Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Carter (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 1 October 2007 (→Feature good articles daily: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ArchiveThis 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:Good articles/Archive 10

Archive
Archives

See also Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates for general discussion about the GA process.

Project GA query

Some articles were rated GA by a project without going through a GA nomination. This is fine; a project rating is separate from the general GA system. Then a well-meaning editor notices the article was not listed on WP:GA, and adds it here. How do we want to handle these? Gimmetrow 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this regard, the WikiProjects should treat GA in the same manner that they treat FA – don't review by themselves and nominate the article at WP:GAC, as they would nominate it at WP:FAC. If an article is tagged with {{GA}} (or the {{ArticleHistory}} indicates it's a GA), but you cannot find any evidence of a valid review, the first thing I would do is to take a look at it, and see if it meets the GA criteria. If it does, then leave it tagged as such (you may optionally want to make a note and leave your own 'review' on the talkpage. If it doesn't meet the criteria, nominate it at WP:GA/R, and supply your reasons there. Dr. Cash 05:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I though the standard was the same for GA as A class and FA. It must be reviewed to attain those ratings. LaraLove♥ 06:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Oh, and on a side note, I don't list them at GA/R. I just change it to B. If it looks at first scan like it might pass, change to B and nominate at GAC. That's my opinion. LaraLove♥ 06:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would immedietly delist any such articles, and I believe I have on several occasions, they are very easy to spot in the log once someone actually tries putting the GA template on it. I have let a few articles "slip by" on occasion if I think they obviously meet GA standards though, no need to deny recognition to articles based solely on buearocracy.... Homestarmy 21:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, having seen some opinions, my thoughts ran closest to Homestarmy. There are projects which use "GA" as an internal rating intentionally independent of the WP:GA process. These *project* ratings should not be disturbed, in my opinion, so contrary to Lara I would not change project ratings to B. But I don't think these articles should be listed at WP:GA, either. I have left a couple in place that seemed to me clearly quality articles, but there are currently a couple on the list that are, well, not quite so clear. Some of these do not show up in the V1.0 bot logs because they *only* have project templates with a GA rating, not the general GA or AH template. Also, please be aware that in the past, the GA process did not require a review for passes, so you really should check when it first got a GA template before doing any "automatic" delistings. Gimmetrow 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems mucky and confusing to me that projects are using a rating that is more often understood as te result of wikipedia-wide assessment. Isn't enough to have stub/start/B for internal assessment of articles then go to GA and have A for better than GA?--Peter cohen 11:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. GA is associated with a process. Even if it's only on the project ratings, it gives anyone who sees it the impression that it has successfully completed that process. And we don't want people using any articles that fail to satisfy the criteria as examples of what GA is. LaraLove♥ 11:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's confusing, but it's happening. Gimmetrow 22:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there must be a task force to stop this, so I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA ratings task force. Please consider joining. Regards LaraLove♥ 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*smirks* That's a great idea. Pursey Talk | Contribs 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went to your GA ratings task force page, Lara, and it sends me to the SARCASM page -.- I agree this is quite a problem. Take a look at Talk:Ethanol for example. We gave it a GA rating but the chemistry project gave it only a B rating, also note the fact that the Nature magazine points out 5 errors found in the ethanol article so it sounds like the chemistry people gave the article an accurate rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OhanaUnited (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 2nd thought, I realized why it got a GA rating. The nominated time is December 2005, before the criteria was out so we need a complete review, rather than a quick one, on this article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Chemistry Wikiproject doesn't use the GA rating in their template. Which does raise the possibility that if the ratings in the templates are all changed, we may come across some Wikiproject that becomes unhappy with us....The way I see it, the ratings in those templates aren't very important for us, its the GA template/articlehistory event and listing on the main GA page that's important. Homestarmy 15:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A WikiProject unhappy with GA? Surely you jest! That would never happen. LaraLove♥ 15:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the "task force" would like to look at Achilles and Nazism. These are currently listed at WP:GA but the