User:Thatoneweirdwikier/Essays/Why good articles are brilliant

Introduction

The Good Article logo, used near the top-right area of articles with that have been promoted to the status

I have been fascinated by good articles ever since I joined Wikipedia. I thought it was such an intricate process, from reviewing to nominating to (if necessary) reassessing. And as many Wikipedians know, when an article is passed, a little green plus sign (like the one pictured) is placed at the top right corner of the article. I think that this symbol (and the whole process of good articles) is not only a way to show the quality of a given article, but also a nod of approval to those who do not use Wikipedia with an account. But first, let's just remind ourselves of what we're talking about.

What is a good article?

An example of a GA Review: there are comments on all applicable areas

For those who aren't familiar, a good article (GA) is, according to its Wikipedia page, "an article that meets a core set of editorial standards but is not featured article quality." It also says that "Good articles meet the good article criteria, passing through the good article nomination process (GAN) successfully." This process involves the checking of the 6 good article criteria:

1. Well written
   • a. the prose is clear and concise and grammar is correct;
   • b. it follows the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable
   • a. there is a list of references, presented in compliance with the appropriate style guidelines;
   • b. all inline citations are from reliable sources;
   • c. there is no original research;
   • d. there is no copyright violation.
3. Broad in coverage
   • a. it covers the main aspects of the topic;
   • b. it remains focused on the topic.
4. Neutral - it keeps both viewpoints fair and unbiased.
5. Stable - it is not constantly changing due to edit warring.
6. Illustrated by media:
   • a. media are tagged under fair use;
   • b. media are relevant to the topic.

Once the reviewer has decided (after improvements to the article have been made) that the article is worthy of the status, the article is promoted. Otherwise, it is not listed, and no symbol is displayed.

Similarly, there are also good article reassessments (GARs). It is, primarily, a process to determine whether an article "still merits its good article status according to the good article criteria, and to delist it if not." If it is decided (again, after improvement to an article), then the status is kept. Otherwise, the article is delisted, and the good article logo is removed.

Taking it further (Featured articles)

Once an article has received good article status, its editors can choose to take it to become one of many featured articles (FAs), which are "considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors." Once improvements are made (upon the four criteria, which I will not mention), editors vote as to whether they Support or Oppose, unless they have any other Comment(s) that need to be addressed. If there is more support, then the article is promoted with a small bronze star that goes in the top right. There is also a date chosen, for when the article will be picked for Today's featured article (TFA). However, if there is more opposition, the article is not featured. The same applies to Featured article review, similarly to GAR: more support means removal; more opposition means keep; comments need to be addressed.

Why do we need them?

According to User:Casliber (who I interviewed here), good articles "can act as Stable/Concensus [sic] versions that degraded articles can be compared with ... It allows for better monitoring of content. as [sic] criteria for Featured Articles have got [sic] more complex, Good Article status has become a practical waypoint between initial cleanup and a crack at FA-hood." In other words, good articles bridge the gap between a new article and a featured article, which is one of the most important steps in the process of FA creation. However, not all articles may be good. As Casliber said, "most [articles] can [become good], but I think that there would be some articles on (say) [a] small town in some third-world countries, [sic] obscure organisms or distant galaxies that qualify as standalone but have too few sources." This makes sense, considering the fairly low ratio of good articles (1 in 197 at the time of writing or 0.51%). However, when asked about whether this number could become higher, Casliber said "[P]rocesses like DYK and Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon and my own Wikipedia:Stub Contest serve to push people to expand stubs, adding another layer of structured review before attempting a to improve and article to GA-hood."

Why were they created? (Backstory)

The WP:GA page, 2005-10-11 (13:23 UTC)

Good articles were initiated on the 11th of October, 2005, but the nominations system we know and love was not introduced until the 10th of March of the following year. The page was created by User:Worldtraveller (talk page linked) with the edit summary "created page, listed a few example articles that I think are good but nowhere near FA) [sic]".