Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

FLs?

These statistics are flawed, are they not? I'm no statistician, but I'm pretty sure the numbers on either sides of the dividing line must be comparable. Lists are surely included in the 2,4 million articles, so why are not the 750 Featured Lists included with GAs and FAs? That would bring the ratio closer to 340 than 380 to one. Lampman Talk to me! 02:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In terms of comparison, lists and articles don't. GA doesn't review lists, so we don't include them in the figures, just as we don't include featured picutres, portals or topics. It's Good Articles vs Featured Articles rather than Featured Content. :) Lara❤Love 12:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Humanitarians

What section should a humanitarian go under? I just passed Teresa Hsu Chih but have no idea where to put it. Nikki311 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Cultural symbols and objects"? Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that would work. I'll put it there. If anyone feels strongly that it should go somewhere else, me feelings won't be hurt if you move it. :) Nikki311 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Subsubsections

A bit ago I split the sports persons section into individual sports because the section had over 200 articles and it was getting difficult to browse. I know this is a slippery slope, so I think any new section needs to have at least 5 entries. For that reason I am going to put the chess section back into miscellaneous. Other groups are developing, too: there are four poker articles, four track/field articles, and three pool/billiards articles, for instance. Gimmetrow 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't happy with the introduction of subsubsubsections, for the slippery slope reason you mention. I think this is a sign that we need to subdivide the subsubsection on sports individuals. Probably this is most sensibly done as a subdivision on the level of sports: some sports clearly have so many articles that they need their own subtopic. Can interested editors provide proposals? Geometry guy 01:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, my criteria were: split a category when it exceeds 200 articles, and all subdivisions must have a minimum of 5 articles. Realistically, sports is such a focus here that, if we went by article count, sports could just as well be top-level on its own, with cultivation going to natsci and food and drink going to culture and society. Gimmetrow 01:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sooner or later, someone has to do it. Just take a look at television episodes or tropical cyclones, I don't want to navigate through the section to look up a particular hurricane I am researching on. 5 entries sounds fine, but make sure that this rule does not restrict the "Others" in each sub-subsection. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is just going to get longer over time and already takes a while to load (it's currently at 181 kb). Wouldn't it be best to make subpages by the main topics (arts, everyday life, mathematics, etc.)? That way the subpages would be able to still flow well with subsections, and not be so amazingly long. As we stand now, the current page would be too confusing with so many subsections, especially in a few more months or a couple years of a few thousand more Good Articles (I'm guessing, at our current rate). On the main Good Articles page, we can have the most recent passed articles shown for each main topic (perhaps 10 or 20) or ones that have already been swept (articles deemed acceptable), which will serve as an introduction to the types of articles covered in the main topics. Perhaps this could also be updated by a bot, so that when a person adds an article to the subpage, the bot automatically adds the new article to the recently added for the particular main topic. We can decide on what goes on the main Good Articles page, but I think a split is necessary and easier to do now than down the line. What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, subpages, please. I know one of the featured portal listings has it (but I forget the exact page), and it makes life a lot easier. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Na, I don't think we have that page. But it's time to have subpages when there're over 4000 GA articles. Sooner or later, even FA has to do that. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Contents/Portals is what I was thinking of. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that one. (We seriously have too many portal listing pages.) Yeah, it should work fine on GA, but I don't think the loading speed of the page will be improved. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we still up for splitting this page or do we need a larger consensus? If we're ready, we should get to splitting it soon. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Splitting GAs into subpages raises accountability issues. At the moment almost every editor with an interest in GA watchlists this page, so there is a good chance that incorrect listings will be trapped. It is unclear what would happen if we split the page into subpages: it might work out fine, but there might also be problems. Further, Gimmetrow would need to update Gimmebot to adapt to such a change. Personally, I'm not convinced this is needed yet. Geometry guy 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think, based simply on the fact that this page is nearing 200k, and that it is, frankly, useless as a navigational tool in its present form, we are nearing the point where breaking into subpages is required. I would be in favour of a complete overhaul of not only this page, but of the listings at WP:FA as well. Resolute 18:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Newsletter: June 2008

"The perfect article" not perfect?

An editor has made some good suggestions at Wikipedia talk:The perfect article#Rewrititionization?; discussion is welcome. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlisted GAs?

Some articles apparently passed but not listed here:

Someone want to deal with these? Gimmetrow 03:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Revanta is listed in DEities section.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is now. One step forward, five steps back. Gimmetrow 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Update. One forward, two back. Gimmetrow 06:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Please strike/add to the list below as errors are fixed/found. Geometry guy 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears nobody is interested in maintaining this page. Gimmetrow 03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Only me and thee, it seems, Gimmetrow. I think we need to make it easier to maintain.
Part of the problem is that this page tries to do too much: on the one hand it is the place which officially records which articles are GAs; on the other hand it tries to present this information to readers and editors in a single page. This mixes form and content. There is growing pressure to break GA up into subpages — see e.g. this thread below — but this will diminish the accountability role unless, e.g., the subpage data is transcluded from a central data page. Geometry guy 07:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganizing the page layout

As I mentioned above, this list, in its current form, is completely unusable. Too many entries (page is nearly 200kb), all squished together. To see how it would look, I took the sports and games section and modified it into several three-column charts in my sandbox. Personally, I think that this looks much better (despite the fact that the layout in my sandbox isn't all that great either), and is much easier to find topics. Especially since the table of contents goes deeper than the top level "Sports and recreation" heading.

With this in mind, I propose that we finally consider breaking this list into subpages, and reorganize each new subpage into defined columns. Perhaps, the subpages could cover the following:

  • Arts
  • Language and literature
  • Social sciences and society (integrating philosophy and religion)
  • Geography, places and history
  • Everyday life
  • Engineering, technology and mathematics
  • Natural Sciences

The biggest problem with the tables in my sandbox, at pesent, is that the articles would have to be manually moved around to ensure each of the three columns in each section remains balanced. That could probably be done by a bot. Thoughts? Resolute 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks better, yes. One problem is that the GA page has an accountability role: it officially lists which articles are GAs. Another issue is that the page is maintained by GimmeBot, and changes of structure need to be supported by Gimmetrow.
I am against combining topics: this will generate confusion, and the topics have been stable for some time now. Geometry guy 07:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Topics don't need to be combined then. And I agree on the accountability role. However, at 4300 GAs, this page is 188k. It is rapidly becoming impractical to list every GA on one page. Whether or not we change how the lists are displayed, splitting the overall list into subpages is an inevitability. Resolute 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The proposed three-column tables include only the article name, and don't allow much room for {{GAReview}} or {{GAOnHold}} tags -- adding these would make it very confusing to read. The columns would also make it more difficult to implement future automation of WP:GAN via bots. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason why {{GAOnHold}} would ever appear on the list of passed GAs. Near as I can tell, {{GAReview}} has not been transcluded to this page recently either. Not that anyone is likely to see such a template on the current list, as it would be akin to finding a needle in a haystack. Someone with superior mastery of tables could likely produce a better one than I have in my sandbox. It is provided simply as an example of how much easier a tabled list is to read compared to what we have now. Resolute 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Crossed wires here: Resolute is talking about WP:GA, whereas Dr.Cash assumed (wrongly) that this was about WP:GAN. Geometry guy 18:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
We all know that page needs to be revamped soon. Should we ask the community for more ideas to see how to revamp the page without significantly affecting bot's ability? OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you not just make all the sections auto-hide so you scroll through a list of headings, then only unhide the one whose contents you wish to read? This would make the page much less visually cluttered, but of course it would not reduce the page size/loading times – a good temporary solution? Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of that; good idea. Geometry guy 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC) (PS. I'm carefully not using the word "s******" as I've had enough of !voting in recent weeks :-)
The page can be divided into several physical pages—one for every section. They then should be transcluded into the main page. This can solve some problems; for instance, it will ease the load on servers when editing and reduce number of edit conflicts. However I still think there should be only one logical page 'Good articles', which includes all articles. Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that if we go with the sub-pages then each subpage should be divided by the Topical-level category (eg. Arts, Everyday Life), so that to add 3 very closely related articles that are in different Top-level categories (eg. Music, Food and Drink) could be done in one edit. Tarret talk 00:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

