Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Fiction criteria

Since there have been recent disputes over fiction (or "fancruft" and good article status, I 'copy and pasted' the discussion from the Good Article talk page in "Archive 2" onto this page (which was empty, I might add). I think this is a discussion that should have taken place here before it was made policy. I think more people should at least comment on it since at the present moment of time it seems the process was passed unilaterally by one or two users.

From my understanding, several of the fiction article nominations that were recently rejected follow the guidelines suggested on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) page and are in line with the examples given on that page.Dmoon1 20:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

actually it was rejected for the reasons given on the amidala article's talk page (which you obviously didnt read). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 March 2006(UTC).

Fancruft (from Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 2

i added a suggestion that "fancruft" type articles should discuss the subject outside of its hermetically-sealed fictional universe, i.e. why the author/creator decided to make it, how they went about developing it, what other things influenced it, why its important to the world outside the fictional universe, etc etc. somebody rv'ed it saying "if its fancruft it shouldnt even be an article" so i added "fancruft is not acceptable" as a policy. somebody *else* rv'ed that without expln.

what is the consensus here? Zzzzz 19:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As the person who reverted the second time, the reason for the revert is that significant changes to a policy page I believe it should be discussed before being made part of the policy. I also have no objection to a requirement that works dealing with fictional subjects be required to include some information on the subject's influence in the real world. The big problem is working out the wording of the addition so that it does the correct job. --Allen3 talk 00:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
"For "fancruft" type articles, significance outside of the "fictional universe" must be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship."

I think it may be outside the scope of this page to specify such a requirement for this specific type of article. I'd reckon the criteria requiring compelling prose aimed at the layman should cover this one. More detailed descriptions of what is expected of each type of article are usually defined by wikiprojects for the relevant subject area. Worldtraveller 00:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another suggestion for wording, to get rid of the negative and combatative word "fancruft".
For articles dealing with fictional subjects, characters, objects, or locations, significance outside of the "fictional universe" must be established and discussed, together with its process of authorship.
"Fancruft", as I understand it, is any minutia of fandom that HAS no relevance outside of the fictional universe. What we want is ANY article on a fictional subject to make sure that it is understood that the subject is fictional, and treat it as such. Fieari 20:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
i support adding the above to the "comprehensiveness" clause of the GA policy. Zzzzz 22:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
if there is no objections by the weekend, i'll add this to the GA policy. Zzzzz 20:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

I think that stubs or articles containing sections that are stubs should not be allowed under the criteria. Any commnets? Flying Canuck 01:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is no objections within 14 days (April 10 2006 (UTC)) I will add a note to the effect that stubs do not qualify in the comphrensive section of the critera.Flying Canuck 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean that we'll have to open up a "Featured Stubs" page? --User:Rayc
Stubs are by definition incomplete, so definitely don't meet GA criteria. I always assumed this would be implicitly obvious but would support adding it to the criteria if people feel it's not. Worldtraveller 13:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb would be "If the article qualifies for Collaboration of the week it does not qualify for Good Article". --Barberio 14:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed a very good guidline to follow. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"What is a good article?"

To me, these two points suggest the same thing:

Wintran 13:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - they need a merge. --Celestianpower háblame 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree - the 'second' one is not needed. Flying Canuck 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Original research may be factual, but it isn't well-referenced. NPOV articles may be well-referenced, but they are not factual. Neither would qualify as even acceptable Wikipedia content, much less GA content. ClairSamoht 13:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, 2a and 2b should be merge into it provides references to any and all sources used for its material altough the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;. Lincher 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I noticed from reading WP:NOR that if 2.(b) or 2.(c) fails, 2.(d) will always fail, since the only way to prove 2.(d) is to cite reliable sources.Bugmuncher 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Short articles and GA