bot does not pick up a nomination or review. Gimmetrow 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of. LaraLove♥ 15:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mathematics WikiProject came up with a solution to this problem by introducing a Bplus-Class: this is for articles which the project considers to be of approximately GA quality, but which are not currently good articles. Then the GA-Class articles are those of Bplus quality which are also good articles. This could be suggested to other WikiProjects which use GA-Class for their own purposes. Geometry guy 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be horribly redundant, and sort of goes against other debates that I've seen advocating eliminating some of the V1.0 ratings, most of which advocate either elimination of A-class, or combining A-class with GA-class. If someone in WP Mathematics really thinks an article is of "approximate" GA quality, then why bother with "B+" and instead just nominate the article at WP:GAC to find out for sure? Dr. Cash 03:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Becuase WikiProject Mathematics has gotten burned badly with inline citation stuff. Hence the existence of the Scientific citation guidelines. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it right. It's going to lead to horrible confusion, especially if/when it propagates through the ratings system to other wikiprojects. "Bplus" class really, really needs to be eliminated NOW. Dr. Cash 04:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B+-Class was created as a reaction to a perceived problem with GA (the emphasis on inline citations), I'm not sure that asking to eliminate the class will be received well by the relevant projects. What can be accomplished is to find a way to merge both classes that will appeal to everyone: the science WikiProjects, and the GA projects. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the propensity of "ordinary" reviewers to review mathematics' articles is relatively low, the project can actually game the system by nominating the articles for GA and reviewing them on their own, as long as GA standards are held, i.e. the reviewer did not contribute to the article and maintains a sound amount of impartiality, and also uses WP:WIAGA, which provide for the inclusion of scientific citation guidelines. So, I don't see a problem. I have even once suggested it might make sense for GA reviewing to somehow be delegated to WikiProjects (again, making sure the standards are maintained), which could help speed up the process and also ensure the reviewer has the knowledge of subject necessary to judge against some criteria, such as completeness and reliability. PrinceGloria 05:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I'm heading to bed now, but the list comparer in WP:AWB should make it easy to find any stray "GA-Class" articles that aren't GAs. Just compare a list made from Category:GA-Class articles with a list made from WP:GA; Anything appearing in the former but not the latter should be a mistake - I think. I'll have a go at this tomorrow if you think it's useful. Walkerma 05:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I already do this with a script. That's how I find these articles, and why I asked the question. Gimmetrow 16:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that this might elicit a response! It is not just about inline citations: the perception at some technical WikiProjects is that GA inevitably emphasises form over content in technical articles. This is understandable, as most GA reviewers are generalists who are not necessarily in a position to assess whether technical content is good or the article is broad. Consequently at GAR (in particular) issues such as the lead, consistent formatting of references, prose style, frequency of inline citation etc. tend to dominate the discussion. Whether this is really an issue or not, WikiProject Mathematics has effectively given up fighting against it, and accepted it as inherent, by introducing Bplus as a minimum content requirement for GA. This also allows articles which are basically good, but don't dot every i of the criteria, to be distinguished from the poorer quality B-Class articles.
There would be great resistance (and has been in the past) to any merger of GA with A-Class, because many technical WikiProjects have set-up their own in-house A-Class review systems, which effectively ensure that the content is close to FA standard. Several people, including myself, have argued that the Stub-Start-B-A system is actually orthogonal to the GA-FA system, since the former is content driven, while the latter is largely policy and form driven, at least for technical articles. If you think about, it does make sense to separate the quality control of an article into those issues which require expert input, and those issues which require community input, even for non-technical articles.
In this case the use of a Bplus Class is very natural. Geometry guy 08:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errm, last time I checked, it is not fine for a project to assign GA status without going through GA... um the link is... Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment where it explicitly says: "...Two levels, GA and FA, are not assessments that can be assigned simply by a project member." -- Ling.Nut 08:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. It is not fine, but it happens. It would happen much less if the good article process were more separate from the WikiProject assessment scale. Geometry guy 08:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FA rating is not separate, but it is never (or almost never) assigned by individuals or wikiprojects.