I liked the concept of having a separate talk page specifically for GA-assessment discussion. I don't have any expertise in creating bots, but have a suggestion. Is it possible to transclude only the section-headings of the assessed article to the assessment-talk page? See an example. That would make it convenient so that all the issues could be discussed under relevant section headings. If a section in the article is merged/removed (which is possible, but will be infrequent), then the corresponding comments on the talk page would stay, but unlinked to the original section of the article. This will make the discussions much smoother and convenient. And, those who are short of time can post all their comments in a section named on the lines of "Article in general"/"General discussion". There can be separate sections for images used, too. But, I repeat, I just don't possess any expertise to create such a bot/template.

—KetanPanchaltaLK 15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Different reviewers organise reviews in different ways: mostly they are organised around the criteria. So a scheme to automatically provide section headings from the article would not be universally appreciated. However, the bottom line is that it can't be done using templates, it would be hard to do using a bot, and there isn't a bot operating here anyway. Sorry not to be more help. Geometry guy 17:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, if it is not possible to effect my proposal because of technical limitations, then discussing it further wouldn't make much sense. But, if one wants to discuss the criteria, such a template would have sections for that, too. —KetanPanchaltaLK 13:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Howmet TX

My article for the Howmet TX recently passed GA, however I believe the reviewer has run into a bit of a problem regarding where the article should go on the list. The article is about a racing car, so it theoretically falls under both "Everyday life" (for being part of a sport) and "Transport" (for being a vehicle). However, it doesn't really seem to fit any of the subcategories within these two sections. It's not a game, a sport, a sports person, sports event, sports mascot, sports team, or a sports stadium, and while it is road transport, I would think this ignores the primarily sporting element of the vehicle.

So, where does it go? The359 (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Either start making a "Miscellaneous" sub-section, or place it under "Sports and other activities" section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe start a section for Sports equipment? The359 (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
That should be OK. giggy (:O) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Done, placed Howmet TX there, as well as the article on Dice. The359 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change of dashes in the directory

Not only are spaced en dashes non-standard for separating items in a list, but they take too much space (both on-screen and in the edit window); personally, I find them rather unsightly, not to mention the displacement at the end of lines. I propose replacing them with spaced en dashes, breaking only at the space following them (using Template:Ndash, as in Item 1{{–}} Item 2). What do the honourable colleagues think? Waltham, The Duke of 03:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No response... Shall I proceed, then? Waltham, The Duke of 05:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
(Just saw this now.) If you're willing to change the entire page, then go for it... it seems like a good idea. giggy (:O) 08:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No, please don't. It will interfere with the operation of GimmeBot. Geometry guy 08:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There, I have scared you into responding. (evil grin) I was actually aware of the problem; I intended to wait for a few days, and in lack of opposition to the proposal I should then notify Gimmetrow. I think I'll drop a line now; she should know that a change is possible. If it is approved here, I'll have to co-ordinate the change with her, of course.
So, what do you think of the proposal? Waltham, The Duke of 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually Giggy did, with "go for it", but I'm glad you are aware of the issue.
Personally, I'm happy with the spaced em-dashes. This is not article space, and it is helpful having a large separator between articles in such a densely packed list. "I find them rather unsightly" is not a good enough reason for messing about with a long-standing format. Geometry guy 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Applying the Manual of Style is not my main concern in wanting to make this change. My impression of the page is that em dashes are too distinctive. They have a character of their own; I look at the page with blurry eyes and can almost see the black. I am not saying that you should take a page from FA's book, but even these tiny dots separate the links quite well; it's mostly the gap that helps with the separation. All I am saying is cut the dashes to half of their length. There will still be effective separation, but I think it will be much more elegant. (And yes, it will also save some space, although this is amongst the minor arguments). Waltham, The Duke of 22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Using {{–}} adds 14 characters per line to the post-expand include size. Not an issue with the post-expand limit at 2Mb, but it seems to double or more the time needed to serve the page (<4s to 7-13 seconds). Going back to form without templates. Gimmetrow 20:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Those post-expand include size limits are there for a reason :-) Geometry guy 20:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's the issue here. 4430 transclusions of 14 bytes only add 62k, and the limit is 2000k. I think the problem is 4430 transclusions ;) Gimmetrow 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I proposed the template as an easier way of writing &nbsp;–... If this is considered too cumbersome, there is the option of not using hard spaces at all (maintaining the status quo in this aspect), but I believe that dashes should stick with their preceding links, or a link might appear to continue into the next line without that being true. In any case, my basic proposal is to replace the em dashes with en dashes, and there are no technical complications involved here. Waltham, The Duke of 08:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I have only just noticed that the proposal has been actually implemented. The "going back" comment makes sense now. :-D Thank you very much; the page looks much better indeed now. Waltham, The Duke of 08:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The subpage system for GA reviews appears to have bedded down quite well now. After a month in action, the templates now generate an error when there is no subpage, and very few errors have been generated. The change seems to have had a positive effect on review quality and overall activity.

An issue that was raised several times during the discussion of GAN review subpages (see here, here and here) is that individual delisting/reassessment activities need to be as accountable as GAN reviews. Following further discussion, I've provided reassessment templates that support high quality reassessment and delisting of articles by individual editors. As with GAN reviews, these reassessments are stored permanently on a dedicated /GAn subpage of article talk, so that reassessments are just as transparent as GAN reviews. The process works much like WP:GAR, by substituting a template ({{subst:GAR}}) at the top of the article talk page, only now this provides a choice between "individual reassessment" and "community reassessment".

Something like this is essential for the transparency of the reassessment/delisting process. I encourage editors to try it out. Once feedback on the process has been received, the plan is to update the guidelines at WP:GAR to provide better and clearer support both for individual and community reassessments. Geometry guy 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Helpful New Userbox

If you place this userbox ({{User Good Articles3}}) userbox on your userpage, it will activate a link to a separate userspace where you can list the articles that you helped upgrade to GA. I created it because I wanted to list my GA articles without having them clutter my userpage. Just thought someone else might be interested.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 GAN Newsletter is ready for consumption. Enjoy! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Last name first name in "Artists_and_architects" section?

Is it just me or should Wikipedia:Good articles#Artists and architects be sorted last name, first name? Gary King (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I never noticed they weren't, but they should. Mastrchf (t/c) 21:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I made a bold edit and made the change. Gary King (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Good topics?

