Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/GAR proposal

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

Notes

[edit]
  • You can add the archives now, since they're formatted manually instead of automatically (due to the process previously changing name).
  • For disputes and contentious discussions, perhaps stay with WT:GAR for now (I don't quite know what's happening with proposal 17). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Special:PermaLink/1136146416#Proposal_14:_Merge_individual_and_community_good_article_reassessment:
  • The manual instruction of steps that GANreviewtool replaces are collapsed direclty beneath the link to GANReviewTool. That way, new people will not be tempted to start doing it before they notice the tool. In AfD, the two options are given side by side.
  • I believe there is sufficient participation now to deprecate the process. We just need to empty out the category.
  • I'm not quite sure what the best trade-off is between (a) closing early to ensure process is light-weight and (b) keeping articles open longer in the hope people rescue them. For my own closes I take two things into account: I close earlier when the article is very far from GACR, and when the article is obscure/less likely to attract contributors. I've been toying with the idea of proposing some speedy delist process, but waiting a single week is not to much of a hassle. Experience from FAR is that people step up to indicate interest in rescuing within two weeks, and some of the current closes are a bit too early for my taste. My preference is for core articles to stay open for about 2 weeks.
  • In practice, GAs take more than a week for meaty articles, and I think that should also be reflected in the GAR process. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the collapsed manual close from AJ29's version, and moved GANReviewTool up from bullet #5 to its own sentence opening the section.
    • I've removed the "possible reassessment" section.
    • Per the directions, anything with objections can't be closed until a consensus forms one way or another. I suspect that anything "meaty" or "core" will raise objections and therefore wind up staying open longer than a week.
    ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also asked SD0001, the developer of GAN-helper, if they would be interested in writing GAR-helper. If they are, we could add a big noticeable box at the top of the page about automated tools that make the GAR process easier. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SD0001 advised me that there is a GAR script, so I've added a big green box at the top with links to both scripts, and also hid the manual instructions in the same vein as the closing instructions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The script is a bit buggy still. I've used it twice, and in both cases the wrong GAR counter came up. Maybe show the manual instructions till SD0001 has time to implement a fix? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, will do (and as a late response to your edit summary from this morning, no objection to you editing the page directly). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd remove "Any editor is welcome to weigh in on any GAR, regardless of whether or not they participated in the original review.". Never saw confusion on this front, and every extra instruction makes it less likely people read important instructions.
  • About the 'disputing a reassessment'. I think the process is okay, but I don't think it's needed explicitly. I consider the negatives of extra instructions high (more intimidating process). I can think of one situation where somebody reverted a bunch of individual reasessments as they disagreed (rather than following standard procedures of contacting the closer first / bringing it to a wider set of people). I think there are reasons this won't reoccur: the process inherently has more scrutiny now, and I hope procedural errors will become less likely when the nominating is done automatically. When these instructions are agreed on, I'll try to work up a request for a user script or bot to help with FAR and GAR noms. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your feelings about additional instructions, but I think it's useful to spell out a process in case it's needed rather than leave people to flounder (frankly, I also see it acting as a deterrent against people disputing them after the fact). I've removed the "any editor" line though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a fan of "Fix any problems you are reasonably able to fix yourself" and "Consider requesting assistance from major contributors to the article". These are not the current practice, and if they were the expected practice they would be more onerous than WP:FAR's "post on the talkpage and give it some time". We should have a similar requirement here, at most. CMD (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that "reasonably fix yourself" puts too much work on the nominator. I prefer the current wording of "Fix any simple problems yourself". We can modify the wording from FAR for pre-nom help seeking.
    • At FAR: Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over at least a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
    • Proposal at GAR: "Before nomination, consider raising issues at the talk page of the article". We'll leave it up to the nominator if they also want to ping contributing editors.
    —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've modified; see how you feel. I still feel it's valuable to direct people to consider notifying major contributors, as many obscure GAs have dead talk pages and trying to raise anything on them is a complete waste of time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Readying for launch

[edit]

I think this is nearly there. I just discovered that Aircorn and BlueMoonset worked on Airship's proposal before I suggested starting out from this one. Are the two of you happy with this proposal instead? I believe it's this proposal is a bit closer to the passed merge proposal, better structured and emphasises the two scripts, which make our lives easier. AirshipJungleman29's intro of their proposal looks more professional. To launch, I think we need to:

  1. Ensure we're all on the same page here
  2. Comment out parts subject to open discussion (GAR coords, possibly dispute instructions).
  3. Leave the "Articles needing possible reassessment" in for now; I think the category can be emptied in 2 weeks.
  4. Ask at VPT for {{GAR}} to be amended
  5. Ask Novem and SD0001 to change their scripts. I think neither script would fail after implementation, so this can happen after we change the instructions too.

