  Anyway, this is off the point; which is that it is only images which are fair use violations that need to be dissuaded. <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<font color="black">Black Kite</font>]]</b> 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 ::::It may not be as obvious as you think to non-native speakers of English. I only understood the footnote after reading it thrice. --[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] ([[User talk:Hildanknight|talk]]) 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
+:::::Would it help if the "not" was italicized? ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)