I was wondering, since we have featured topics, would it be worth having "good topics"? I'm sure the suggestion will get shoot down in 5 minutes—wikipedia doesn't like change—but I can't see any harm in it. I assume we don't already have such a thing? — Realist2 (Speak) 15:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A featured topic requires only a fifth of the articles to be Featured, the rest can be GAs. Not sure if a separate "GT" which has only an all-GA criteria would be useful. indopug (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we'd have to wait until the FT criteria gets more stringent, which I'm sure it will. Wrad (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No Good Topics please. Also, the FT criteria hasn't changed much in the past year or so, so there's no reason to think it will change. It's doing well as it is. Gary King (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon I of France

Just passed this article, but unsure of the category it belongs in. I've listed it under World history > Heads of state, but should it be under Monarchs (do we count self-proclaimed emperors in this?) EyeSerenetalk 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Heads of state sounds more appropriate to me. Gary King (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Delisting

Is is still allowed to delist an article on one's own authority if it clearly does not meet standards? I'm looking at Grand Theft Auto (series), and I'm surprised it actually has been listed (especially so recently) --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the actual policy on this, but I would recommend against it. Some people have different standards, and although some articles may not clearly meet the Good article criteria, it's still prudent to still take it through WP:GAR. Gary King (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There are generally two ways go about it. One, primarily best for folks who are well acquainted with the GA guidelines and have some GAs under their belt, is to leave a notice on the article talk page detailing the ways the article fails GA and giving folks 1-2 weeks to get it fixed or it will be delisted. Some also consider it polite to follow that up with notes on the major recent contributers pages alerting them to the message. I also generally will tag the article for things like referencing issues. If little to nothing is done, when the time is up, delist the article. The second way, which some consider more "polite" and is particularly the best way to go if you are a contributer to the article or not an experienced GA reviewer, is list it at GAR immediately, again specifying why you feel it fails the GA criteria. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
In short, yes, but you must give editors a chance to respond, and leave a review suggesting improvements just as you would for a failed GAN. See the reassessment guidelines. If you add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page, you will be presented with the choice of an individual or community reassessment. Geometry guy 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wagiman language

The Wagiman language article has been nominated for quite some time now, it's listed as GA under the languages wikiproject and the Australia wikiproject. Can I just attempt to push it along a bit? jangari – ngili-ma 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Push it along where? Gary King (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Color rendering index

Before I take up everyone's time with a submission, would the example or citation style used disqualify this article? --Adoniscik(t, c) 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As Harvard referencing is unusual in Wikipedia, you may have to provide the reviewer with a link to Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. -Malkinann (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
These are in-line citations, though, and permitted by the Manual of Style, so (assuming all appropriate cites are in place) the article meets the citing criteria of WP:WIAGA. EyeSerenetalk 08:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Certainly unusual, but still accepted. Even if this was an FAC. Gary King (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GA count

Currentlly GA count is updated by the bot or manuelly—40531. Why can not it be done in a simpler way? For instance it can be done like this—40,537, which is realised by the following code {{formatnum:{{#expr:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Wikipedia_good_articles|R}}-16}}}} (see {{Counter}}). Ruslik (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why the "-16"? Anyway, this would be a change from a page listing as definitive, to a category as definitive. Gimmetrow 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing the -16 because there are 16 articles in the category that aren't Good articles and are instead Wikipedia namespace articles? Gary King (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems unlikely. Both {{ArticleHistory}} and {{GA}} should only generate CAT:Wikipedia good articles and similar categories when used in the article-talk namespace. Gimmetrow 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's the 16 sub categories that this category has. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was wondering. However there are actually 4569 articles listed on WP:GA at the moment. Maybe it's the 13 categories on the first page? Gimmetrow 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
So -13 then. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I think you were right the first time. Check out what Category:Wikipedia good articles itself says about its contents: "out of out of 4,567 total" in agreement with Ruslik's PAGESINCAT-16 code. Geometry guy 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
So we got a few extra GAs on WP:GA? Gary King (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This may be because a handful articles are listed in more than one section. Geometry guy 20:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

← Well, they shouldn't. And that means there are two articles in two sections, or one article in three sections. Gary King (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The count was 4569 unique articles, prior to other listings and delistings. Duplicates aren't counted in the total. Gimmetrow 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that means that two articles listed at GA don't have a correct GA/ArticleHistory template on the talk page. The question is, which two...? Geometry guy 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, but they do. Every article listed on the page is in CAT:WGA. And FYI, there are 35 repeats on the page. The category counts from the magic word do not update immediately, especially with large categories. Gimmetrow 22:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I just realized that the two of you are two different people. The signatures look so similar... Gary King (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The {{GA number}} is also not updated imediately. 16 is the number of subcategories. It rarely changes. Ruslik (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoever adds an article updates the WP:GA count, and it's periodically checked. The category count is probably less accurate. Gimmetrow 23:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I never update the count and discourage other reviewers from editing it at every opportunity: it is a complete waste of human effort when it is maintained by a bot. Anyway, I favour switching to the category count: this is accurate enough and requires no maintenance. Geometry guy 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
One possible problem that I can see is the caching of the pages by server. The page containing this template needs to be edited or purged for the counter to update. Fortunately WP:GA is one of the most heavily edited pages in en.wiki. So this will not be a problem. Ruslik (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I created template {{Counter}}, which produces various numbers:

FA articles—6,618 (1 in 1,044);
FL articles—4,507 (1 in 1,533);
GA articles—40,537 (1 in 171);
sum of the categories above—51,662 (1 in 134).

Ruslik (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice! I am tempted to add this feature to Category:Wikipedia good articles (as an onlyinclude) to tie it more closely to the number of subcategories. Using a category page as a template would be somewhat novel! Geometry guy 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"...this is accurate enough and requires no maintenance." – Accurate enough is another argument. There's really no need to have the count accurate to the article, for instance. WP:FA only reports the count accurate to the nearest 10. As for no maintanence, since people seem to want to go to categories and subcategories, let's just declare the WP:GA listing historical and quit updating it. Gimmetrow 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

{{GA number}} can remain as an alternative (and as a check), some people will prefer it over {{Counter}}. So I will insert the template into WP:GA. There is another advantage of using Counter template —it simplifies code in the page. Ruslik (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Butting in here, I'm quite impressed that 1 in 300 or so articles has been through some kind of review process. Only 0.03% I know, but I'd never have imagined it was even that many. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(0.3% even!) The listing of WP:GA serves as the official recognition of which articles are GAs. It has the advantage that it can be watchlisted. If we move towards categories, we have to bear that issue in mind. Geometry guy 08:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I let my excitement get the better of me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow! 1 in 326 is definitely quite impressive! The actual number of reviewed articles is probably a bit higher if you add the articles that went through a peer review but are not currently listed as GA, FA, or FL. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The category count through the magic word/template is consistently wrong (it's again off by three). But if people want wrong, that's fine with me. I will quit updating the page entirely. Gimmetrow 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, your contribution to the GA project is absolutely invaluable, and editors probably don't pause often enough to appreciate it. I have freely admitted already that I never update the count and encourage others to do likewise. I also don't update individual counts in sections, nor do I worry too much about getting the sort order exactly right. Why not? Because I know that within 24 hours, Gimmebot will sort it all out anyway. Gimmebot provides a precious saving of time and irritation to many editors, not just me: all thanks to you.
Concerning the count, as I write this, both the category and the magic word/template are currently giving 4,582, whereas {{GA number}} (updated 2 hours ago) is giving 4,581. If there really is a consistent mismatch between the two, then I'd really like to figure out what it is and why. Spirit of inquiry and all that... Geometry guy 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There were 4581 listed, then two added for 4583 listed on the page. There are two more articles in the category not on the page. Gimmetrow 00:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I really did not expect that the GA counter would grow into such a big issue (everything or nothing). I don't insist on using {{Counter}} (I noticed that you reverted my changes). If you think {{GA number}} is better, let use it. However you should admit that it is impossible to avoid magic words completely: NUMBEROFARTICLES is still necessary. Ruslik (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Nor me. Anyway, fresh from a bot update, GA number has 4587, while the category/magic word has 4584. Geometry guy 08:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This page historically had a count of the articles listed on the page. If you use the count in the category as the "GA count", then that makes the category primary. About a day and a half ago this page and the category were synced (5 articles added from the category), but already there are three articles in the category and not on the page. It looks like enough people think and want the category to be primary, and it's not worth the trouble keeping them in sync. So fine, redirect this page to Category:Wikipedia good articles. Gimmetrow 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is because some reviewers forget to add articles to this list, they think that the list is updated automatically. Ruslik (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