Femke (alt) (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good. Perhaps we should put a request at VPT now, and then notify everyone at WT:GAN (didn't one of the passed proposals advocating redirecting WT:GAR there anyway?) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting I did some edits which others may wish to review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the request at VPT. I will review the changes later (I think I'm not in full agreement). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've mostly reverted one of the two edits for two reasons:
  • Even though stability is a criterion for GAN, we know from experience that GARs grind to a halt and are unsuited for resolution of disputes. So it's good to specify that this should not be a reason typically to start a GAR.
  • I think the naming rather than linking the good article criteria may cause confusion. Well-written is very limited in GAs (clear, concise, spelling and grammar are correct). By just saying well-written we may judge the articles more harshly. Abbreviation wasn't clear, so kept the fact you spelled it out.
—Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No response at VPT. Does anybody know who to ping? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Help needed to change GAR template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad time to be asking for help at VPT thanks to the launch of Vector 2022.
I've read the link and it's not very clear what you're asking for, since one has to come back here to read the whole proposal, and even I am not sure (yet) on how GARs will be named. Have you all accounted for the big fat mess GAs make across article talk pages, as in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Old GA page errors? That is, if the GARs would be set up initially in a separate page, with successive numbers, those errors could be avoided.
The VPT thread might get more action if the description were more complete. DrKay do you know of a good template editor familiar with FA and GA processing who might address whatever is being asked for at VPT ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. DrKay (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: could you clarify? The GAs are already set up as separate pages, transcluded onto the talk pages. There was some confusion for individual GARs due to the name being the same as a GAN, but in the new system, we'll use the community assessment naming convention (if no objection), which is {{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/n}}. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted at Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Help_needed_to_make_changes_to_GAR_template. If there is no response within a week, I will try changing it myself. No sure if I'll succeed, but I'm getting closer to understanding the templates. Femke (alt) (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Femke I'm talking about the way GANs are set up (big problem), eg:
  • Talk:Appomattox Court House National Historical Park/GA1
vs the way the only GARs I am familiar with are set up (no idea if they were individual or community, a system that never made sense to me and I never investigated), eg:
  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Appomattox Court House National Historical Park/1
  • Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Henry Ludington/1
They shouldn't be set up as dependent on the talk page, as those break in articlehistory if the page moves. I'm not clear on what name is being used with the merger.
On your request for help, where you say "THe new text should be ... " it would help if you put side by side which current text you want replaced and explain which links or pages created are involved. You can use my sample format at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5#Draft proposals. With the Vector 2022 mess, it is just really hard to get the attention of technical editors right now ... you might be better off posting to individual talk pages of experienced users to see if a Talk Page Stalker picks it up. From the way your request is written now, it reads as if all you want is a change in wording, which any admin can do, so it seems as if you must be asking for something that isn't apparent or clearly spelled out. Else it's not clear why you are asking for help on a simple editing change.
Sorry to pester, but to help avoid the problem of Coldwell GARs popping up before the merge it would really be helpful if you and PMC would get to a point where we can launch the user talk page and article talk page notifications that are already to go at WP:DCGAR. I'm wondering how long we'll be waiting, as I'm concerned that editors may start putting up GARs and we'll get crosswise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke, sorry, I kind of dropped off here for a bit. I really hate the "Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Henry Ludington/1" formatting. I strongly prefer a formatting that mirrors GA naming: "Talk:Appomattox Court House National Historical Park/GAR1". It's shorter and tidier, and makes more sense to anyone trying to find a GAR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is awkward. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Premeditated Chaos have you read the thread at WT:GAN and could you work with Mike Christie on a solution? I don't care what you all come up with; just hope things will get moving :) It's possible that Mike has found bot solutions to the mess created on GA talk pages ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I think the talk naming scheme makes no sense at all, as it differs from every other content review process (DYK, PR, FA). But Not My Problem :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GAR_template_format? I've just replied to Mike there and asked him to copy here to centralize things.
As for the format...we're actually not remotely consistent with review subpage locations and names. GA is Talk/Article/GA1, PR is Wikipedia/Article/Peer review 1, FAC is Wikipedia:Featured article candidate/Article/archive1, and DYK is frankly insane, as all of the subpages there are Template:Did you know/XYZ.
Then we have the current stupidity at GAR where an individual GAR is counted as another GAN, but a community GAR is located at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/ArticleName/number, which isn't consistent with anything. FAR is consistent with FA at least, with Wikipedia:Featured article review/Article/archive1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Preaching to the choir re mixed naming conventions! But the inconsistency in the GA process is that GAN is the only process that does not use a subpage at all, rather uses the talk page, and breaks when the article moves. So that is the only page that doesn't work with article history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections from the technical people involved, I don't mind too much. Normally page moves should move all the subpages too, right? Can you give an example of a move breaking the page history, Sandy? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to duplicate the gory detail already all over the big discussion about that at WT:GAN with multiple examples. I'm already up to my eyeballs trying to clean up CCI from DYK and GA, and I don't even participate in those processes :( I'd much rather be working at FAC and FAR, and wish we could get at least to a place where I can send the talk and user page notices. Mike Christie knows all the pieces about GA templates getting broken in AH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I may be repeating myself. GA needs a Coord; it's frustrating to repeat conversations across multiple pages, and there's no place where the buck stops, and yet there are big problems to be cleaned up -- broken article history on top of the WP:DCGAR mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]