If "shorter articles" are to be eligible for GA status (say, an article which fits snugly on a single screen or so), then perhaps the criterion "it is appropriately structured with a lead section and a proper system of hierarchical headings" needs to be relaxed a little. Quite often, compact articles present better when they are not broken up into multiple sections of a few sentences each; one would think that if at least some logical structure and flow is maintained within the text (appropriately segmented into paragraphs), then the same desirable end has been achieved. Thoughts?--cjllw | TALK 04:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that splitting a very short article into very very short sections isn't really doing it a good turn, but personally I think that such a short article would probably be better off merged into a broader topic. Are there any examples you could give of a very short article where a merger would not be appropriate? Worldtraveller 19:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Sparging would be one example. It's too long for a Wiktionary entry. It isn't a stub; there's not much else to be said about sparging without getting far afield. Merging it with something else would annoy both people who are trying to look up sparging and don't give a hoot about something else, and people who are looking up something else, and don't give a hoot about sparging.
Merging articles A and B only makes sense when readers logically could use all the information on the page. Otherwise, it simply results in a larger page which slows down both the server and users when it is served up, and when the page gets edited for either A or B, both A and B end up getting saved.
As a principle of good writing, you should have something to say, say it, and shut up when you're done. And as a matter of organization, an encyclopedia should be organized according to "Trebek's Law": express it in the form of a question. "What is sparging?".
I don't think GA should be reserved for major articles. They are the hard ones to do well, and GA is there to show editors what to do, not as some sort of blue ribbon of accomplishment. If you can say everything that needs to be said about sparging in one screen or so, then it's easy to remain focused, and do a good job. It's when you ask "Who was Stephen King?" that things get difficult. That page is long, and it seems to get edited 6 times a day - and it's not edit wars, but contributors adding more detail. Will the editing ever slow down? ClairSamoht 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Clair says it well, and they do not have to be "very short" articles, but I rather had in mind some I have seen (forgetting, for the moment, just which ones they were!) which ran to a page or perhaps a little more, well-structured, covering all the main points, with some well chosen images or even an infobox. Say an article on a minor town, or some historical figure notable for some particular deed, but whose life was otherwise undocumented. In the latter case, there may well be not much more which can be added after describing their claim to fame, but it would not be appropriate to condense them into some other article. It's really just a question of if a small but notable topic can be roundly covered, and has all the other attributes of a good article, there may simply not be enough material to pad it out to 20k or more, and the aesthetic presentation works best without the usual sub-section breakup (a valid and useful way to organise lengthier articles, but not always appropriate).--cjllw | TALK 08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The last thing I would like to see is pages being padded out with unnecessary verbosity. Absolutely, GA is not in any way reserved for 'major' articles - they really should be worked up to FA standards. I see it as predominantly for short articles (say 3-15kb or so). Sparging I do think could be expanded a little bit without getting waffly. If it had references, and if some of the short paras were merged, would probably be the very essence of what I see an ideal GA as. If an article genuinely does cover its topic well in only a few paragraphs, then I don't think it should be excluded from the list. Worldtraveller 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a crack at rewriting that particular criterion in view of the above discussion; open to any further amendments.--cjllw | TALK 06:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a mild rewrite: short articles are fine so long as they address the major aspects of the topic (contrast to FAs, where length doesn't matter so long as the article is comprehensive) TheGrappler 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Lists?

The FA system has its own set of critieria for articles which are lists, but we don't, so technically speaking, it seems no list can be deemed a good article since they aren't prose :/. How about we amend this so that the prose standards don't have to apply to lists? Homestarmy 15:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And maybe the criteria should specifically mention lists. Maurreen 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what a 'good list' would be. Can you give an example of what you might consider a list that contains excellent content but would probably not pass FLC? Worldtraveller 17:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I assume you mean FAC, and I was thinking something like Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, because since its still a recent event I don't know if people would want to make it an FA, yet it isn't changing very quickly these days. Homestarmy 18:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Lists have their own 'featured' process: WP:FLC. I'd say our one person review system would be completely inadequate to assess an article 112kb long so that particular example, I would say, we should not touch with a bargepole. I don't know how the FLC process treats short lists, but if they generally look for lengthy lists, then there would be a place for us looking at short lists. If they take lists of any length, 'good lists' would be redundant. Worldtraveller 21:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you because the only real thing we could do is assess for the completeness of a list which is too basic to be done by the GA project. I'd say leave it as a FA-only process in order to prevent doing things twice and adding too much things to do on our hands. Lincher 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with "What is a FA?"

I think a short paragraph explaining how these criteria are weaker than those for FA would be helpful. Hyacinth 22:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit - hope it's useful. Worldtraveller 21:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The addition tells us more about the differences between how the criteria are formulated than about what they tend to achieve. Especially in light of the next section telling us that "A good article may be any length", it is somewhat unclear what the criteria (and differences with the criteria for a FA) are for non-short articles. Assuming that FA quality requires that an article be good, what is additionally required of a somewhat lengthy "good" article to achieve featured status? --LambiamTalk 09:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Adherence to Manual of Style

I added adherence to the Wikipedia Manual of Style to the attributes of a well-written article, the rationale being (a) that in the peer reviews this is also used as a touchstone; and (b) that doing so is an entirely reasonable thing. I hope no-one is offended by this not being discussed in advance, but as far as I can see this page is not "policy" but really more descriptive. LambiamTalk 08:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't "specialist" articles be good?

A well-written article is supposed to be "readily comprehensible to a non-specialist reader". This means that, for example, the article Levi-Civita symbol can never become a "good" article; any attempt to make it readily comprehensible to a non-specialist reader will most definitely result in a very bad article. Most readers are somewhat unlikely to think: "Hey, let me look up what Wikipedia has to say about Levi-Civita symbol", and if they arrive there through the link at Rarita-Schwinger equation, say, they will probably expect a specialist treatment and would most likely be severely disappointed if they then find a text that has been made "comprehensible to the non-specialist". What about this relaxed criterion: the degree of non-accessibility to the non-specialist reader should be commensurate with how specialized the topic is? LambiamTalk 09:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I had that issue when reviewing Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and moved it to disputes, which appears to be equally lightly travelled. :-) The main contributors to that article maintain a similar stance. I still think I at least should get some sort of more common reference point, i.e. Windows, if one exists. —Rob (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Trouble is, if an article is not comprehensible to a general reader, it's difficult to see how anyone can review it effectively to say whether it meets the criteria.
My own opinion is that what we're here for is to make information about our areas of interest and/or expertise available to as wide an audience as possible, without dumbing it down, and so I think every article on Wikipedia ought to be written so that an ignorant but intelligent reader can understand it. If an article cannot be made intelligible to such a reader, I'm not sure a general encyclopaedia is really the place for it, but I do think it is possible to explain even very complex topics so that the general reader can have an idea of what they are about. Worldtraveller 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree - an article which is not accessible to the layman is not a "good article" at all. Stevage 08:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So I think we clearly disagree here. We probably agree that the difficulty of a topic must not be used as an argument to shirk a valiant effort of making an article as accessible as possible. But should the mere fact that it cannot reasonably be made accessible to an ignorant – though intelligent – reader be sufficient reason to withhold the information from less ignorant readers? I think not. Remember: "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." Or is that old hat? The ultimate consequence of the position that articles do not belong if they can't be made understandable to this reader (without turning them into textbooks), is that articles like Rarita-Schwinger equation should be deleted. As to the difficulty of reviewing a specialist article, maybe not everyone can do that, but certainly specialists should be able to. And is the only purpose of this project page to serve such reviews? Maybe editors come to this page in the hope of being enlightened on what makes an article good. The editor labouring on a specialist article is now made to think: "Whatever I do is in vain; my article cannot be redeemed." --LambiamTalk 01:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is possible we could incorprate something in here about specialist type articles, but they would probably need to be reviewed by.....a specialist :/. I won't be going to collage for a couple years so we'll probably need some really good mathematicion to evaluate all those types of articles, and well.....who's gonna be our mathematicion? Homestarmy 02:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Much needed copy-edit