How to identify a GA?

Howdy folks. I am writing a pretty lengthy term paper on Wikipedia and in it I briefly am discussing FAs and GAs. As it's written for people who don't know Wikipedia, I am writing how one identifies both. A FA can be identified by a small star, as we all know. But how can a GA be identified? Other than cross-referencing the article being read with the GA list here, or using the obscure preference which adds a header to an article telling you, how does one know? Might a small icon be created and added to GAs for identification? That would be extraordinarily useful and, moreover, won't make my professor confused about this lack of consistency. Thanks. Bstone (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You look at the talk page, where most editor-facing information, including GA status, is indicated. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I believe you, however this is the exact answer I was hoping not to receive. It would be ideal if people could look at an article and similar to FAs know if the article is GA or not. Is there any possibility of implementing the minimalistic star or other icon that FAs have? Bstone (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The idea of having an icon similar to that of FA has been discussed several times and has repeatedly failed to gain consensus. Karanacs (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC) PS Last discussed in May. Karanacs (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of GA is to improve articles to a certain basic point, not to make them identifiable as being uber, since they aren't always uber. (General comment from the last discussion, but one that I agree with somewhat.) —Giggy 01:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
FAs aren't always uber either, but no point in rehashing the last GA icon discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree on both points. I still favour the GA icon, though weakly. —Giggy 03:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I still favour it strongly, but I've come to accept that there's an entrenched and long-standing resistance to the idea. I'm now resigned to the fact that no matter what changes are made to the GA process a substantial body of opinion will always be shouting it down because it's not FA. I take comfort in my belief that no matter what anyone else thinks, the GA project has made a substantial difference to the overall quality of wikipedia articles and continues to do so. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
We need to stop agreeing or I'll suddenly become amazingly uncivil ;-) —Giggy 23:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So long as you're not about to accuse me of having called you a "savage colonial", an opium dealer, or a "foe against the Indonesian people"[1] I think I'll probably survive your best shot. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have always been in favour of a GA icon, and remain in favour, but as Karanacs said, there is some resistance to that idea. In the meantime you can go into my preferences/Gadgets/User interface gadgets and select "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps to add to your professor's confusion, there are many, including IIRC the FA director himself, who have argued against having even the FA icon on an article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think Giggy summed it up nicely in that these classifications are more useful in generally improving the quality of articles rather than giving individual articles a classification that can be used by the general audience. Gary King (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Echoing my professor (but mostly for myself), why would wikipedia not want to identify those articles which stand out and well sourced, written and edited? Bstone (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This link, which Karanacs provided above, ought to explain. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
We have no idea if these articles are well sourced or well edited. Checking the accuracy of sources and editing is not generally part of the process. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is, but that's a discussion for another place and time. A great many GAs have been delisted because of their lack of sourcing, or the quality of their sourcing, and continue to be delisted for that reason. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that after the sweeps to remove poor GAs, we will meet less resistance. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
To Christopher Parham, I urge you to see this, specifically #2 which stated, "It is factually accurate and verifiable:" etc. I contend that you might misunderstand what GA truly represents. Bstone (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Bstone, please observe that not every GAN reviewer will review to the exact criteria. —Giggy 23:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Bstone, the truth is a majority of Wikipedians would like to see a GA symbol. But for a measure like this to be implemented, something called a "supermajority" is demanded. It turns out this requirement was met too. But then there's a process called "weight of argument", where a mythical creature called an "administrator" swoops in and magically determines whose arguments are worth considering, and whose are not. It turns out, in this case, only the anti-GA symbol people's arguments were worthwhile. Lampman (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think probably the truth is that readers don't even notice the icons; they're a reward for the contributors. The dishonesty of the present system is in not recognising that fact. Both FA and GA icons should be allowed, or neither. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem GA faces in its attempt to attain an article space icon is that it's a one reviewer pass project. Only one set of eyes, not counting the authors and nominator, determine if the article meets the criteria or not. Unfortunately, without any extra checks, we lose balance, because not every reviewer is as thorough as would be ideal. Personally, I support the idea. I gave a strong push for it about a year ago when I got sweeps rolling. I proposed it be added only to articles that have passed sweeps. It did not gain consensus, obviously.

Many great changes have been made to ensure project quality, but perception has proven to be the most difficult thing to change. Until some major process changes are made, this will most likely remain an unrealistic expectation. LaraLove|Talk 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

4,670

I did a quick count on Word, and I arrived at 4,670 articles listed on this page. Why is this number so inconsistent with the official one? Are these simply de-listed GA's that people have forgotten to remove from the list? Lampman (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

At least I know that Sweeps doesn't lower the number when they delist an article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
But do they remove the article from the list on this page? Lampman (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
When I delisted an article for sweeps, I removed the article from this page, and also reduced the number in the template. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Some articles are listed in two (or more) sections. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Not me. I don't remove the article from the page nor update the count :P OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

New sub-category

Hi everyone. I've been trying to figure out where the article Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism should be categorized on this list, and I've decided that the most appropriate thing to do is create a new sub-category called 'Interdisciplinary' under 'Social sciences and society'. Any thoughts? – SJL 16:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Culture and society/Organizations is close enough to me. Geometry guy 16:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Putting this association in the same category as the Boy Scouts is kind of a stretch. – SJL 16:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It is no more a stretch than putting Halo: The Flood in the same category as Sonnet 18. A category is not defined by its contents. Geometry guy 20:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that the ASEN is too 'high brow' to be in the same category as the Boy Scouts, I'm saying they're different types of things. As for a category not being defined by its contents, I'd appreciate it if you could explain what the criteria are. Looking at this page more closely, I see a lot of things that have nothing to do with other that are nonetheless grouped together, and I am interested to know why. – SJL 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I largely understood, but it is hard to illustrate issues with a single example. All categorization systems are imperfect, because they attempt to summarize complex information in a simplistic way. My first thought was to suggest to categorize the organization with other academic institutions, but academic institutions are largely categorized under "Education", which doesn't really take into account their research role, and this organization is research-based, not education-based.
"Culture-and-society" includes "Cultural and social studies"; as this is an organization related to such studies, it seems sensible to place it under the corresponding organization section.
The simplistic characterizations here should not be taken to be a big deal: it is just a way to break up a long list and it needs to have some stability. Geometry guy 21:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
All categorization systems may be imperfect, but they're not all as misleading as this one. In my opinion, 'Cultural and social studies' should not be a sub-category of its own object of study, and should instead be either its own category within 'Social sciences and society' or a sub-category of a new category called 'Interdisciplinary social science'. A good categorization system doesn't just "break up a long list", it organizes information in a meaningful and helpful way. – SJL 03:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
That's why we have categories for articles. I'm afraid the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme for organizing articles here quite often places the outside study of a particular domain within that domain. This is not logical to you, or to a mathematician like me, but it is one way to organize the articles, which, once one accepts it, is helpful in its own way. Geometry guy 22:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Accepting a practise just because it's established doesn't make much sense to me, but I'll leave it alone for now. I do think that this is worth revisiting at some point, though. There's no reason why the articles listed here couldn't be categorized accurately. – SJL 02:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor Request

