Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ghosts&empties (talk | contribs) at 09:01, 8 August 2006 (→Limit of long articles (20kB, 25kB or 32kB)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Articles dealing with fiction

A quick look at several listed articles whose titles mean nothing to me shows that they're about this or that in some "fictional universe" or whatever. I may have overlooked something, but they don't seem to observe this part of WIaGA. I can't pretend that I have any interest in articles about Star Wars, Star Trek, Dragonball, etc etc etc etc etc, but I'm willing to look through the occasional one to see if significance outside the "fictional universe" [is] established and discussed and to check that The focus of the article should remain on discussing the subject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, not on establishing it as a "real" topic in a fictional universe (quotes from WIaGA). If I do this, and if I see that no, the focus of the particular article does not remain on discussing the sunbject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, may/should I fail it? Or do we only pay lip-service to this requirement for a good article? -- Hoary 14:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, im pretty sure its required, I think there's some stipulation in the rules (WP:FICTION or something) that all articles about fictional subjects have to be written from the context of our universe or something like that. Homestarmy 19:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it continues

People are still merrily adding nominations that to my mind don't even make a token attempt to meet this criterion. The polite thing to do would be to ignore this failure and call these articles good on the strength of their undeniable earnestness, which would lead to the bizarre result that a large percentage of the "good articles" on culture, etc., would be fancruft unlikely to be of any interest outside those (passionate) fanbases. Other solutions include deleting this criterion for "good articles", which would be tantamount to saying that this or that "fictional universe" (most of which aren't of much interest other than to young anglophone males) is of equal significance to the very real universe: odd in something purporting to be an encyclopedia. Yet another possibility is to put all these applications "on hold" for not meeting the criterion, but this would imply that they're easily salvageable, whereas they aren't; rather, their very existence often seems to represent a rejection of the criterion. -- Hoary 08:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline to point people to is WP:WAF, aka, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). It's an essay style guideline with some clear examples, and good tips for writing about fiction using an 'out of universe' perspective. Being serious about this guideline is a new thing around here, so a lot of people may be caught by surprise, but it's an important guideline for an encyclopedia. Many fan-sites and fan-wikis recommend an 'in universe' perspective, so people have a hard time getting out of that mindset here on Wikipedia.Phidauex 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody please look at this?

Strawberry Panic! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article was passed within minutes of listing by somebody who had the article watchlisted. I don't think I would have promoted it, for the reasons stated on the talk page. I'm not sure, however, if my objections are sufficient to delist it. Perhaps I'm being too critical? :) Therefore, I'd like a 3rd opinion: if 3rd opinion is to pass, fine, if fail, we'll have to delist. --kingboyk 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to it's original position currently at the end of the nomination group list. I noticed your left a message on the talk page, I added further suggestions, the list is currently about 14days behind nomination so the editors should have plenty of time to address the concerns. Gnangarra 14:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict; I was about to say:] See the article (if you can stomach all that saccharine), my question immediately above Kingboyk's, Homestarmy's answer to that, and the note in the article: Most of the information presented in this article comes from the anime that was subtitled from [sic] the subbing group Doremi Fansubs. -- Hoary 14:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Failed it, for many a thing. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layout change