Dear contributors

I've gone over the attributes of a good article on the project page, and the text below it, to make it easier to read and to number the attributes so that reviewers can easily refer to them.

I made no substantive changes to the meaning.

Tony 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

1(b) is longish, but it might be awkward to divide it. I wonder whether the following change would be acceptable (this one would be a slight change in meaning, but would nicely simplify the language):

EXISTING (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles)

PROPOSED (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; a longer article contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections;

Tony 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, those alterations look fine to me, at least, and the numbering system is a good addition- thanks.
Re the text of 1(b), the general idea here (per discussion supra) was that it should not be a pre-requisite for all GA-candidates to have section headers, as long as the information was presented in a logically-ordered and grouped fashion, with paragraphs of sensible length. I think your proposal still captures that intention, and IMO would be fine. --cjllw | TALK 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Section 6 is contradictory

It says:

"A good article has the following attributes. ... 6. It contains images."

"(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status."

The first part requires images, while the second part doesn't. It can go both ways:

If images are required for GA, then 6b shouldn't exist. If images aren't required, then why not just remove the entire Section 6? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the recent amendment by Tony has addressed this. The general idea is that where images are used, they must be appropriately captioned, tagged and otherwise adhering to image use guidelines, and that while images, maps, diags, etc are good to have, they are not a mandatory requirement.--cjllw | TALK 03:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I just came here to make the same point. Someone reverted my change. It's ridiculous to say that "Good articles have images. Lack of images does not prevent an article being a good article."

So here are the possible situations:

  • If an article could be illustrated (ie, it is not an abstract concept with no appropriate illustrations), it must be illustrated to be a GA
  • An article does not have to have images. If it does, they must meet certain requirements for the article to be a GA.
  • An article does not have to have images. However, good images may increase its "GA" factor.

What is the real situation, so we can update the criteria as appropriate? Stevage 14:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with yesterday's version ('where appropriate')? Should be reverted to that. Tony 15:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem with that wording is it's very vague. What is meant by appropriate? When would havin images be inappropriate? Right now, it says images should be included where possible, which acknowledges that many topics do not have suitable images availble to illustrate them, and is also internally self-consistent. Worldtraveller 16:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There will sometimes be a grey area, where an image might or might not be included; 'possible' forces the issue, whereas 'appropriate' leaves it up to a judgement of suitability. You yourself use the word 'suitability', so 'appropriate' is more consistent with your views. Tony 02:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This does not resolve the basic problem: Point 6 says good articles must have images, "where possible". Point 6b says good articles don't have to have images.

So, if an article could have images, but doesn't, does it still qualify as a good article (under point 6b) or does it fail (under point 6)? Why don't we just scrap the whole of point 6, if images are irrelevant to an article being a good article anyway? Stevage 08:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that's contradictory, really - 6b is just emphasising that if it's not possible to illustrate an article, then don't fail it for not having images. If it is possible to illustrate it, but it's not illustrated, then it falls short of what we would expect of a good article, and should be failed. Images are not irrelevant at all - it's just that unlike references, they can be absent and an article can still be good. Worldtraveller 08:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WT that it's not contradictory; but I'd still prefer 'appropriate'. Tony 10:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

I feel that it needs to be mentioned that if an article has any "negative" tags in the article, it should not be nominated until they are resolved. Personally, I automatically fail an article without further review if I see tags such as {{citationneeded}}, {{stub}}, or {{currentevent}} (failing #3, #2, and #5 respectively). It really shouldn't NEED to be mentioned, but too many people are submitting articles with problems that have big bold signs saying "I'M NOT READY YET!". They need reminding not to overlook such obvious errors, as we certainly should not. --SeizureDog 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Stability