It's a while since I looked at this page – wow, what a lot of GAs :D Could I ask that the category heading "Racecar driving" under "Everyday life" is changed to "Motor sport" or "Motorsport"? The relevant wikiproject is Wikiproject:Motorsport, the articles are not all about racecar driving, and 'racecar' is American usage, where I believe that 'motorsport' is acceptable in both UK and US usage (could be wrong on the last one). It would also allow for articles on motorcycles, not just cars. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I renamed it to Motorsport. Ruslik (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

New Natural Sciences subcategory?

The recently promoted GA World Science Festival does not seem to fit into any of the existing categories. I would propose the creation of a subcategory "General" (or "Miscellaneous Science", but I would prefer "General") to put it in. Any other future GA that is natural-science related, but not concerned with one particular scientific field, could go in there, as well. Markus Poessel (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

August newsletter

The august newsletter is ready for reading. Enjoy! Dr. Cash (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good topics

Could we have some rationale

The intro states that some articles may be 'unlikely to reach featured article quality', but does not say why, could we have some examples or criteria of these – I can picture some possible examples e.g. maybe very short articles or controversial issues – but even these could be good if perfectly written ? LeeVJ (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of one I wrote recently that I think would struggle at FAC. Basically, there's very little (if anything) else known. GA was at least in part intended to recognise short articles like that, which can likely never be expanded. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Actually, looking at it again, I've changed my mind. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
From WP:GA? the main difference is depth of coverage, GAs are expected to be broad and cover the major aspects of a subject, and a FA is comprehensive. "[Broad coverage] is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics". That said, I think there can be room for short articles at FA. If you've exhausted all your sources, the article will be as comprehensive as any other available. Nev1 (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The confusion, I think, is over the phrase "shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic ...". It looks like the second clause is modifying the first (shorter articles), but I don't believe that's the intention. Short articles can certainly get through FAC if they're comprehensive, and there are some pretty short FAs. The issue, as you say, is comprehensiveness, not length. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life

Evolutionary history of life has been promoted to GA, but has a lot of holes – see Talk:Evolutionary history of life #Structure and questions. I was strongly tempted to put a "needs expert attention" tag on it, but it would be embarassing for Wikipedia to have this banner on a GA. I really hate being so harsh, but one could produce a better article from almost any Paleontology 101 textbook, i.e. a better article with just one source. Articles on science subjects need to be reviewed for content as well as compliance with WP:rules_on_everything. I suspect reviews of articles on other "academic" or "technical" subjects are in a similar situation, e.g. history, music.

PS Do not take this as criticism of the reviewer, who was friendly, helpful and as, as far as I could see, did what current policies require. It's the policies that have the problems. Unfortunately it's not even a new problem – Cambrian explosion was once FA, but a review in the scientific journal Nature pointed out a lot of errors. -- Philcha (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about removal of GA status

The current GA template says this: "If [the article] no longer meets [the GA] criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment." But note that the template includes (or should include) the particular revision that was evaluated to be of GA quality.

What happened to Raoul Wallenberg was that lots of material of questionable value was added by some enthusiastical user, and then someone figured the article was no longer of GA quality. However, the earlier revision was -- as far as I can evaluate -- still of GA quality. Would it be wrong to revert the article back to the GA-status version and list it as GA again?

Fred-J 16:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was delisted on Dec. 2, 2007 but I couldn't find the announcement for delist. Can you give the link? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. The link is here: Talk:Raoul Wallenberg#Review / comments
Note that this question is somewhat hypothetical. I have renominated it for GA-status, because I want it to go through another GA-review process anyways, after this long.
But if it were to fail that GA-nomination for some outstanding reason, could I then revert it to the February 22, 2007 version and re-add the GA template?
Fred-J 17:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reformatting GA comments on talk page

The editor of Let's Get It On has reformatted the GA review on Talk:Let's Get It On. My understanding is that the formatting is not to be changed. What should be done in this case, if anything? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams

I've promoted this article to GA but I really can't figure out which section to list it in! Any ideas? Million_Moments (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems difficult to place, but perhaps the Education subsection in the Education section? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That was my first instinct. Million_Moments (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

David K. Jordan

Could someone please remove the GA-rating from this article? It was assigned to it inappropriately by the article's creator[2], without going through the GA-approval process. The article's author User:Lajolla2009 had previously assigned this article A-class rating[3]. Since he does not react well to my comments and I don't want to keep reverting him (3RR is already close), could someone else please remove the GA-rating and try to talk to User:Lajolla2009 about the rating process? Hopefully he will react better to additional input. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry after having a look at this moment I do not have the time. What ever is done he will undo that is obvious, can we not put a "note" on the page that is locked in that says hey the editor thinks it is a GA but it has not gone through any review. I will have a look in a couple of weeks but until then it just underminds GAs but might keep the editor happy! Edmund Patrick – confer 18:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the GA template on the article and left the editor a note. Since they appear to be new, let's WP:AGF for now, and see where it goes. EyeSerenetalk 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Maybe not so new (just seen the WP:ANI thread here). I've commented there too, and am keeping a (serene) eye on things ;) Thanks for catching this, Nsk92. EyeSerenetalk 21:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It was that thread that put me off, and the history of deletions on the talk page! A much better friendlier start, well done EyeSerene. Edmund Patrick – confer 06:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

O F Hunziker

The Otto Frederick Hunziker article was recently listed as a good article under the good article criteria. When I requested GA assessment, I stated: "I struggled with the subtopic. Other potential subtopics include: Farming and cultivation, Education, Chemistry and materials science." (I think I originally listed "Food" or "Drink" as the topic.) The reviewer stated: "I've not put this article in the Good Article list because there doesn't seem to be an appropriate section- one needs to be created." Potential GA categories appear to be:

  • Everyday life | Farming and cultivation | Agriculture and farming
  • Everyday life | Food and drink | Food
  • Everyday life | Food and drink | Drink
  • Social sciences and society | Education | Educators
  • Natural sciences | Chemistry and materials science | Chemists and materials scientists