  • Let's speak utterly, unbearably frankly here. The problem that has caused all the uproar regarding GA since the beginning of time... is... in a single short English word... pride. Editors' work gets rejected from FA from time to time, but they seldom mind, 'cause that just adds to the prestige of FA as "the best." When articles get rejected from GA, however, editors scream bloody murder: "Who the F*** are you to reject my article? Can't you see it's brilliant?" because GA is two levels below FA and a rejection means that an article is... less than.. average, I supose. So everyone wants to bypass the GA system 'cause they don't wanna be rejected in the attempt to achieve a "passable" rating.
  • yes the other problem(s) are:
    1. The "One reviewer = crappy system" perception.. and in a related prob
    2. The fact that the "One reviewer" may be an over-eager neophyte.
  • I didn't have any feelings about B+ until I read this thread.. I agree that it just adds confusion and will be exported to other wikipedias.. --Ling.Nut 09:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are other ways of indicating whether the content is of GA standard. Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen/Comments and Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the music/Comments contain comments by the three internal reviewers if articles rated as B. In the first, we think some substantial work on the content is still required and it is obvious the article isn't near GA, in the second there is excellent content and fixing the WIAGA requirements is what I'm emphasising. Okay other projects currently "own" more than 36 articles and won't have three people reviewing all articles, but the one reviewer can still provide guidance on whether working on content is still the main concern for a B article or whether wikifying it is. A Good GA reviewer, if one who is not a specialist, would not the existence of a comments page from previous reviews and visit that to see if contents issues have previously been noticed and whether they have been addressed.
I do want to keep A grade. {assessment 3: testing] contains a pilot assessment of Parsifal picking up some issues which FAC might not spot. Having an article at A with comments on its contents does let the generlaist reviewers know what experts think on the contents.
Ps. WP:Wagner shouldn't really be this tiny, there are plenty of performers, such as Hans Hotter, primarily known as Wagnerians and we haven't yet tagged their articles. Similarly, Some subjects will merit separate in depth articles which don't yet exist, such as List of Leitmotifs in Der Ring des Nibelungen. I expect approaching 100 articles will be the ppropriate size of the project.--Peter cohen 09:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Geometry guy puts it very elegantly using geometry (what else!), when he says that GA/FA is orthogonal to Stub/Start/B/A. Ideally the ratings schemes would have two different dimensions, but that would bring its own problems. The A-Class does at least allow us to have an article where the content is judged by experts to be complete, but the format needs a bit of cleanup - something the GA system doesn't allow (thus we can have something be A that failed GA on a technicality). I think it's fine for any project to have B+ or C or anything else they want, as long as the bot compiles it as part of the statistics. I think the Maths B+ works fine for Maths and the Mathematicians understand it, but the bot serves to ensure compliance with the Wikipedia-wide system. (Incidentally, the French Wikipedia uses the same assessment scheme with "Bon Article" for GA, and they have assessed almost 100,000 articles).
As for the perceived flaws in the GA system - I agree that these are often true, but most of the GA reviews in recent months I've seen have been excellent. Once a "tradition" of such excellent reviews has been established, the negative perception will be held by fewer people, mainly those with hurt pride. As I see it, we are getting to a position where we have subject experts analysing the content and GA experts ensuring good formatting, referencing etc. and we really need both if we are going to overcome our pride and attain the ideal of the "perfect encyclopaedia". Walkerma 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that GA is getting better all the time and negative perceptions will fade with time. The work on sweeps is very impressive and will do a lot to clarify the GA standard as one which is consistent but not unreasonably high. In reply to Peter Cohen, the Mathematics WikiProject has approximately 3000 assessed articles and was aiming for twice that (out of about 15000 articles related to mathematics). Those involved in sweeps know only too well that reviewing 3000 articles is a substantial task! So the finer graining that B+ provides is potentially very useful for identifying at a glance the articles which are close to GA. This information feeds into the commented tables and categories where articles can be found organized by subject, importance and quality. Geometry guy 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to admit, the distance between Start and GA-class is pretty broad. There are so many B-class articles out there... Wrad 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A solution to the math/technical articles problem with reviewers demanding more citation than necessary for such articles is simple. Point out the Scientific citation guideline to them and if there are further problems, drop a line on my (or another established member of WP:GA) talk page to deal with it. LaraLove 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse transparency