First of all, where are the Long articles ... they take longer to assess so they need to be in another category. Secondly, the Nomination categories doesn't even fit with the new layout. Thirdly, there are so many overlap between the sections that there is no point in having any sections so that people will be messed up and place their article in whatever section they like or in the miscellanious section thus the reviewer will have to move it back in the right section. It would be nice, having considered my opinion, to bring the old style back and maybe discuss to get a consensus for the move pertaining to the sectionning of GAN. Lincher 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the sectioning, I can go straight to the subject I like to read about and find potential candidates. I think it brings new people to the idea, they can find new articles easily, and it's generally less work on the brain. Personally, I think Long articles should either be merged into the other categories, placed at the bottom of the page or moved somewhere else. It's just annoying. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 14:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally fond of the current layout, with long articles integrated into the main categories, but labeled as long. However, the category choice that places past US Presidents in the same category as video games is a little odd... As a preference, I tend to avoid articles about works of fiction or video games (I'd rather be playing them than editing an article about them), and the current category boundaries make it hard for people to find the type of article they want to edit, whether they have a preference for, or against, fiction articles. Phidauex 18:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was the one that tagged the articles long, and I wasn't quite sure where to list biographies. I think presidents are under video games because they both have a connection to culture. If you think they should go in People, then that's up to you. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to be helpful, I've created a 'Media and the arts' section for films, literature, games, and people associated with those things. Hopefully this will be a little more clear... I've also repaired the list of Nomination Categories in the header of the page, per Lincher's suggestion. Phidauex 19:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Phidaeux! Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for all the hassle, I looks much better this way. There are no duplicates and now we know where to place entertainment stuff. Thanks to all of those who have taken part in giving this a new look (if I may say). Lincher 01:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think long articles need to be listed separately. They take longer to review, and in my opinion should be discouraged anyway, because they push GA more towards being merely a lesser FA than a list of excellent content which is unlikely to become featured - the stated aim of the process. Having a separate nomination page for them could be an alternative, if people don't like a long articles section on this one. Worldtraveller 13:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons I outlined a week ago, and in the absence of objections, I've restored a separate section for long articles. They really would be better off at FAC anyway - the similarity of our criteria should mean they would have a good chance of FA if they have been approved here. Worldtraveller 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done - I like it better this way. I meant to reply previously but it fell off my radar. Now that they're at the bottom (they were at the top before) some of them may not get any attention for quite a long time... but maybe that's a good thing? I think we need to include some language on the nomnation page that long articles need to go to the last section, and that we encourage long articles to skip the GA process and be edited with FA in mind. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help thinking if they're at the top it makes it look like long articles are our main interest so I'd prefer to keep them at the bottom. I'll add something at the top about where to put long articles. I'll also change the length recommendation to 20kb - there are very few FAs shorter than that, but there's no reason why articles longer than that shouldn't go to FA. The less overlap between FA and GA the better. Worldtraveller 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well articles over 20 Kb are very often that long not because of merit, but because text may just be a random jumble of OR or nonsense, or they simply do not meet FA standards for many reasons, I don't think its a very reliable way to separate the good from the bad in any sort of average. Homestarmy 05:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination categories

I’d like to suggest more categories for nominations. Here’s one possible set-up.

  1. Arts (includes film, literature, music, television, and visual arts)
  2. Everyday life (includes education, family, food, games, and sports)
  3. Geography
  4. History
  5. Math
  6. Natural sciences (includes medicine and nature)
  7. Philosophy and religion
  8. Social sciences (includes communication, economics, and government)
  9. Technology (includes computing and transportation) Maurreen 16:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At present we have -
  • Culture and humanities
  • Geography and history
  • Media and the arts
  • Natural, physical and applied sciences
  • Social sciences and society
  • Miscellaneous nominations
  • "Media and the arts" covers "Arts (includes film, literature, music, television, and visual arts)"
  • "Social sciences and society" covers "Everyday life (includes education, family, food, games, and sports)"
  • "Geography and History" cover Geography and History
  • "Natural, physical and applied sciences " covers "Natural sciences (includes medicine and nature)" and "Math"
  • ""Culture and humanities " Philosophy and religion"
  • I think we could split Social Sciences to go into Everyday Life and Technology
It kinda covers everything already. Highway Batman! 16:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does, however the breakout is confusing. For instance: Social sciences and society (economy, education, family, food, law, politics, sports, war) - articles on sport are mixed up with warfare, etc., which as an historian looking for articles I can competently review makes it a little frustrating as I have to click on each link to see what it is. How about making them the same as the divisions on Wikipedia:Good Articles? That way it's also easier for people who passed to directly add the article into the same category there. Also makes it easier for Wiki projects to find articles in their purview, etc. plange 14:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support this idea. <small></small> tags should compensate for the long list of categories (in the instructions box) that would result.  -- Run!  14:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do we go about getting votes on this? plange 02:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I'm going to stick a big red notice on the page informing people of the importance of proper edit summaries, because nearly everyone is ignoring the protocol and it's really annoying. If anyone thinks it's overkill, feel free to remove it, but something needs to be done.  -- Run!  14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with the big red sign... it makes it clear and thus people not conforming to the present status shouldn't be reviewing articles in the first place. Lincher 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pass" instructions