Does anyone have any recommendation regarding what might be best? How would I indicate the new topic? (I assume that I would edit the GA template on the article's talk page such that "topic=x" is changed so that "x" is replace by the topic name. Correct?) Thank you for any guidance. --Rpclod (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If possible we try to avoid category proliferation – I've changed the Everyday life | Food and drink | Cooks title to Everyday life | Food and drink | Personalities, to make it more general, and he could perhaps fit in there. However, I hate to have to do this, but I believe the article does not currently meet the GA criteria – specifically, the lead needs considerable expansion to comply with WP:LEAD (there may be other issues, but that was the one that jumped out at me). I'll comment further on the article talk page. EyeSerenetalk 11:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good topics open for business

I hope the process is fairly self-explanatory :) Please don't nominate topics you haven't worked on. Please address any questions you have about how exactly good topics are implemented here – rst20xx (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GA on main page

Has there ever been discussion of adding GAs to the main page (without removing any current feature). GAs are now higher quality than FAs were when they first went to the main page, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Strikes me as highly unlikely, considering even Featured Topics have no front-page presence. --erachima talk 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This has probably been discussed before, but I think it is a good idea. Of course there are those naysayers b****ing about how the whole process is corrupt, etc. Your friend Eddy of the wiki[citation needed] 23:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we'd do that; if there's mainpage room, better to just add a second FA. We're not running short of them, and they're better than FAs are (though maybe they didn't used to be – I'm too young to know). Besides that, while I'm generally a fan of the GA process, there's no question that some articles that have no business being called GAs stay listed for quite some time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Some articles that have no business being called FAs also stay listed for quite some time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I am just curious about this idea and glad to have gotten some feedback. I am pretty sure FA is not going to double up. I am unsure about the relevance of FT on the main page, but I think they may deserve a space in time. There are not enough current topics for this to be done. As I understand it, WP:GAR got revised last month so that nothing gets delisted without a discussion anymore. I think this is a statement that everything that is currently a GA is now at least good enough to warrant a discussion before removal. This of course does not mean the standard has risen enough that everyone feels they all should be on the main page. However, since in all likelihood the count of GAs will pass 5000 next week (if not sooner), we surely have at least a few years worth of good ones if we were to be selective. It could be done, but I understand it might not because instead of focusssing on the best 1000, people will focus on the worst 1000.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any change to WP:GAR that means that nothing can be delisted without a discussion. I've delisted several articles this month alone. If it were true that "everything that is currently a GA is now at least good enough to warrant a discussion before removal" then there would be no need of the GA Sweeps Process. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The GAR instruction page implies that a discussion is to take place in order to remove an article. What is the GA Sweeps Process? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You can see a description here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a great fan of GAs, but I don't think it's worth putting them on the front page. On average, a given FA will be of better quality than a given GA. Surely the purpose of the front page is to promote our best work, there seems no particular reason to highlight our very good, but not quite best work. FA and GA should not be in competition with each other (I know this is not necessarily the case!), and to my mind they serve quite different purposes: FA gives us our very best work, but these are restricted in number because of the effort required; GA (because it is easier) allows us to create a large number of high quality articles. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe that WP:DYK needs some reforming, and adding an entry in there from things like WP:GA and WP:FL along with a selection of new articles would help promote a far wider range of our work on the main page. Resolute 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I support having GAs on the main page. There needs to be greater recognition of GAs. SGpedian article writers like Aldwinteo usually get their articles on DYK and nominate said articles for GA shortly after, while Mailer diablo once said that he would rather write DYKs than GAs, because the former appeared on the main page. This suggests that greater recognition of GAs would increase the GA project's potential to fight systemic bias. Unfortunately, such ideas will probably be shot by the elitist FAC community. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:GA maintenance

I'm going to stop maintaining WP:GA soon. Someone either needs to take over adding the articles the reviewers don't, or the page can be redirected to CAT:GA. Gimmetrow 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll help, though is there a way to find the GAs not listed on this page? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Gimmetrow/gascan.py. Gimmetrow 01:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Just add that to my monobook.js? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. It's python, not javascript. To use that particular script you would have to download pywikipedia. Gimmetrow 21:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Sorry, I'm terrible at computer code/scripts. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You will also need to create a separate bot account. Ruslik (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Report. Gimmetrow 04:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate everyone's help with these. "Really Achieving" was discussed below and I added the album one. The rest are still not listed on the page. Gimmetrow 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
All of them are done. Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. One more for now: where to put Who Made Huckabee? Gimmetrow 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...perhaps Television and radio drama under Arts? Dana boomer (talk)
Even though the dispute was a fiction, this is non-fiction, as are all almost all articles related to live TV shows. I've put it under "Television and radio non-fiction". Geometry guy 21:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, Archibald Dixon pushed the article count to 5000. WP:GA and CAT:GA currently in sync, but updates will be less frequent from now on. Gimmetrow 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It's good to be in sync for a milestone! I passed on the news to WT:GAN. Geometry guy 22:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me what you mean? Will you be updating weekly instead of daily or just not at all?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

New Subsection

If no one has any objections, I'd like to create a new subsection under Engineering and Technology – Transport for automobiles. The Road Transport section is pretty cluttered – it's one of the biggest sections on the page and is the biggest in Transport, so it's kinda hard to see which links are to vehicles.--Flash176 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't making a different section for roads themselves make more sense, since they're the larger group and less intuitively related to "road transport"? --erachima talk 06:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That could be done, too, but I think "Road Transport" is a better name for roads and bridges than it is for vehicles. At least, that's how it was done with the trains. Locomotives have their own section named "Trains and Locomotives" and railroads, tunnels, stations, etc. are grouped into "Rail Transport".--Flash176 (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Please be careful next time – when you split the sections, you deleted a whole bunch of road GAs off the list. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how that happened, because a lot of those aren't even the ones I selected. If you look at the list I made for vehicles, those are the only links that I touched. Thanks for fixing it, though. I got busy and forgot to double check my work.--Flash176 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
A couple of vehicles were missed, and I think road transport policy should not be lost among the vast number of roads, so I've made a couple of minor fixes. Geometry guy 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GA template issues

Why does it take so long for messages posted on the GA review page to appear on the article talk page? --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PURGE. Geometry guy 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this link should be indicated on the GA banner. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
A purge link is currently included until the subpage is created. Gimmetrow 13:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
One could also be added to the "This discussion is transcluded from..." text if there is a demand for it. Geometry guy 14:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/recent

At Wikipedia:Good articles/recent, I have been trying to add delisted articles here since there is no where else to summarize delistings. People keep changing Recently listed/delisted good articles to Recently listed good articles. Is there a reason not to announce delistings there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The list should be for newly listed articles ONLY. Is is neither necessary nor appropriate to add delisted articles to the list. The practice should be discontinued immediately. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Another milestone!