If wikipedia is going to have article rankings (how those are arrived at is an entirely different question), those should be easily available and transparent to the public. A reader should not have to click to the talk page to find those rankings. All rankings, from stub to FA, should be easily recognizable by a reader (currently, only stub and FA are).

If the consensus is that GAC, FAC, etc. are too contentious and are ultimately meaningless, then all ratings should be erased from articles until some sort of agreed-upon rankings system can be put in place. Awadewit | talk 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an extremely good point. LaraLove♥ 11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel something of the kind, too. I would also like to see some kind of "this article has been checked for facts and sources at a certain point in time, go here to see the reviewed version". --SidiLemine 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ArticleHistory template does have fields that will link to oldid's of pages when a certain event happens, and there do seem to be some ways to finding those oldid's automatically when events happen some time in the past... Homestarmy 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are definitely on to something. If Wikipedia is so concerned about being a serious source for reliable information (ie WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CITE, etc), then why not point out right away an article's quality? That way it makes it obvious to even the casual reader (most of whome won't go onto the article's Talk page) how close the article really is to meeting Wikipedia's self-imposed standards. Transparency, as you so elequantly point out, is key. And if people don't feel comfortable with the current rating system then let's figure something else out (though for the record I think the current system works great, and is being improved every day). Drewcifer 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction of Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions will have a big effect on this, if handled right we can introduce transparency - at least for the "[Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions|Quality Versions]]" part. Any system for transparency should be integrated with the new flagging feature. The French Wikipedia conference next month will be debating these issues of validation, please come if you speak French and you can make it. Walkerma 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obvious that ratings are an important part of not only determining quality, but improving it. It gives editors a goal to shoot for. Now, if we made the ratings more public, that would only improve the rating system, as wikipedia would need to base it on more solid requirements. Transparency seems to be the rule elsewhere on wikipedia. Why not here? We can start by putting green pluses on the upper right of all GAs... If they aren't really GAs, that would make it easier for someone to spot it and delist. Wrad 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think once we've worked through the GA Sweeps a bit we should really have a good discussion about adding the GA-Plus Icon to articles. Personally, I like the idea. Though it still seems to be be an issue some people object to. Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we do it as we do the GA sweep? If it passes the sweep, surely the symbol should be put up. Wrad 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment: for readers or editors?

There has been much discussion above about the idea of putting a GA icon (the green dot/plus, or some other symbol) on mainspace pages of good articles. I have read the arguments, but not contributed, because for me there is a more fundamental question: are article assessment processes such as WP:GA primarily information for the readership to judge article reliability, or are they primarily mechanisms for the Wikipedia community to improve article quality?

It should come as no surprise from the way I phrased the question that I believe article assessment is primarily for editors, and that I think it would be a big mistake to ape FA and put a green dot (or some other symbol) on article pages. In doing so, I seem to be in disagreement with the aspirations of many of my friends here, so I need to explain my case carefully.

Before I do so, let me get one issue discussed above out of the way: transparency. Wikipedia is pretty transparent: apart from the machinations of the cabal, anyone can check how we operate. The talk page is accessible to any reader, the talk page templates provide links to information about how we assess article quality.