Hi -- I saw the ping; I'm looking for template formats because ChristieBot is parsing old pages to determine what the GA subpages are -- GAN or GAR -- and to get the parameter data such as date and subtopic from them. I haven't been following the conversation here (though I plan to take care of the GAs of Doug's that I promoted, when this launches) so I'm not sure what you're asking -- do you think those templates will change? I was guessing that it would be just the process that would change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie Femke is asking for an example of how the GA templates break talk pages, and what the long-term plan is there, in the context of me saying that GAR pages should continue to be set up as subpages, not talk page threads. We need to get all the players here on the same page; WP:DCGAR is stalled until we do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, I'm about to revise and clarify this comment substantially. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, modern GA and GAR pages are all subpages. However, there is a great deal of confusion because of the split GAR process.
Additional confusion results from the fact that really old GANs were conducted as talk page threads (for example Talk:Lightning_Bolt_(band)#GA_on_hold), but that practice was discontinued sometime 2009-2010 ish. Modern GANs are transcluded onto the talk page so they're visible and editable there, but they are still subpages. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And they (the links) still break when the article moves :) And it's still a very dumb system. The question for Mike is whether he envisions a permanent bot to go around fixing them, or should you move now at GAR to pages that don't break, as in the current GAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't currently have plans to write a bot that could fix them; I would suggest sticking with the current system. Sandy, are you saying that subpages of pages move with the parent page, but subpages of talk pages do not move with the parent? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying they don't break the article history template; it was designed that way. If an article moves, it's talk page moves, and if only the talk page is linked in article history, that breaks AH. I'm a bit surprised that no one at GA seems to understand this. My suggestion is to carry on, making the same mistake, as we need to get this merger wrapped up, and a side discussion now is not opportune. I'm confused at how you are fixing them, though, Mike ... anyway, this is not an issue I have time to be so involved in. I just want the merger to proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should carry on as we are now and have just posted to that effect below. But I'm still not getting your point about article history. The article history link to a GA page is generally to the actual GA subpage. If the article is moved and the talk page moves but not the subpage, the link is fine; if the subpage is moved, we get a redirect. In either case the link works. What am I missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, did you follow the broken link samples way back in this discussion? Did you see the diffs of the fixes I had to make ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, can you give a diff of the problem you're seeing? I can think of multiple scenarios that might break GAR in the article history template, such as a non-page mover moving an article and not its subpages (since non-admins/non-page movers don't have the "move subpages" option, although I think a bot may clean these up), or anyone moving an article that has {{Article history |action2=GAR |action2link = Talk:Nonviolent Communication/GA2 ... (since the GAR is hard-coded to the old location in the template, and I'm not sure if redirects are left behind). A diff would provide some clarity.
I agree with statements that GAN and GAR using the same /GA1 /GA2 system is confusing, and that in the future having all GARs at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment subpages would be good for solving that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need to have a separate discussion somewhere more obvious for whether to go with Talk:Article/GAR1 or Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Article/1. I'm starting to think it needs something more than local consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a separate discussion is needed if the new approach is exactly like one or other of the old approaches; effectively we'd be shutting down one of the approaches rather than starting a new one. I don't have much of a dog in this hunt, but on general principles I'd agree with Sandy: stick with one of the