1 in 500 Wikipedia articles are GAs! Congratulations and keep writing GAs! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Note 5139 * 500 = 2,569,500 is less than the current article count (c.2,573,400). However, the milestone was crossed sometime today, because at least 20 additional articles have been listed (net) since the count was updated this morning (UTC). This rapid change is partly a result of the current backlog elimination drive. Geometry guy 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
... and partly because the GA Sweeps Project isn't delisting articles fast enough. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:GAPQ/S. I'm neutral :-) Geometry guy 21:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm neutral too, I was just saying. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Darn... I was just feeling the need to delist some articles to spoil some fun</sarcasm> OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm fast becoming the Great Destroyer of GA articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Dang, I used to hold that title. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It is my ambition to catch up with your number of sweeps reviews, but I'm not sure I'll manage to live that long. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
ATM Malleus has delisted 51 out of 143 articles reviewed, while Nehrams has delisted 46 out of 311, so I think Malleus has the title of "great destoryer of GA articles" aready ;-) Well done everyone who's contributed to getting 1 in every 500 articles to GA standard, especially the reviewers, without whom no one would know if GAs are up to scratch. Nev1 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It does seem kind of harsh, but so far as I'm aware only one of those delistings was challenged at WP:GAR, where it was endorsed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Damn. I've fallen so far behind in the delisting sweep, it's not funny. If Gguy Malleus Jimbo someone would care to take on my copyedit backlog, maybe I could get back in contention... :P EyeSerenetalk 13:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Potted GA history

I thought it might be useful to outline some aspects of the early history of GA. This is my own flawed analysis, and I welcome other editors making corrections or adding further information.

Good articles were initiated in October 2005 by Worldtraveller, with the following mission: "Many articles contain excellent content but are unlikely to become featured; they may be too short, or on too broad a topic, or on too specific a topic, or an a topic about which not much is known. We should endeavour to identify good content that is not likely to become featured." This original motivation has developed into a myth that GA was originally invented to recognise short articles; the truth is a little more subtle.

The initial process was: "Simply add any articles here that match the criteria. If you see an article listed here that you think is not good, be bold and remove it, leaving a note on its talk page to indicate why you think it is not good." Six GA criteria were identified from the initial statement. It remained as a proposed process for over 6 months.

Monthly growth in the number of Good articles, averaged over the previous 12 months.

GAN started out as a concern that nominations should be independent, and was first formalized as a "Self-nominations page". This was converted into a nominator-reviewer system on 10 March 2006, when the criteria were also listed on a separate page.

GAR started out as a place for resolving disputes over delisting. It gradually expanded its role and changed its name. Closely related was the introduction of sweeps. This expanded in September 2006 after the criteria were changed to require more inline citation.

The monthly growth of the number of good articles reflects these various changes. The initial enthusiasm is evident in the rapid early growth, when it was easy to list an article. This was tempered considerably by the endeavour that began in September 2006 to ensure verifiability. If you want to see what is a "drive-by delist", look to this period. I believe a lot of ill feeling towards the GA project has its origins here. We have to maintain quality but also avoid discouraging or alienating content-producers. My own involvement with GA began in Spring 2007. I find it encouraging that the number of new GAs per month continues to grow approximately linearly. Geometry guy 18:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the "GA Monthly Growth" number in your figure is basically the equation "Growth = GA promoted – GA demoted"? OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes: it is based on WP:GA/S. Geometry guy 20:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
That is a very interesting table. Who keeps it up? Is there a bot that counts the articles? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It varies. Recently it has been Lampman. The good article count was maintained by a bot until 21 October, when a GA editor thought it was a smart move to have the bot operator blocked for a 3RR violation. Geometry guy 09:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
It would have a smart move for the bot operator not to have abused his position by edit warring. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
No. I think a bot operator is an admin. Those edit warring rules don't apply to admins. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is not smart to edit war, and WP:3RR applies to all, irrespective of position. Geometry guy 16:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's not forget that you can also track the number of GAs through this statistic and this log. Walkerma (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(←) That's a useful reminder, Walkerma! These are updated every Sunday. The log in particular is worth checking as it provides a summary of the article talk page changes to GA status: this can then be compared to the list on this page to trap any errors. Meanwhile, the good news is that GimmeBot is back in action. My understanding is that in future bot updates are intended to happen twice a week, on Tuesday and Saturday evening.

I've updated the GA header to use Ruslik's {{Counter}}. This counts the number of articles in Category:Wikipedia good articles rather than the number of (distinct) articles listed on this page, so we need to check regularly that they are in sync. Finally a curiosity: Category:GA-Class Good articles claims to have 7 more articles in it than Category:Wikipedia good articles. I went through it, and the two categories appear have identical content. Can anyone figure out where the discrepancy comes from? Geometry guy 11:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that nobody tried to ask me about anything, and just made assumptions and statements which are largely if not entirely false. Gimmetrow 16:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is. Can you clarify? Geometry guy 16:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Why do you continue to lie about what happened?[4] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I let it go before, but you continue making personal attacks and harassing other editors. Congrats – you are acting exactly like those you complain about, and have firmly placed yourself as part of the problem, not the solution. GG, if you want to talk, come to my talk page. MF, don't. Gimmetrow 16:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I realised the futility of attempting to discuss anything sensibly with you a few days ago, either here or on your talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on process for delisting a Good Article

Q: Is it acceptable to ignore point 4 in the process (and thus effectively point 3 and 5)