I've been adding a lot of info to the Winfield Scott (ship) article, which basically sat dormant as a stub since March. Since I'm still adding info, I obviously don't think it qualifies as "stable" per se. But once the bulk of the writing is done (by me, anyway), how long should I reasonably wait before thinking about a GA nomination? --cholmes75 (chit chat) 23:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think that's what the stability issue is really about. If a couple of people are the ones nurturing it and making it better, than it's ok. It's when there are dozens of people going back and forth and changing it every day that's a problem. Stability is where once you're done working on an article, it stays done. If in a month's time you come back and find that the entire article has been rewritten, then that's not stable. The stability requirement just doesn't want the quality to change. But in cases such as yours, the quality will stay the same but the information will increase. Hope that helps. --SeizureDog 03:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Change to stability criteria

There's been I think at least 2 discussions on the disputes page now about stability where it really matters, specifically whether vandalism counts as instability, and whether a semi-protection or protected template warrents immediete delisting. Personally, I think delisting for vandalism is silly because it sends the message "Ok, vandals rule Wikipedia, so good content should just be left for dead", and that the stability rule should better mean "Is not the subject of on-going content disputes which result in edit wars or other massive content related changes" rather than just "Content rapidly changes from day to day" which is rather ambiguous to start with anyway. Anyone else have thoughts? Homestarmy 02:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an article's stability should warrent delisting, but should be an automatic failure for becoming a good article. --SeizureDog 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The same standards should be applied to both nominated and current GA. Bias aside the problem with automatic failure for nominations is the action of vandals is considered as important as legitimate editors.
currently criteria 5 states.
5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars
suggest that it says
5. It is considered stable if
(a)It does not change significantly from day to day.
(b)It is not the subject of on going edit wars.
(c)Vandalism is not considered a significant change.
(d)Protection of an article alone does not make it unstable.

thanks for listening Gnangarra 12:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Length

current criteria A good article may be of any length, as long as it properly addresses all major aspects of the topic. However, the authors of very short articles might consider whether it is more appropriate to merge them into larger articles. For articles longer than about 20Kb, the more rigorous reviewing of Wikipedia:Peer review and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is generally more appropriate than the process here

Suggest that this statement gets removed, For articles longer than about 20Kb, the more rigorous reviewing of Wikipedia:Peer review and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates is generally more appropriate than the process here GA is capable of reviewing all articles size doesnt matter, getting GA on articles does both for the GA process and the editors. Gnangarra 12:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Worldtraveller added this in because he feels that we cannot adequately assess long articles on our own.... Homestarmy 16:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
currently they are being done and they are maintain a similar age to that of the other articles. Gnangarra 09:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyhow, there is a need to assess the 25kb-size and more articles only because we want to have the GA process become a widely used/liked/assessment project that will be a step below the FA status. We gotta continue to fight/find arguments for that purpose and the more that criteria are solidly implemented and re-worked, the better the project will be. Lincher 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

GA was never really supposed to be a 'step below' FA. It was designed to be a parallel process for short articles, which there is otherwise little incentive to bring up to high quality. I've always argued that there's no way one person can review a large article thoroughly enough to judge whether it meets the criteria. Many eyes are much more effective. To be honest I think many of the long articles which are 'good articles' are really not very good. Given the similarity between FA and GA criteria, a long article which meets these criteria should also meet FA criteria, so why not just nominate it there? Worldtraveller 18:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear up. What does this mean, that the 20kb+ articles should be left alone and not reviewed by us or throw in the FA nomination? What I think is that people coming for GA know they will get feedback and that is the main reason behind having to review articles of all length.
The project could become a review process-only for articles 20kb and up and a GA-awarding review for articles less than 20kb? What do you think about that. Lincher 19:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
To me, the best solution would be to not review long articles here, and refer them to PR or FAC. However, as you say, GA has become the new PR in many respects, because the system guarantees feedback, usually within a few days. People obviously find it useful so it would be a shame to scrap that. If reviewers only pass long articles that they would support an FA nomination for, I'd be happy to carry on as things are. Worldtraveller 20:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed then, we pass lenthy GAs only if we give extensive comments and help them reach FA because that is what they are requesting ... PR in the first place and how to get to the FA status in the second place. Since that is settled, maybe we should add a comment somewhere about that. Knowing that we accept lenthy almost-good GAs knowing they have flaws and will eventually go to FA. Lincher 04:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, a little more detail on all reviews would be nice; looking at a few reviews i've seen people do recently, they are often little more than "nice work", and one didn't even have any summary at all. (Though I think it was good enough for GA) Long or short, a bit more depth in comments would probably be nice. Homestarmy 04:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Good point, I was seeing a lot of this recently. It would then be a good idea to request from the reviewers to give insight on the articles future (like what should be added to the article even if it met GA). And if the article failed, then be merciless but in a civilised manner in criticising all that doesn't seem to apply to GA nor to FA.
We could also do it this way ... First give out what is absolutely necessary for GA (as a list) and then add NOT FOR GA and add what will be necessary for FA. What do you guys think?. Lincher 03:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding a criterion