I've seen people reviewing articles now who don't even bother to say a word on the talk page, not even a "This is a good article" five word sentence, and it occurs to me the pass instructions don't actually say anything about explaining yourself when you promote article. Can we have another step there that reads "Explain your decision on the article talk page" or something like that? Because when I see articles like Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg that have been passed with no explanation whatsoever, I begin to be concerned that the system really is turning into just a pat on the back -___- Homestarmy 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you want them to say? "This article meets the good article criteria"? I thought that was rather implied by its being passed. Seems a bit pointless to start a whole new section on a talk page just for that.  -- Run!  21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's just without an explanation, it seems like there's no way to figure out if someone has actually reviwed the article, or whether their just randomly stamping something. Plus, then there's no help for the article, it's just a badge and nothing more if nobody even comments about their review. Homestarmy 23:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - having a section would make it easier for anyone to drop a message and contest the review there and then, if they feel like objecting.  -- Run!  23:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing of it is, I had always thought the GA instructions already said to write something on your review because most people did that and i've been doing it for a long time, I thought it was odd that it doesn't show up now :/. Homestarmy 00:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are a review process after all, I have added a line on that in the Pass instruction section ... please review and rewrite to your liking. Lincher 01:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than just "this is passed", I'd be more interested in seeing suggestions for further improvement. How can the article be made even better, and maybe even work toward FA status? Slambo (Speak) 17:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For examples of that, take a look at Talk:Seinfeld#GA failed which clearly gives insight not only for GA status but FA too and Talk:Spanish_conquest_of_Mexico#GA_on_hold which placed the article on hold and further reviewed the article toward progression of it. We pretty much have to become a system like Peer Review for the articles that will not stagnate at the GA level. Lincher 18:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

Featured Articles and Good Articles are both Wikipedia processes to recognize quality articles. I created a proposal for greater co-ordination and integration between the two processes, so that both processes will be more successful in their aim of recognizing quality articles. Please read and participate in the discussion on the village pump. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20 kB too small?

I don't know, just look at the long articles list. 66 right now, there are around three additions a day, and the top of the list has remained the same for three days. Can we discuss a bigger size so the long articles list gets less weight? --Enano275 17:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've personally never liked the idea that small is generally a good idea for articles on almost every subject, I think 25 Kb would be a more fair size. Homestarmy 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and WP:SIZE states that articles that remain too long under 20 kB should be merged with other articles.--Enano275 21:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned statement is not to be found on the WP:SIZE page. articles that are short can exist because not enough can be found about the subject. Actually, coming from the EB1911, there are very few articles that are over 32kB, so if we have to merge all these articles ... it would be of no use as they are stand-alone articles that can't be merged with higher articles.
Back to the subject, it is OK to have a category with long articles because they take longer to assess and we, in fact, hope at the GA project that these articles will be sent to the FA process because they can reach this status more easily than the GA one. Just to brief you on the GA project, please note that we are a side project for FA which promotes normally smaller articles in order to have a better overall quantity of good articles. Lincher 18:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the long articles category should be merged with all the others, my idea is that the 20 kB limit is revised, maybe increase it to 25 for example.--Enano275 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose that we use 32kb as the cutoff. That makes it really easy to determine whether the article is "long" or not. Just do an "edit page" and Wikipedia will tell you if the article is bigger than 32kb. --Richard 02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that idea about increasing it to 32kb. 20 kb seems too short. Monkey Brain(talk) 04:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think long articles should have a seperate category. All articles, regardless of length, should be categorized according to topic. A better idea would be to keep long articles in their respective categories but to mark them as long. In addition, although not many articles are over 20kb, most Wikipedia articles are not of stellar quality either.

I don't agree that Good Articles caters mostly to short articles, as a considerable percentage of Good Articles are very long. The three articles I nominated that were promoted - Chelsea F.C., Criticism of Microsoft and Gmail - were well over 32kb. I think long good articles should be considered "potential featured articles". Due to the stringent Featured Article standards, I don't see how "these articles will be sent to the FA process because they can reach this status more easily than the GA one". The Featured Article criteria is more specific while the Good Article criteria is more general; articles which are good generally, and meet the Good Article criteria but are not Featured Article quality due to specific issues should be nominated to Good Article, and when it becomes a good article, more will work on making it featured.