If we want article assessment to provide more quality assurance than this for the reader, then we are actually asking for certification. In my view, this is impossible without stable versions of articles, because anyone can edit an article, and after the GA review (etc.) has passed by, the quality can (and often does) deteriorate. But also the reader often judges an article by different criteria than we do: they are looking for the most accurate information they can find; instead, we want the most accurate information that can be verified from reliable sources, with no original research. (This came up a couple of days ago, when Georg Cantor appeared on the main page and one reader responded thus. S/he may be right, and Cantor hid his Jewish background to get a job, but we don't have any reliable sources to back up such an argument. Nevertheless, the reader regards this as another example of the unreliability of WP.)

In my view, article assessment is primarily about providing mechanisms to help improve articles, by setting standards, providing incentives and reviews, and providing information to help editors find articles that need improvement. I think GA is an excellent example of this ethos. If we confuse this with quality assurance for the reader, the process will suffer.

One could argue that FA suffers from this confusion, and I believe it does. The justification for the FA star on the article page is pretty marginal: I accept it because it is marketing; FAs represent our best articles, the goal that most of our articles aspire to, and are the ones that can (and usually do) appear on the main page.

So let me get to the issue: why is the green dot a bad idea. Various reasons have been given:

  • GA status is conferred by a single editor rather than community consensus;
  • the standard is too low in various respects (e.g. citation);
  • it is self-reference in mainspace;
  • GA is already too much like FA;
  • GA is not, or should not be like FA.

Each of these reasons has some point to it, but also, as discussed above, they are also flawed in various ways. I guess I agree with some of them, but which ones I agree with varies from day to day.

However, for me, the main argument against the green dot on article pages is the way it distorts the process by the response it creates.

  1. I have seen many reviewers here complain (with justification) that regular editors of articles are often more interested in getting the green dot than improving the article. They argue over the criteria instead of fixing the problem. This will get worse if the dot becomes a status symbol on the article as well.
  2. The discussion of the green dot has generated all sorts of incentives above to improve the GA process. These ideas may indeed improve the process, but the motivation is wrong: the underlying current is to fix the above alleged "problems" with GA so that it becomes "acceptable" to put the green dot on the article, just like the FA star.

This is wrong! GA is about improving articles, not green dots. It is a fantastic process because it is unbureaucratic and lightweight.

  • A single editor can review and list an article!

Fantastic. Okay, sometimes an editor gets it wrong, but here is the good news:

  • A single editor can delist an article!

This to and fro actually generates consensus between different reviewers and the regular article editors, but when it leads to disagreement, there is even better news:

  • We have an excellent process at WP:GAR for resolving the issue.

There are improvements to be made, sure, and I think the sweeps idea is excellent, especially if an automated page can be used to make it a continuous process rather than a huge periodical effort. Because anyone can list or delist, this kind of informal checking by expert reviewers is free of bureaucracy. In contrast, if we wanted to use sweeps as a process for making GA appear reliable enough to merit a green dot in mainspace then we would face the issue of how to select, in a transparent way, the experts who can certify articles - a bureaucratic nightmare.