Comply to the WP:NOT, thus removing the Trivia section. Lincher 02:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the part about trivia in there....? I've also seen some rather nice looking articles have trivia sections, whats so bad about them? Homestarmy 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing wrong with trivia. Yes, an article consisting solely of a trivia section would probably be nominated for AfD, but a trivia section in an article with content does not detract from its value. The trivia section can simply be a collection of facts which are relevant to the article (and not other articles), but do not fit anywhere else in the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Altough, the presence of trivia should be a prose instead of a list and be point-by-point inline cited, no? Lincher 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, are all trivia sections traditionally supposed to be rendered into prose? Homestarmy 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
For one, traditional encyclopedias do not tolerate trivia since it is not prose though we seem to do things differently. I normally ask to remove (like FA does) or to place in the text somewhere else as a brilliant prose (like FA does). If this is possible. Lincher 03:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You can see King Kong (1933 film) for an example of what I'm talking about, too much Trivia lists. Lincher 03:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
There's plenty wrong with trivia. Is "trivia" really trivia? If so, it should be cut. If not, it should at the very least be relabeled. Moreover, a randomly sequenced list of odds and sods, even if these are not trivial, is not encyclopedic. -- Hoary 14:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Trivia lists should be cut by the time an article is of "good" quality. They either can be worked into the text easily enough or not important enough to actually known. --SeizureDog 02:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So basically, we should just write (No trivia sections)? Homestarmy 04:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I fear that people would then retitle them. Better: "No trivia". -- Hoary 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok so no trivia, so now they'll have Behind the myths , Social usage , Peer reflection , Tales, the facts For something like the King Kong movie I think the Trivia is relevant, though excessive. For current pop culture subjects its irrelevant to extent of being trivial. Gnangarra 04:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't quite understand what you're saying. Anyway, I propose that no section (e.g. one titled "Behind the myths") should contain trivia. "No trivia" should handle that. -- Hoary 05:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Its use is subjective that a definitive no trivia may preclude articles where the subject of the article has had a prolonged significant impact on society, like subjects like JFK assassination, King Kong, Gone with the Wind, Wizard of OZ would all be justified in the use of some form of trivia section, its the presentation of the information thats the issue. I think a No trivia list would be more appropriate, though still not ideal. Gnangarra 06:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. King Kong (to take one of your examples) has at least three trivia lists, although none is titled "trivia". As there are fewer than ten days in each week (needed for arguments with the hordes of trivia-lovers), I do not offer to do what should be done: tease out of these lists the 5%–20% of the content that's worthwhile, integrate it within the article in some intelligent fashion, and delete the rest. As it is, this article is a triviahound's companion to the movies rather than an encyclopedic article; it's a dreadful model for emulation. -- Hoary 07:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

<-- going back left for space King kong has too much trivia, the statement no trivia is IMHO too harsh thats why I suggested using No Trivia Lists those pieces that are useful would then to be made into prose. Basically same the dog just a different leg. That way when an article is failed for a trivia list instead of just having this information cut out the editors would have encouragement to consider whats there and how better to present the information. If the information had value to in the initial article then it still has value it just needs to be better presented. Gnangarra 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is by definition unencylopaedic and should be removed. The problem with trivia sections is that they often include actual useful info. Editors need to assess what's actually relevant and what's not, and put the relevant stuff somewhere other than a section called 'unencyclopaedic'.
As for lists, I see loads of articles nominated for GA that have lists where prose should be used. In many cases the lists are simply very poor writing style and could easily be rendered as prose. Trivia or not, lists should only be used when prose is not practical.
Not sure I think we need a new criterion for all this though - perhaps some clarifications within existing criteria though. Worldtraveller 08:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since what brings new editors IMHO is the trivia section because they are easy to edit, maybe we should let them there but in the most succinct form possible and if they can be added to the text then fine. Altough when trivia overlaps other section and it is not added to these sections there is a lack of structuring in the article (criterion 1b). So for the trivia section and the fact that we want lists to be turned into prose, if possible, we could add to criterion 1c what follows : 

1(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline;

Lincher 13:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

the statement no trivia is IMHO too harsh And in mine it isn't too harsh. ¶ Trivia is by definition unencylopaedic and should be removed. Thank you for the refreshing sanity! ¶ The problem with trivia sections is that they often include actual useful info. Oh? I'd say that the problem with them is that they usually include bags of mere trivia, laced with some more or less subtle coat-tails spamvertising for non-notable bands and so forth. ("The Three-Chord Strummers [still awaiting their first recording contract] dropped this guy's name in the second stanza of their second, 'independently distributed' single.") ¶ Trivia or not, lists should only be used when prose is not practical. Agreed. ¶ Since what brings new editors IMHO is the trivia section because they are easy to edit, maybe we should let them there but in the most succinct form possible and if they can be added to the text then fine. It's certainly not what brought me: I started by fixing gross stylistic errors and also errors of fact. I put it to you that trivia lists are particularly attractive to the kind of potential editor who will proceed to augment and multiply trivia lists. Would en-WP benefit from the activities of yet more of these people? ¶ ...if possible, we could add to criterion 1c what follows : / 1(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline; Neither of these seems to say anything about trivia. Certainly the word "trivia" doesn't appear on either, or didn't when I looked a few moments ago. -- Hoary 07:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well for your information, there is no consensus whatsoever on the trivia section on wikipedia and as I said it : what brings new editors IMHO is the trivia section because they are easy to edit so gazillions of users will be against a policy on removing the trivia section. In order to remediate to this we should have a GA policy about removing the trivia. Another proposition for the WIAGA is to change criterion 3 from :

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

to :

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no trivia).