In addition, Good Articles also caters to articles which are unlikely to ever become featured. A possible reason, is, as stated, that they aren't long enough, possibly because there is insufficient coverage on the article's topic for the article to become long. In addition, sub-articles are very unlikely to become featured. For example, Mozilla Firefox is featured, but History of Mozilla Firefox is unlikely to ever become featured, as a sub-article. Microsoft is a featured article, but Criticism of Microsoft is unlikely to ever become featured because it's a sub-article, more so, a POV fork. Such articles, however, can become good articles - I nominated Criticism of Microsoft and it was promoted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that listing them separately has had the unintentional effect of them being ignored since they aren't in the category with the regular ones. People look at the categories and then ignore the long article list on the bottom, not only because they take more work, but they are thrown down there like pariahs. I also support leaving them in the normal categories but flagging them as first, it shows what category they are in which is helpful to people with particualr areas of expertise, and second, it makes them harder to just ignore. Separating them out has done nothing to get them reviewed, in fact it has hurt the review time for them. pschemp | talk 12:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that many nominators ignore the long category and just place long articles in the short articles lists.--Enano275 18:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Just leave articles, long or not, in their respective categories, but mark them as long. It would make life easier for both nominators and reviewers. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with both your comments in stating that there is not a real need for a section loaded with long articles (I also don't bother about the what size is the fixed limit for a long article). Altough since they are longer, they will take longer to review and they will clog the other sections and the reviewers will not be inclined to review if the system is packed with long articles.
I don't understand what was meant by A possible reason, is, as stated, that they aren't long enough, possibly because there is insufficient coverage on the article's topic for the article to become long because if you take a look at the first articles that have been added from the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 edition, they are short and probably will never grow because the sources used are so old and so inaccessible that the articles will stay short. Another example of that are the Greeks that are notable because they wrote some paper somewhere but nothing is known about their life so these articles will also stay short.
The reasons given for the GA process to stay focused on short articles are that : 1) they will probably never reach FA status, 2) long articles will one day meet FA status but we gotta give good reviews for that (because the nominators send articles here for reviews also). Lincher 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles may have topics that lack external coverage. For example, there is plenty of external coverage (i.e. sources) for Microsoft. However, Google Groups (an article I wrote which recently failed GA) does not enjoy such coverage, and therefore the article is likely to remain short. A new user recently posted on Requests for feedback requesting feedback on the article Soft focus. The article meets most of the Good Article criteria: it is well written and formatted, referenced, and makes good use of images. I suggested the newcomer expand the article and nominate it for Good Article, and received a response that there was not much more to write about on the topic Soft focus. Aren't such articles what the Good Articles process caters to?
Also, do you agree that subarticles, such as Criticism of Microsoft, History of Mozilla Firefox and RuneScape skills will probably never be featured? However, I don't agree that Good Articles does not cater to long articles. Some long articles meet the Good Article criteria but need more extensive work on specific issues before becoming featured. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Straw poll about length & inclusion

Limit of long articles (20kB, 25kB or 32kB)

  1. 32kB. Lincher 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 32kB. Monkey Brain(talk) 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 25kB. Even though many FA are way above 32kB, some articles have been recognized as featured below 32kB. --Enano275 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 32kB. Keep it easy to check - will improve compliance. Phidauex 05:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Phidauex, but I'm confused. How can you vote to change the limit of the long articles section and vote to abolish the long articles section at the same time? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's away on a minivacation, so, without claiming to speak for him, I'll say that I'd guess he's talking of the definition of "long" however the "long" distinction might be used. And if long articles are put together with short ones, they can still be marked as long (if people so wish). -- Hoary 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 25kb. Highway Return to Oz... 14:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 32kB This is an online encyclopaedia so let's be geeky; seriously, though, the long articles list is just too long at the moment; it takes too much time for reviews to be carried out - we need to shorten it, and this is an effective mechanism. SP-KP 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since no consensus has been reached for the length, I have currently placed it at 32kB but the poll is still on to figure out : which is better, 25kB or 32kB? Lincher 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 25kB. Anything to encourage shorter featured articles would be good.Ghosts&empties 09:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Include long articles in appropriate sections (not in separate section)

  1. For. Lincher 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For. (This implies that they will still be marked as "long", yes?) jwandersTalk 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It implies they will be marked as long. See Example. Lincher 14:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For Articles should be sorted by category, regardless of size. I don't agree that Good Articles caters only, even mainly, to short articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Per my first comment (long articles receiving less attention in the current situation). --Enano275 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Phidauex 05:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per J.L.W.S. The Special One, with the extra note that I'm in favor of concision, or anyway a high signal/noise ratio (no trivia, regardless of the way the trivia is packaged). -- Hoary 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Highway Return to Oz... 14:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support (and comments re: limit apply whichever option is chosen re: sections) SP-KP 14:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support becasue this just makes so much sense. pschemp | talk 04:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • After the changes have been done (it was tedious and a real hassle) the date ordering was lost ... I may change it in the future.
  • It would be nice that instead of having 4 tilde (Lincher 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)) for the signature there will be 5 tilde (18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)) thus removing peoples funny and fancy signature that is really annoying when I peruse through the list of nominations. Lincher 18:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?