The pressure that a mainspace green dot puts on GA is already clear on this talk page. It will only get worse if such a green dot is implemented, and Wikipedia will lose many of the benefits of a valuable process. One of the reasons GA is (or has the potential to be) a better process than FA, for mass improvement of article quality, is because there isn't a shiny star on the main page of a good article. Geometry guy 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! I think you stated your contention about as well as anyone could, and you have definitely convinced at least one party that your reasoning is valid. John Carter 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The great secret of what you disagree with me on is finally revealed! I would like to reply to some of the points. First, we are no longer friends! ;) No, but seriously. The green dot proposal is one of the newer proposals. Sweeps started before that, along with many other changes, so you have the time line wrong and are confusing the ultimate goal. The goal is not to improve the project so we can have a green dot. It's to improve the project to the point that we warrant the use of the green dot. Perhaps that reads the same, but it's entirely different. The ultimate goal is to improve the project to the point that it becomes obvious to the community that GA represents quality. There is little chance (and by little I mean no) of getting the dot if we don't achieve that goal. However, getting that dot would be a milestone. The point where the community officially recognizes that GA is not what it was a year and a half ago. That it is something to be respected, something to aspire to.
And as far as editors getting all excited about the green dot on the article page as a self-reference, that doesn't make sense to me. That's not to say you're wrong, but I don't get how it's a self-reference. I have my GA and FA stats on my user page, so anyone who visits the page sees it. They know that's what I've contributed to. If we used the green dots on the article pages, a user could go to Fall Out Boy, for example, see that it's a GA, but they'd have no idea that I worked to take it there. Just the same, if they went to Parapsychology, they'd have no idea that I or any of the other many editors that contributed helped take it to FA.
Last, for my reasons of wanting the star, it's more for the project and the readers. If we could use them now (which I've accepted we can't), it would be a fantastic indicator of what articles have passed sweeps. But, past that, I want readers to instantly know, as they do with FAs, that they are reading a Good article. This would also be good for instances when more experienced editors are reading GAs; if they know that it's listed as a GA, but find upon reading it that it fails the criteria, they may be inclined to improve or delist it. However, without the green dot, if they didn't visit the talk page, they wouldn't know it was a GA and no action would be taken. I think the many advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I also think that within a few months, any arguments against it could also be applied to FA's star. LaraLove 05:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another random comment: my original purpose in designing this javascript was to allow editors to easily see, exactly as you suggest, if an article's assessment is reasonable. Anyone who thinks that visibility of assessments is important for editors and for the internal workings of wikipedia, but is not appropriate for public display, may want to try it. It adds assessment "metadata" to the article page. –Outriggr § 05:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two random comments:
  • 1) For Geometry guy: Don't make too much of the screed left at the Gregor Cantor talk page. If the information doesn't exist in reliable sources, what's the problem? The internet is full of people with agendas to push, and just because some nutjob leaves a long rant on the reliability of wikipedia because it doesn't include his/her favorite cause celebre prominantly enough doesn't mean a damn thing.
  • 2) I agree with Geometry guy 100% on this one. The only assessment that belongs on the article space is the FA star. We should only commend our best possible articles. While no article on Wikipedia is ever "finished"; FA articles are "publication quality"; they are ones that one would expect to find in a well-respected print encyclopedia. GA articles aren't there yet, and shouldn't bear any special badge until they get there. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, like Awadewit, I think that not only a green dot, but a symbol on every article stating its rating is needed on wikipedia because of transparency. A reader has a right to know how good the article she's reading is. All this stuff about motivation seems a bit silly to me. FAs have only gotten more and more professional after the star, not less. Why would GAs be any different? Editors still have to go through the process to get the plus, just as with FA. They don't like the criteria, then too bad, they don't get the plus. On the other hand, it has potential to motivate editors to improve articles, as their rating (whatever it is) is suddenly so prominent on the page. I really don't care what the motivation to improve is on wikipedia, I just care that the work gets done, and I think transparency will help that. I'm positive it will. Wrad 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to clarify a few points. First, some minor ones: by self-reference, I mean references to Wikipedia in the mainspace: the FA star is a self-reference, and so are many article page templates. The objection is that these should be discouraged, but this is not my objection, and doesn't play a significant role in my argument. Second, I agree with Jayron that the Cantor thing is not a big deal: I just gave it as an illustration of the different ways that readers view quality because they are not familiar with Wikipedia policy. I agree that most arguments against a green dot can be made about the FA star, but that is not my point either. Whether you regard the FA process as "professional" or "more concerned with minor semantics, wikifying text, and copyediting, than actual content" is a matter of opinion. It is what it is, and the FA star is part of that, for better or worse.
Now the main issues. I know that the sweeps idea precedes the green dot discussions. I hope I have been clear (in many places) that I think the sweeps are an excellent way to improve GA consistency, and that I think improving GA consistency is a worthy goal. Indeed, Lara's goal "to improve the project to the point that it becomes obvious to the community that GA represents quality" is also one which I consider extremely worthwhile.
However, for me this goal is not the same as "to improve the project to the point that we warrant the use of the green dot". I hope it is clear why: the goal of the green dot distorts the process of project improvement. The green dot puts pressure on the project to make "improvements" which it would not otherwise make, many of which may not actually be improvements. Let me be clear: my objection to the green dot is not (primarily) the five bullet points that I listed, but the fact that attempting to address some of these issues will damage the GA process. I think that the sweeps themselves are an excellent improvement, but would argue against adapting them into a certification process for the green dot. I would also argue against two-editor reviews. Ensuring that GAs represent quality is quite different from demonstrating visibly that the GA process ensures quality. The former can be achieved organically by the current system, because an article can go through multiple reviews; the latter requires more bureaucracy.