Lincher 15:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you're saying, but I agree with what you write in 3(b): no trivia. -- Hoary 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What I was saying is that trivia isn't bad for an article because the new editors often work on these section first (especially for pop culture topics) altough, when the articles get serious or into serious reviewing, they should find alternatives to trivia sections such as bringing it to prose or merging it into other sections of the articles. What I find acceptable is something like 1 trivia info per 10kb of prose. Lincher 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But we're primarily talking here about good articles, which surely implies getting serious, etc. Really, I find it hard to follow what you're saying. You say "No trivia", which which I agree. Then you say that trivia isn't bad for a [pre-"Good"] article (which which I happen to disagree, but we'll let that pass) and seem to imply that for a "Good" article the (presumably trivial) content of trivia sections should be integrated within the rest of the article rather than simply deleted. But if trivia is moved from under the "trivia" subtitle and integrated, is it not still trivia? And if it is still trivia, are you saying it's good? ¶ Consider Mona Lisa (a "Good Article"). We learn that it has enjoyed countless references in both popular culture and avant-garde art. It has been a subject of many songs, including: ... "Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters", a song on Elton John's 1972 album, Honky Chateau. It rose to #1 in the Billboard Music Charts / "Mona Lisa", the first track on country singer Willie Nelson's 1981 album, Somewhere over the Rainbow. The album rose to#1 on the Billboard Top Country Albums chart. / "Mona Lisa", a song on hip hop performer Slick Rick's 1988 album, The Great Adventures of Slick Rick. The album rose to#1 on the Billboard Top R&B/Hip Hop Albums chart. .... (I've omitted a lot of songs there, and zapped some markup.) To me, this is all trivia. It may indeed signify something (I suspect that Mona Lisa is a celebrity painting; through no fault of its own, it has become among paintings what Elizabeth Taylor is to actresses), but as long as we're not told this, I see it as saying something trivial and obvious about the intellectual/imaginative poverty of songwriters and as saying nothing whatever about the painting. Do our mileages differ? Do you actually think this stuff enhances the Mona Lisa article? -- Hoary 05:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree that lists like that in Mona Lisa fall way below GA standards. I delisted the article. As you say, they tell us nothing about the painting itself. To my mind, the article on The Scream treats the 'influence on subject culture' very nicely, using select examples to illustrate how it influenced later works. Exhaustive lists of appearances in popular culture are not encyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 10:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the Mona Lisa failing GA standards because it has too much trivia. What I mean is that if it is real trivia ... it is not needed. If it is not trivia but added to a trivia section because of a lack of effort to prose the text then it should be added to the article in some section.
So for the Mona Lisa article, if we implement the criterion I've created up there, it would fail criterion 3(b) which states that the article doesn't stay focus on the main topic and uses trivia.
Did I make myself a bit clearer (please tell me). Lincher 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Concision and a sense of proportion

I'm happy with long articles that have bags of significant content. Example: Sicilian Baroque. I'm much less happy about long articles (or even shortish ones) that maunder on and on about the trivial. The last time I looked -- after a time, I gave up in complete disgust -- these were exemplified by articles on any aspect of tabloid staples such as Mariah Carey: what this or that "good friend" reputedly did, quotations of vacuous comments by the star, etc etc. I suggest that a good article has a word count that's somehow proportional to the significance of the subject in science, society, culture, etc. Of course this is next to impossible to judge, but the length-per-significance ratio of for example "Good Article" Mega Man X (character) (whose adherence to this isn't so obvious) strikes me as bizarre. These days a lot of books and movies seem to go on for ever; perhaps logorrhea is a Good Thing and I'm out of step with the times. But I suggest that these guidelines should at least attempt to dissuade editors from the pursuit of a soporific exhaustiveness. -- Hoary 15:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've come across an article recently myself which had a sort of smaller hint of the problem you've described, and I do think a change should probably be made. How about something else under the "logical structure" part of the well-written section, perhaps something to the effect of "Should flow in structure without getting off-topic"? Homestarmy 03:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Bloat is never good. I'm sure at one point we had 'stays tightly focussed on the main topic' in the criteria. It's certainly implicit in 'well written' and I wouldn't object to making it explicit. Articles should say what needs to be said in the fewest words possible, and if they don't I'd say they're not well written. Worldtraveller 09:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The definition listed in this section does not quite line up with that in the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. It may be a little confusing as to the quality and standards. Morphh 12:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we may of changed it a few times, in particular clarified the dispute part, could you just update it on the 1.0's end? Nobody's tried to like stealth sneak in any new standards that I can see heh. Homestarmy 03:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for fiction