Why is this page located at Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations? It seems to me that it would make much more sense to have it at Wikipedia:Good article candidates (or Wikipedia:Good article nominations) to keep it consistent with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Shall we move it? Coffee 16:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any obvious reason, except for maybe that this page is managed by a WikiProject, and normally WikiProjects create subpages for things rather than completely new pages. Consistency is good, though. I support the notion. :) --Aguerriero (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to me too, I don't see any reason to oppose, considering that the current subpage would just remain as a redirect. --Enano275 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there's a redirect, no problem with the aforementioned change. Lincher 12:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd be fine with that. --jwandersTalk 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support ;) --Pedro 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in, the current name is kinda annoying.-Dark Kubrick 23:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support: consistency is good. --CTSWyneken(talk) 02:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since it seems to be uncontroversial, I'll go ahead and move the page. Coffee 04:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagorno-Karabakh War

Apologies. In the edit summary a yesterday, I put Nagorno-Karabakh War as failed when it had in fact passed. Just a note to understand. Iolakana|T 11:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make up your minds

Why on earth can't we settle on what to do with long articles and LEAVE THINGS THAT WAY? This is at least the second major reshuffle in a month. Let's have a vote and settle it once and for all for crying out loud. I prefer them in separate sections, but for now I just settle for things being stable. Rlevse 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop complaining and take part in discussions before shouting like you just did. Just scroll up that page to see that there was a discussion and I guess a consensus on the fact that they should not be set apart. If you don't like it then answer to the poll or else you will miss a good opportunity to voice your opinion. Lincher 20:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll complain all I want. A whole 3 days of discussion and window of opportunity to chime in. Wow. Why bother now, you've already changed it back. And BTW you've still got long article listed as a nom category.Rlevse 23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the nom category listing of long articles. If everybody adds their vote, the decision can be overturned ... the poll hasn't ended. It won't bother me to do the whole thing again if it clearly doesn't show people's decision. Plus make sure you make your voice heard for the limit to be set for the length of long articles.
Just for your infomation, GA is still in its BETA version if I may say. The criteria are still changing, the layout isn't set and we still gotta do a lot before we figure out how good the articles have to be. Please consider helping in the bettering of the GA process as it will be easier if we all lend a hand. Lincher 12:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a wiki and things are expected to evolve. Maurreen 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention that this issue has been discussed for months, no just three days, but its scattered all over the place. pschemp | talk 04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encourage nominees to review an article

Brief thought: why don't we add a bit at the end of the nomination proceedure encouraging (note: not requiring) nominees to pick a different article from the list to review themselves. This would,

  1. help avoid backlog
  2. help nominees get a better idea of what their reviewer will be looking for, and
  3. ahh.. make the world a better place for everyone(?... sorry... I really thought I'd have three points...)

WP:MEDCAB does something similar. Thoughts? --jwandersTalk 03:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea. In fact I did that myself when I nominated my first two in the spirit of not asking others to do something I'm not willing to do myself :-) plange 03:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that the idea isn't well meaning, but wee need to keep an eye on instruction creep. Davodd 06:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Some people seem to just skim the instructions and end up doing something wrong (hence the need for the increasingly-big red box, which some people still ignore). They're more likely to read them if they're short and concise, and that means keeping only the very necessary instructions rather than the optional ones. Even step 1 for nominators doesn't really need to be there. Not only is it rare that anyone will nominate an article that is already good, but such articles will get weeded out of the nominations list extremely quickly. Every bit of space saved helps.  -- Run!  08:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good points; I took a crack at streamlining the nomintion instructions (and implemented my encouragement proposal) in a draft version here. Please take a look and let me know what you think. --jwandersTalk 09:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The left bit looks far better. I've made lots of changes to the right bit (on your experiment page) to whittle that side down too.  -- Run!  10:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we request for a 5 tilde signature that removes the excess fancy bit that comes with personnalized signature? Everything else sounds good to me. Lincher 16:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been bold in changing some of the text and removing non-necessary procedures that can be done by reviewers. Like placing the name as Lastname, Firstname|Firstname Lastname as it can be changed by people perusing the GA list. Lincher 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that bright, flashy sigs can be distracting, but wonder if we wouldn't be losing something in not easily being able to see who made each nomination? --jwandersTalk 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
then we could use the Template:User which looks like that {{user|Lincher}} -> Lincher (talk · contribs)? Lincher 01:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Meanwhile, is there any opposition to the proposed replacement? I think it's ready.  -- Run!  14:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