A green dot on article pages will put pressure on GA to be more like FA, to "improve" the criteria and make GA a more professional standard. I don't think that's a good thing. GA needs to be a benchmark of consistent quality, sure, but a standard within reach for most editors and articles, not unreasonably high. That's why the criteria focus on the most important quality issues, and the process is lightweight. It would be sad to lose that.
As for transparency, I am not against it, but I think article certification for readers is completely different from article assessment for editors, which is more about improving quality than assuring it. A green dot confuses these roles. Geometry guy 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, needless to say, I completely disagree. I don't see how a green dot will encourage change in criteria. FA has the star, we'd have the button, that doesn't mean we have to further evolve into what FA is. I think it would be completely stupid to attempt to be more like FA. There are already editors who think this project should be deleted. Being like FA would be a good reason. No point in two of the same project.
That aside, I also disagree with your comments on two reviewers. Perhaps I'm reading that incorrectly, but it appears that you're saying it would be two reviewers for show and that it is unnecessary because we currently have it within the project for articles to be reviewed by multiple reviewers by sending the article through GA/R. Two reviewers most certainly would not be for show. I didn't propose that idea to shut people up. The point was to improve the quality of reviews. Having done the quality reviews of over 200 articles in the last backlog elimination drive, it became clear to me that some reviewers aren't picking up everything they should. Having two people do the reviews would undoubtedly improve that. It was also proposed as optional. A program that reviewers could participate in should they feel so inclined.
To address your last statement, I, well, disagree. It's use would be as an identifier for readers. For editors, it would ensure quality by encouraging improvement and maintenance. LaraLove 12:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the FA people trying to discredit GA by preventing GA having a green dot on article mainspace. I'm going to use someone's example as I read before. Why is there silver and bronze medal in sports events? Because they can encourage those to get the gold medal! Now put it back into Wikipedia and you'll see GA is like a silver medal and FA is a gold medal. When an editor gets an article to GA, it more or less prompts this user to go a mile furthur to make it to FA. Without that, there're less incentives for people to make FA. I would also like to remind you that time has changed. GA has changed a lot since its proposal. We no longer hand out GAs because those articles will never make it to FA. Geometry guy, some of your concerns such as "no community consensus" is somewhat correct, that's why we're proposing to change that (see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#One reviewer or two?]] OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you just made my point for me. You misread my argument. I am not an FA person. I am a supporter of GA, not FA. I am trying to explain why it is not in the interests of GA to ape FA by putting a green dot on the article page. I think the GA process is great, and I am not concerned about the fact that it does not apparently involve "community consensus". (In fact it does involve community consensus in the same way that editing an article does: anyone can list or delist, just as anyone can edit; consensus thus emerges, rather than being written into the rules.) I am concerned about the fact that proposals to change GA to meet such fake objections will damage everything that is good about GA. But I have made my case, and I will not make it again. Geometry guy 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I'll go on record again as being against the green dot at this time, simply because so many folks are against it, making it a huge distraction from far more important work. And for the record (one more time), I am pro-GA and have not yet spent much time in FA-related forums. Sorry I can't particpate much in this one either right now; maybe in a few weeks. later! -- Ling.Nut 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeing with OhanaUnited on this one. Check out the Manchester article, I recently passed this, and they've immediately begun working hard towards FA Status. Pursey Talk | Contribs 06:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too am starting to get annoyed at how increadibly long and involved a fight over a small green dot is getting. I almost hope that anyone thinking of MfDing GA actually tries to use "There's no stamp of recognition in the top-right corner, and therefore, the community doesn't respect GA" as an argument, it would be so ludicrous, there'd be no trouble at all in ripping it to pieces, and GA would be quite safe from such a sorry deletion attempt. I also think there's way too much reading into what a GA dot would mean to a reader or editor here, there's many ways someone could interpret the green dot, and I don't think many of those ways would hold ramifications as extreme as instantly causing the community to recognize GA as a brilliant system or cause a reader to instantly agree that an article is good. (Especially if they aren't familiar with what marks on the top right of a page mean, which I think is extremely likely) I'd sort of hope a reader would think an article to be Good after reading it and coming to that conclusion because of its high quality, not because there's a green circle in one corner. Homestarmy 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If rating display is going to be public, there's not much efficiency in having a script making a behind-the-scenes http request to the talk page template info to get its information. It returns us to the issue of just putting the rating on the article page, I think! I had hoped that the people who care (regulars, reviewers) would just install something like my script so that they'd have the info they need, without affecting the "public" display of the page. What I didn't realize is that you don't often find in the same user one who cares about implementing article assessment systems and engages in article content development—the latter being very important, in my mind, to engender more appreciation for content creation among "reviewers". (A disconnect that is, incidentally, having significant ramifications on retaining good article writers, but if I go any further I'm rambling. :) Anyway, the older script I made is "read-only". I could bring it back to life/alter it, if we need read-only. –Outriggr § 08:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Take it to WP:GAR. Geometry guy 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I've got a good dialogue going there now. Seems to be sorting out. Wrad 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feature good articles daily