I get the impression that these criteria are simply ignored. That is, if the creators of a fancruft articles are sufficiently earnest ("sourcing" their stuff, etc. etc.), the article is pronounced "Good". Am I just imagining this? If I'm not, does it matter? -- Hoary 08:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you name any specific articles? Homestarmy 18:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Aerith Gainsborough, Charmander, Combusken, etc etc. -- Hoary 02:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I did see your point sometimes in those particular articles, though I don't think they were compleatly from a fictional point of view :/. Does most ofthe content in those articles really strike you as not being written from the perspective of an outside universe? Homestarmy 04:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
No, they're not completely from a viewpoint within the fiction. But primarily, they are. Reconsider what's written on the project page: 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.... (That's not the same as for example: The focus of the article shouldn't exclude discussing the subject as fiction within the context of "our" universe, and should not be exclusively on describing it as a "real" topic in a fictional universe....)
To me, these articles seem rather obvious examples of what's permissible by WP criteria but (according to WIAGA's rules) not good. Rules aside, it's also obvious to me that they're of no interest to people who aren't already involved in these little worlds.
Of course, somebody could counterclaim that (for example) moras are analogously of no interest outside the little world of phonology -- but this would be untrue, because mora is the best term yet discovered (and the standard term) to describe certain aspects of some languages (see here for example), and if the latter too sounds too la-di-da, we can point to it as one reason why speakers of Japanese have such trouble with English.
Consider Eevee. I "failed" it. I didn't enjoy doing that, and I stated my objection politely on its talk page at 06:37, 27 June. Here are the changes made to the article between then and now. None are substantive. Nobody argued against or asked for a clarification of my objection. It's as if they don't care. My guess is that the authors regard my judgement as just a matter of bad luck; they'll keep resubmitting it till it's read by somebody who likes fancruft, is impressed by the (undeniable) industry involved, or hasn't read (or chooses to ignore) the rules of WIAGA. -- Hoary 09:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to help people to better understand this issue, there is now a new guideline/essay which is part of the Manual of Style. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) or just WP:WAF. It's a good essay that clarifies the guidelines about fiction writing, as well as giving a lot of good examples for how to write about fiction in a good way. I failed Kai (God) based on that guideline, but referred the author to it, so they can work on improving their style. I even edited the project page a bit to include a reference to the guideline in the 'writing about fiction' section, which is stuck down at the bottom where no one notices it... Maybe we should include a link to the guideline higher up on the WP:WIAGA page, so it will be easier to point to? Phidauex 14:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Concision bandwagon

The article currently says, "These criteria are very similar to the criteria for featured articles. However, they are written, and the good article review process is designed, primarily with short articles (15kb or less) in mind, for which prose is less likely to reach the 'brilliant' standards required of featured articles, and in which inline referencing is not as important."

My opinion (and I'm glad to see that several people have expressed similar opinions here) is that the prose in featured articles is less likely to be brilliant than that in shorter articles. Featured articles tend to have too many details (as Voltaire said, "Le secret d'ennuyer est celui de tout dire", the secret of being a bore is to tell everything), added by many hands and not necessarily well integrated. You can see this in the third paragraph of Microsoft (today's featured article), which was as far as I could get myself to read. It's much easier to select material for a short article judiciously, organize it well, and write it in concise and maybe graceful style. —JerryFriedman 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Then what do you suggest to go for as a project that now accepts long articles. And what do you also suggest for short articles ... that we ask the best prose and be like the FA project??? Lincher 18:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting for this article is to remove the phrase "for which prose is less likely to reach the 'brilliant' standards required of featured articles", which I think is based on a false assumption. I see no reason that "good articles" shouldn't mean they have good prose (though judging it is kind of subjective), but I wouldn't describe "the best prose" as "like the FA project" at all. If I come up with an answer to your first question, this isn't where I'll give it.
By the way, I've probably been guilty of giving excessive details at times. It's hard to resist. —JerryFriedman 00:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Criteria Section 1 part D

I reverted the removal of this criteria pending this discussion taking place.

Currently (since 6th April 2006) this is the criteria:-

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
During a review and its dispute listing it has been raised that an active link to explain terms is not an acceptible and that technical terms need to be explained within the article.
  • My view is that the purpose of links within an article whether technical, historical, or about an individual is to explain words for those that dont know and expand for those that want to know more. The use of such links are invaluable to the expansion of wikipedia, there use within articles draws the reader to further articles. By not using the links articles become heavy in explainations and loose quality as the amount of meanings definations and explanations draw the article off subject. Gnangarra 08:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have several problems with the 'or an active link provided' bit. It was added to the criteria without discussion, and I certainly don't think it should have been. The example that's brought these problems to light is Banksia brownii.

  1. If lots of technical terms are used, and only links provided instead of brief explanations, the reader is forced to leave the article if they want to understand it. That seems perverse.
  2. Links may not be helpful. In Banksia brownii, links to perianth are not helpful because that article says the word has three separate meanings. How is the reader supposed to know which one is intended? Similarly, lenticel provides two choices for what might have been meant.
  3. Many of these technical terms can be replaced simply and easily by plain language, as originally required by the criterion in question. I can't see any value in making an article unnecessarily obscure.