Jwanders added a TOC but I think it's a bit confusing. Half of it links to stuff above the TOC, and clicking on a TOC link doesn't exactly take you to any of them without a bit of confusion. The only thing that a TOC really needs is the nominations categories, and these are already listed in the instructions box.  -- Run!  08:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I conveniently demostrated your point about users not reading everything, and completely missed that the relevent section links were already there ;-) I've removed it.
Of course, I suspect one of the reasons I missed them is because I was expecting the more standard TOC box, so we might think about changing the formatting at some point. Kind of trivial, though, compared to actually reviewing articles. --jwandersTalk 09:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 1.0 Project banners

I've noticed that with articles that have WP 1.0 assessments in project banners that when a reviewer passes GA they may or may not update the project tags accordingly. When Raul passes FACs he does update those banners now. Perhaps an extra sentence in the passing procedure is needed on the lines of: "If an article has an Wikipedia 1.0 assessment change the class= parameter to class=GA in addition to adding {{GA}}." When a B, Start, Stub or Unassessed class article passes a GAN it should also be promoted to GA-class, so Mathbot can pick it up in its runs. It might also be an idea (though this is more contentious) to drop an A-class assessed article to B-class if it fails at GAN, and add instructions to that effect. That is because GA-class is between A and B, if it cannot pass a GAN it shouldn't be A-class IMO.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems very instruction creepy, something we're currently trying to improve even in the current instruction set (see section "Encouraging..." above). To me, this seems like it won't come up often enough to warrant inclusion in the instructions here. --jwandersTalk 14:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thats true and pointless creep is bad. I think if the regular reviewers of are aware of the tags and know their purpose that would save a bit of time. Its not a serious problem if its not done, just means a wikiproject editor would follow up with a edit to adjust things. Those tags seem to be getting more common as more projects start using it though.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do adjust the banners to GA if I pass an article but dropping from A to B is very difficult as GA isnt a requirement for A class and therefore failing GA it can still be an A-class article. If the article does have serious faults then I leave a note at the project page explain my reasons, some do then adjust it back to B class, I've even suggested B class back to start class one article. Gnangarra 00:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stability, vandalism and Edit wars

When we're evaluating the stability of an article, do we discount vandalism, esp. if it is promptly reversed? This is my operating assumption. Before I act on it, I thought I'd see if I'm on the same page with you all. (I'm a newbie here, after all, please don't bite! 8-) )--CTSWyneken(talk) 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We had a bit of a fight over it on the disputes page, but yes, stability now only refers to content disputes spilling over into edit wars or high amounts of content being changed for some reason, vandalism isn't included. Homestarmy 00:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 0 for 3; it's that typical?

I've reviewed three article here so far (History of Money, American and British English spelling differences and Solar System) and ended up failing them all. Is that typical of other reviewer's experience, or am I perhaps being too harsh? --jwandersTalk 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your reviews all seemed agreeable, the only thing I noticed was that on History of Money you said it failed the "references" criteria because of a lack of inline citations, rather than a lack of references in general :/. Homestarmy 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also think your reviews are pretty good. I also would have failed History of Money and American and British English spelling differences. I probably would have also failed Solar System but I didn't look at the article that closely. Though a lower standard than featured articles, the good article standard is still pretty high. Cedars 00:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination categories (2)