Just idea I had. Since a Featured article is placed on the main page daily maybe we could do something simaler for GA. Not quite sure where they would be featured because obviously they can't on the main since GA are not offical. Buc 12:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea in theory, but I'm not sure how to go about it. The main page looks pretty full as it is, so adding this there would mean that we'd probably have to take something away. Plus, we really don't want GA to simply be another FA. To me, it seems like FA is the place to go if you think your article is good enough to be featured on the main page, and want it there. GA is the place to go to get good, quality feedback on your article, and you think the article meets reasonably good standards that it can serve a useful, encyclopedic purpose.
For some articles, GA is a useful stepping stone on the road to FA. But that's not always the case. There's quite a few GAs out there that I highly doubt will ever be FA (most notably, Criticism of Wal-Mart). But an article doesn't really have to be featured to be actually useful to the reader,...
It would be nice if GA got a little more recognition on the main page, though. Maybe in the "Today's featured article" block, we could have a little link. Like, after the link to "more featured articles", it could have "Good articles" next to it? Or maybe have the total number of FAs listed, as well as the total number of GAs, similar to the way the total number of articles is displayed prominently on the page? Dr. Cash 19:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this were to happen, WP:GA is the best we'd be able to do. We'll never get on the main page. I doubt we'll ever even get a link. If this is something that gains consensus, we'll need people to maintain it. We'd have to figure out a non-bureaucratic process for choosing which get featured. There would be a lot to it. I think we've got too much going on as it is. Considering the constant backlog at GAC, I think we should stick to the main issues for now. Keep that as a possibility for later. Lara❤Love 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how it would help wikipedia as a whole to do this, either. Wrad 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One option would be to do what some other portals do and just have them on random rotation. That way there would be no "decision-making" involved. And I do think a box, maybe a bit smaller than the DYK box, could probably be added somehow. It might involved creating DYK-ish "hooks" for some of the articles, but it could I think fairly easily be done. John Carter 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles&oldid=161640450"