One person involved in Banksia Brownii has been incredibly agressive in his demands that the article be given GA status, although it uses technical terms in a way that I think is needlessly confusing, thus clearly failing to be well written. The 'or an active link provided', added as I say without any discussion, has caused this problem, so I removed it. Worldtraveller 09:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • My view on the Banksia brownii article is that the article is lacking in explaining terms that are necessary to understand basic concepts about the subject described. It thus fails the well-written criteria for not being understadable for non-expert users. For the addition of the wikilinks, if words aren't associated with basic concepts in the text then wikilinks can be added for additional information about certain terms or events or ideas related to the article. Lincher 12:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stay within the topic of discussion, this was created to purely to decide on the criteria with no intent to move or expand the withdrawn dispute beyond WP:GA/D. While the use of the article in the discussion maybe helpful to further explain arguements this not about whether the article passes or fails, nor should the actions of one editor be a consideratioon in this discussion. Gnangarra 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Back on topic, I like this criteria, it's a "this or this" statement, so you can either have an article which explains words, or if it has too many technical terms, just provide the links. This doesn't mean reviewers can't note whether or not vocabulary or jargon is well beyond the typical level, i'd hope people would point such deficiencies out whenever they spot them, but it does mean we don't end up asking for things which may not be reasonable for some articles. Homestarmy 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like this criteria because if the wikilink leads to a disambig page or if the linked article is a start or even if the wikilink given is a redlink ... it doesn't give any insight in the word wikilinked. Readers will be put off when they will read an article that has too much jargon so it will need to be explained and parenthesis can be handy in this situation. (Sorry for jumping off topic ... wasn't intended) Lincher 19:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hold on, why was the active link part removed? I thought we were just discussing the criteria as a whole. If all terms have to be explained, then a great deal of articles which have even the slightest necessary complexity in vocabulary could never become GA's. Homestarmy 01:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • sorry there appeared to be no interest in the continuation of the discussion, and that as the reason for the discussion was the prior removal of the section without discussion. Gnangarra 13:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I feel the same way. How does one rephrase "Each flower consists of a tubular perianth made up of four united tepals, and one long wiry style", without using jargon, and without replacing the phrase by an entire paragraph on flower morphology? I don't know. Snottygobble 12:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a presumption made that terms(jargon) needs to be explained only within scientific articles, many historical, religious, political, geographic, fancruft articles use technical style terms. WP style says articles exceeding 32k should be seperated, yet to keep the articles to sizes that make this possible definitions, daughter articles etc need to be created. Good prose is about writing clear understandable text, disjointing text by digressing into definitions of technical terms is at odds with that. Take the example above, to rewrite this without using technical terms (plain language) this sentence grows to between 6 and 8 sentences, needing to be divided into 2 seperate paragraphs.
I think that commonsense needs to be exercised, taking B.brownii its one of 76 species of Banksia anyone requiring a general overview will use the genus article Banksia. If someone has an interest in specific species why cant it be assumed that they already have some basic botanical knowledge that while they may not be 110% conversant with terminology the use of terminology isnt going overwhelm them. The links on the terminology are actually more beneficial then condensed generalised definitions that would be given within an article space.
As with NPOV articles we could insist on a template that says this article uses technical terms, links provide definitions or this xxxxx article gives a more generalised view of the topic. An alternative is that we require scientific articles to have section after references called Glossary where all technical terms can be explain in general with a link to relevant articles where more indepth explainations are given. Gnangarra 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a bit on lists...

...but what we really need is a solid decision from somewhere. The bit I've added will discourage lists from being nominated but it's still a bit ambiguous as to where we actually stand on the issue.  -- Run!  23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's good for now... we will re-open the subject when hordes of prosed lists that are well referenced and all are beginning to come in the process and ... we won't even know if they are lists anymore. Lincher 01:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Taken literally... (verifiability)

The current suggested attributes, point 2 (verifiability) require an assessor to have access to all the sources to check whether they actually support the facts that they are claimed to support. With most people having limited access to print and certain online media, this is not logistically possible, not to mention extremely time-consuming in the rare case of someone having all the requisite access. In the absence of such thorough checking, it is easy, for instance, to overlook original research that is indicated in the article as supported by a reference. Can we come up with criteria that can actually work in reality? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it's always seemed to me that "Well-referenced" doens't have to mean "perfectly referenced", I mean, there can be some OR that slips in without making it no longer a good article. If an article only has book references or innaccessable material, I don't know if i'd be so quick to pass it :/. Homestarmy 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand the point here, I thought I learned in school that book references were better than internet references in the first place. In terms of verifiability ... it is impossible to go through like 40 refs to make sure it is verifiable. Lincher 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We should be assuming good faith to all articles and editors, the intent of verifiability is not to have every reference checked, but ensure that articles are referenced and that the sources are clearly identifiable within the article. Gnangarra 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Escalation

The requirements for GAs have become unreasonable recently. Historically, FA requirements have risen similarly, but now we have reached a stage where former (say 2003) FAs would not even qualify as a GA anymore. Stop turning the GA tag into another bureaucracy. GA means "good article", meaning an article is evolved and useful. Stroke order, imho, is easily a "good article". It may not quite be a FA, but that's the point for having an simple way of saying 'it's still good'. please, people. Much more of this, and I'll introduce "Fair Article", and of course, after a few months there will be swathes of instructions and review processes and templates to establish whether an article is "Fair". dab (ᛏ) 19:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the point that your are trying to make. Please point to examples as I see more articles meeting criteria than those that don't. Also, please note that the GA process is not intended to be a downstep for the FA for small articles in the sense that if the article has just this to present (like 15kB of prose) then it will be too short for FA but can still be improved. Altough long articles will be pushed hard toward FA and may never even need to receive the GA tag as they will be past that point after the GA review. Lincher 22:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If I may chime in, that article did indeed fail the standards basically any way you look at it, it's a clear violation of WP:LEAD :/. That's not an amazingly hard criteria to follow, just put like half that introduction into another section or something. Homestarmy 01:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria/Archive_1&oldid=1218139255"