Further up the talk page someone suggested that the nominations categories should be the same as the Good Article categories, as this would help people specialise when reviewing and it would also make it very simple to promote an article to the GA list. Before we move to vote... what do people think? (i reposted this because there didn't seem to be any interest or no-one was watching that particular section)  -- Run!  07:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested having more categories, but I don't think we need as many as the Good Article categories.
The current categories and the number of number of nominees are:
Culture and humanities -- 8
Geography and history -- 43
Media and the arts -- 32
Natural, physical and applied sciences -- 30
Social sciences and society -- 41
Miscellaneous nominations
Option A
  1. Arts (includes film, literature, music, television, and visual arts)
  2. Everyday life (includes education, family, food, games, and sports)
  3. Geography
  4. History
  5. Math
  6. Natural sciences (includes medicine and nature)
  7. Philosophy and religion
  8. Social sciences (includes communication, economics, and government)
  9. Technology (includes computing and transportation)
  10. Miscellaneous
Option B – Separate:
  1. Geography and
  2. History.
Option C – Separate:
  1. Social sciences (economy, law, politics, war)|
  2. Society (education, family, food, sports)|
Option D – Do both B and C.
Maurreen 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support, in order of preference: A, D, C, B plange 18:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so far, I have split geography and history. More later. Maurreen 21:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, as long as we KISS to add articles and to figure out which category it should be in. Lincher 02:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Good Article Nominee

Do you think my article Basketball (ball) Good article criteria. --Showmanship is the key 15:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you'll have to wait for someone to review it. From a glance I can see that the article doesn't not conform to the Manual of Style, so you might want to take a look at that.  -- Run!  20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom for Cyclone Tracy

Cyclone Tracy was stripped of FA status yesterday (see the FAR commentary) and I submitted it to GA to see if in its current state it met WIAGA. It has already been promoted and I feel a bit dissatisfied with how it has been handled. At the time it was the last entry in the geography list and it was promoted by an anon whose only edits were those needed to pass the article (incidentally it is in the wrong place on the GA list). I was hoping that it would get some constructive feedback which would help with improving it further.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try requestiong a Peer Review. I would have thought that you'd get feedback for why it was delisted as an FA anyway. In any case, you should take this conversation to the Disputes page (this page concerns the project rather than the articles flowing through it)  -- Run!  13:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thats true, but then I feel it is GA so why else would I nominate it? The main reason I brought it up here as opposed to as a disputed GA is that this is more a question about the procedure than the actual status of the article in question. It just feels to me that the article got short-circuited through, as opposed to being properly GA reviewed in the first place. I wonder if allowing that sort of thing to happen actually devalues GA as a whole slightly?--Nilfanion (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a very suspicious nomination, if leaving comments was mandatory instead of optional, this sort of thing could be avoided :/. Homestarmy 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I'm highly suspicious that it was passed by an anonymous user. And I agree with the implication that anonymous users shouldn't really be allowed to get involved in reviewing, as it's so hard to keep track of them. I shall renominate it. But still, I think Peer Review is the best place to go for FA feedback.  -- Run!  14:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there. The thinking in the tropical cyclone project was it is clearly not FA, but is it at least a GA? When we get it back up to getting close to a fresh FAC it will be PRed again.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Monitoring

I've been wondering about this since I first found the good article project, and after been involved with it over the past week, have decided to bring it up here. I'm concerned that as good article's are only reviewed by one user and thus good article status is highly dependant on that one user, that there will end up being a large variation in quality between one "good article" and another. If the low end of this variation dips too far, the value of being promoted as a GA will obviously become diluted.

The problem is that (as far as I know) we have no formal process for monitoring how bad the worst articles passing GA are. For all we know, there could be sock puppets nominating articles so their actual users can log in and pass them. Without some sort of quality monitoring on the process, we could end up discovering that the GA badge has become all but worthless.

I expect this point was brought up and discussed ad nauseum as the GA process was being set up; I did browse through some of the talk page archives around the project, but didn't see it. If it has and someone could point me to it, I'd be more than happy to read through the previous discussion instead of forcing it to be rehashed here ;-) --jwandersTalk 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sort of quality monitoring going on: anyone can delist a GA as easily as they can list one. It's by no means perfect, but requiring second opinions would slow the project down to a crawl.  -- Run!  21:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is some related discussion in the main GA page archives, especially under "quality levels". Maurreen 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, try to re-assess the articles and give another review if it's been a long time on the GA list. Or, let the writers know that some part doesn't meet the criteria anymore. May this process continue to be reviewed and continue to have sucess. Lincher 02:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me as if the links within the categories (i.e. the links that say "your addition here") should be edited to point to "Good article candidates" rather than "Good articles". The redirection gives an odd outcome -- an edit comes up, but saving it shows you the redirect page. I don't quite see what's going on there, but presumably changing the links would fix it. I'm posting a note here simply because I'm not certain I really understand what's going on; if someone can enlighten me that would be fine. If nobody responds in a day or two I'll probably just go ahead and try to fix it myself. Mike Christie 03:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went and fixed them, or at least I hope I did. [1], [2], and [3], for each of the GA templates. Iolakana|T 11:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"LONG"