existing approaches, in order not to add an arbitrarily long delay to the various things that depend on it. A subsequent discussion can address a new design if needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae there's a whole HUGE discussion at WT:GAN of this already. PMC is right, on this page, this is a distraction from the task at hand. I wish we still had Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a distraction, I said I thought it might be worth getting a wider consensus since we're deciding on an entire subpage format. I'm not sure what Gimmietrow has to do with this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He designed {{Article history}} and ran a bot that processed ALL templates (GA included) in to AH, and would have fixed the entire thing. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches (that writeup is old .. he also did PR, DYK, ITN, OTD, etc). But he was chased off. So instead we have a gazillion different bots doing a gazillion different things at AH, but the only process that has broken pages in AH is GAN. But I digress ... carry on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he's returned recently, not sure he's getting pings but you could always check in to see if he wants to assist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to :) (If he did, he would.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the impatience, but I am trying to get through this DYK debacle, involving 30 articles, all with copyvio, and it requires all the concentration I've got to keep all the pieces in the right place. I'm almost done, but as I said many times, the diffs are in the discussion already at WT:GAN. We should simply wrap this up. The GA process needs a Coord-- one person or two or three who has the big picture. I don't care what y'all do with the GA pages; they have always been a mess, it makes no difference if they continue to be-- I merely thought that y'all would take advantage of this juncture, where you are redesigning anyway, to get in sync with the other processes. Unwatching now, I hope someone will let me know when we can launch the WP:DCGAR notices so that others can know where things stand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I finally understand Sandy's problem (example diff :). The GA subpage is transcluded on talk. When an article is moved, subpages like the GAN are moved as well. The transclusion / article history however, continues to point to the old page, and therefore throws an error. This would not happen if we use a format that is not a subpage of the talk. To solve this we'd need to
  1. Use naming like "Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Henry Ludington/1" for GAR
  2. Get a mirroring naming convention for the GAN page.
@Premeditated Chaos: would you be okay with launching it with the existing (community) convention, and us opening a discussion on WT:GAN to ensure consistency? Femke (alt) (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. I wonder if that could be solved by simply not transcluding them... In any case, I don't want to hold the whole thing up over the page title formatting, since I think I'm the only one who's got a strong preference for Talk:Article/GARx over WP:GAR/Article/x. We should just launch the new GAR with WP:GAR/Article/x, if you think it's otherwise good to go. Any discussion about the GAN formats can be dealt with without holding this up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the WP:GAR/Article/x format might indeed hold things up. Aren't there bots or scripts that rely on the existing format? ChristieBot does, but not for anything in production, so that doesn't matter, but the GAN review tool surely relies on it, and I would be surprised if nothing else pays attention to it. And presumably some template coding would need to change. If there truly is nothing that depends on this then I have no problem with the change, but I think we'd have to check. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with good template skills might be able to fix the issue in the diff by finding the subst'd template that generates that code, then changing the magic word from "titleparts", to something else that doesn't require hard-coding the page name. For example, maybe using ROOTPAGENAME in both the spots that Sandy edited. See mw:Help:Magic words#Page names for ideas. I'd be careful changing the preferred location of GAN subpages, as the amount of change that involves may be more work than the rare problem it fixes. And it sounds like GARs from now on will not have this problem since they'll all be community reassessments, right? If so, that piece of the puzzle is fixed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/GAR_proposal&oldid=1153740805"