When people add this to the side of the article, is there any point in doing so? Is it not just easier to move the article to the #Long articles section? Iolakana|T 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: Just read more closely! Iolakana|T 14:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Pass" critera

I move to make writing a section on the article detailing the review mandatory instead of optional, it doesn't have to be anything fancy or drawn out, but i've seen too many articles passed with no comment at all to tell anyone whether or not the article is, in fact, representative of a good article. Homestarmy 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems logical to me. Although I probably go overboard the other way..... --4u1e 22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is a necessity for it. Lincher 23:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, presumably it wouldn't be passing if the person passing it didn't think it met all the criteria, so just stating it met it is somehow helpful? If you're wanting feedback on how to improve it for FA then Peer Review is the more proper channel for that. plange 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very encouraging to hear a positive evaluation of the work done. I do that all the time with my review of speech pieces I judge first rank. --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, positive feedback is always nice, but I thought this was supposed to be an alternative process which was low on beauracracy? Perhaps one where silly little things where missing ISBNs weren't a huge deal? watching this page, you guys are requiring more and more of potential reviewers, and you wonder why there's such a backlog. And then people who read the articles can't even tell what they're supposed to be about. Decide what your purpose is, describe it faithfully on the page, and then do it. Don't claim to be something you're not, and don't allow instruction and work creep simply to make people feel good, if it defeats the purpose of the process. 02:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, a long time ago, we were obligated to actually write up our review. I'm not thinking of anything crazy like "Write a five paragraph essay explaining how it meets the criteria" or something like that, even one sentence would work maybe in some cases. It's just when people pass articles and leave no comment, I think it looks plain suspicious, and it's difficult to tell whether something has been passed in good faith or not or passed according to the criteria. Also, if somebody can't tell what an article is about, that's probably either too much jargon, or it strays from the subject, failing GA status :). Homestarmy 02:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be, when passing or failing an article, to leave a note on the article's talk page, which would explain which of the good article criteria it meets, or doesn't meet.

Recently, a relative newcomer posted a request for feedback on his new article, Basketball (ball). I told him that the article was excellent, but pointed a couple of problems that needed to be adddresses. He then fixed some problems and posted on my talk page asking me whether the article met the Good Article criteria.

Please read the reply I left on my talk page - it's an example of the type of note I'm talking about.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do that if it fails or if I put it on hold. I list exactly which things made me put it on hold or made it fail. For me to pass an article straight off (without being put on hold first) is very rare for me. In fact it hasn't happened yet, but if and when that day happens, I think it rather silly for me to have to go back to the criteria and cut and paste the criteria (and so showing that it met them) so that I can verify for someone else that I did my job properly? Is there a particular incident that has made you bring this up Homestarmy? Perhaps that should be addressed rather than requiring a bureaucratic encumbrance to this process. Maybe you can be sort of in a police role and look at the articles that do get passed without being put on hold, etc and see if it meets your criteria, and if not, withdraw the GA and state why. plange 03:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with plange. If there is someone abusing the system and passing articles that don't meet the criteria, then how will this stop them? They will simply add a comment, as is being proposed. Furthermore this will reduce the suspicion because people will see the comment and immediately think "This article is definitely good, no need to check it", thinking that it is some sort of official seal of genuinity. It actually defeats the idea of the proposal in the first place.  -- Run!  08:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instruction set revision

The instruction set revision's up! (To any that weren't aware of it, it was discussed and refined in the "Encourage..." section above; feel free to bring up any concerns regarding the new version here!) --jwandersTalk 06:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate length

The Good Article process underemphasizes an important aspect of the Featured Article criteria: length defined as "staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." The Good Article page mentions "proper length", but making articles the appropriate length is very important for improving wikipedia's usability. The appropriate length for a given topic is based on what the length and level of detail the reader wants in the editor's judgement. Some of the articles being nominated are obsessively long, which doesn't lead to a good encyclopedia. Editing for length (even if it means deleting less important content) is an important part of good writing, especially for an encyclopedia. Reducing length is not that difficult and does not require much specialized knowledge. We should probably be putting more nominations On Hold while they are trimmed down.Ghosts&empties 07:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=68366734"