A: I would contend this is impolite and the instructions on this page should be followed to the letter as far as is possible.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: Background information on why ZincBelief initiated this RfC can be found here OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Point 4 only applies to Good Article Reassessment discussions directly. There is no requirement for a formal reassement to be done, articles which are patently below the GA standard can be removed without discussion, though it is equally the right of someone to list the action for community reassement at the WP:GAR page. If someone has delisted an article without discussion, then bring it up for discussion yourself. If there is a widespread consensus to return the GA status, then that will be done. The little green plus that appears on the talk page is not a big deal and if you genuinely believe that a delisted article meets the criteria, start a community GAR and explain why you think what you do. Certainly many borderline cases require formal discussion, however there are always some really horrendous articles that "sneak through" the process, or are old articles which have been missed (not sure how, with the many sweeps we have done), and thus we should not force discussion where none is really needed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Jayron, you are behind the times, I think: point 4 is about individual reassessment, not community GARs. The latter are only needed where individual reassessment goes wrong, but individual reassessment still should provide a review, and preferably (? and this is the main issue of this debate in my view) an opportunity to fix problems. Geometry guy 22:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If we are supposed to be a community here at wikipedia, how can we allow an individual to act like this. The work that people put in to reach GA status should be respected, the opportunity should be there to correct problems. The badge shouldn't simply be snatched away because it can be snatched away. It should be taken away when the community shows a lack of interest or a lack of aptitude in correcting issues with a page. It is just fundamentally impolite to take it away, stick two fingers up at those protesting, and tell them to go fix it and renominate if they don't like it. That is not due process. That is rash, provocative and unregulated.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
There should be certain circumstances when an article may be summarily delisted by a reviewer without a waiting period. GA sweepers should have the latitude to summarily delist an article which has, for example, a large number of unsourced quotations and no references. Majoreditor (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we can allow drive-by delistings, as this would lead to some editors de-listing articles whose subject matter and / or editors they don't like. That means rules are needed and must be followed, including the need for reassessments to show how and where an articles falls below current GA criteria and to allow reasonable time for articles to be brought up to current GA standards. While I agree that Ireland, the article over which this discussion started, has too many paragraphs and even sections that lack citations, I think summary delisting was just plain wrong and, if applied to other articles, would lead to feuds, retaliatory delistings, etc.
Similarly I also disagree with the claim made at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#Ireland GAR that the presence of just 1 "weasel" or "citation needed" tag is grounds for summary delisting, as getting articles delisted via drive-by tagging would also lead to feuds, etc.
Who elected "GA sweepers"? -- Philcha (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Who elected GA reviewers? I take exception to your suggestion that I delisted Ireland in a drive-by whim. The article was way below what is expected of a GA. If there is now a consensus that all articles once listed ought to remain GAs because it may upset an editor or two who hasn't even taken the trouble to watch the article's degradation since its listing, then so be it. You're welcome to your world. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally Malleus, I don't think you have any right to contribute to this RFC until you apologise for telling somebody to "STFU" because they questioned your delisting. Wikipedia doesn't need that. This is not about article degredation, it is about inappropriate behaviour within the Wikipedia community. --ZincBelief (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I feel certain you will understand why I don't give a toss what you think, or even if you're capable of thought at all. Try to leave me alone now, and focus on the bigger issue which has been raised here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Err, Zinc, so your point of starting this RfC is not questioning whether it is "acceptable to ignore point 4 in the process (and thus effectively point 3 and 5)", but to reroute the attention to Malleus' behavior? Sounds like ad hominem to me, but to the point of personal attack on Malleus just to get the message across. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus is the one who feels this is all about him. I am explaining why I think process is important here as you can see. You can take his behaviour as an example however. Rather than explain to somebody why their behaviour is wrong, it can be sometimes easier to let loose a host of expletives at them. Swearing is a poor substitute for well reasoned argument. Summary delisting is a poor substitute for the GA delisting instructions.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think everyone misunderstands me. Of course the usual process is to file the individual GAR and wait for discussion, however, per WP:SNOW, we don't merely follow process for process's sake. If, perchance, an article is delisted without going through the formal "individual" GAR, there is no impending doom. Simply ask for wider consensus via community GAR, and make appropriate changes to status based on the results of that discussion. The problem is that we do not follow process for process sake. Most of the time, the individual GAR review, with appropriate time given to respond to criticisms, is the right thing to do, and should usually be followed. However, to say we follow the process every time, without regard to unique cases, merely to follow the process, is against the very core Wikipedia. We have WP:SNOW delistings and closings of discussions all over Wikipedia; no process is followed to its end if it has no reasonable chance of success. If GAR were to implement this sort of forced adherance to the exact letter of the process, it would be the only such process at Wikipedia to do this. If there are any individual delistings that you think should not have been delisted, based on the content of the article, then feel free to open a community GAR. But to force an individual GAR to remain open some arbitrary length of time, merely to adhere to process, without regard for reason, seems silly.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I see no compelling need to resort to WP:SNOW here. Why summarily delist? Why not leave it a day or two? What is gained by a summary delisting? I don't feel anything is being gained but irritation of people interested in an article.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If you have a specific problem with a delisted article, then list that article at WP:GAR for a community-wide discussion. Again, if this process does not, in some instances, apply WP:SNOW, it would be the only one at Wikipedia to do so. Which article, when delisted in this manner, do you believe should not have been delisted? Is there a specific example of an article that should have remained on the GA list when it was delisted in this manner, but was not? No one felt that the Ireland article belonged at GA, the end result of the discussion was that the ultimate result, that the article be removed, occurred anyways. Again, why force a subject to go through a process where that process stands no chance of fixing the problem?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Bit presumptious isn't it? This is a general point anyway. It is better to follow the procedures when doing a delisting. When summarily delisting wrongly you annoy people a hell of a lot more than attempting a delisting wrongly through the normal processes. I mean, otherwise you might as well just delete the GA tag without the pretence of doing a review. It's all about basic manners for me. There is nothing wrong with giving people a chance to fix the problems, it gives editors a better idea of what is wrong with the article. That means in the long run it will return to GA status faster.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If these people were so interested in the article, then why did they not have it watchlisted? Why did they let it degrade? Why is it that that every Irish article sems to have these kinds of problems? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Malleus, maybe because you told them to shut the fuck up? Perhaps they didn't notice the GA criteria changed. Perhaps they felt the article looked fine as it was. Perhaps they didn't have the time. It doesn't really matter. Just learn to be polite.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Now, that is twice, ZincBelief, that you have accused Malleus of using the phrase "shut the fuck up". Two issues:
  1. This is not an RFC about Malleus's behavior. Such discussions do not belong on this page, and if there is an issue about Malleus's behavior, take it to WP:WQA, not here.
  2. You can't just make a statement like that and not back it up with diffs. Malleus is a longstanding editor here, and if you're going to accuse him of bad faith, you should have evidence to back that up.
So please, post a diff, start a WQA report, but lets keep the discussion here on the relevent issue, which is whether an article, which stands no chance of meeting GA standards within any short amount of time, needs to remain on the GA list simply to blindly follow process. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
And on here[5], ZincBelief called Malleus "acting like a dick", "not a responsible editor", & "a loose cannon" in a single paragraph. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if I find your remarks slightly confusing. Ohana, you are well aware of the comment Malleus made, you read it and responded to it, just because you are friends with him doesn't excuse it. Here is the comment once again in case you'd forgotten it: Give it a rest. Fix the article and renominate. GA is not a God-given right. The process was correctly followed, as has been been made abundantly clear. Or if you can't fix the article then shut the fuck up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry, but I found his borderline racist remark above a bit too irritating, it was also off topic. For Malleus this seems to be a personal issue, I am trying to discuss the general issue. Jayron32 you are twisting the issue somewhat in my opinion. Can you explain what the benefit of summary delisting of a GA article? Do you appreciate that there can be benefits to following the process for delisting a GA article? Wikipedians are not infallible, so there is the danger of mistaken delisting. Wikipedians are not a law onto themselves, so there is the question of do they have the right to do a drive by delisting in the first place. Wikipedia is also a community, so there is every benefit to respecting each others work and following the correct process when delisting an article. Following the process allows concerns to be more fully highlighted, which will lead to articles being brought up to speed faster in the long run. People will also possibly feel more motivated to work on articles if they are treated properly, with respect (not as above). Editors should be afforded the opportunity to respond to concerns over an article, it's common courtesy. It is what wikipedia is supposed to be about. --ZincBelief (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The proof is in the diff. Such incivility is highly inappropriate. So is racism. If every GA regular acted like that, GA would be no different from the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. Then I would leave Wikipedia, because there would be no reason to write quality articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
ZincBelief, the reason why "quick-delist", "fast-delist", "bold-delist" (or anything that shares similar name) is because GA started in October 2005 without detail discussions. They weren't even called GA at that time. They were referred to as "Half-decent articles". At that time, anyone who thinks the article is good enough can make it a GA. No discussion, no reviews, no criteria to measure against. Until March 2006, about 800 articles were promoted to GA. And until the GA criteria is firmly established, more articles were promoted to GA (I don't have the figure of number of articles promoted this way.) These articles were sometimes referred to as "fallen through the cracks" because their quality could be good, bad, or somewhere in between. In the Ireland article, I have not only found "citation needed" tags, but an awful lot of sections that have very little sections (including but not limited to History, Culture, and Economy). Judging from here, others agree with Malleus' delist. The reason why Malleus chose those words is probably (I'm only guessing, can't speak on his behalf) he didn't expect to be attacked this brutally while doing Sweeps, which is why I suggested him to read this page because some of us have been attacked verbally for an article they like/created/edited. Zinc, you should read that page too, especially the portion written by LaraLove. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Ohana again I am bemused by your reply, it really hasn't much to do with the RFC here. I don't see anything brutal in the questions posed to Malleus, queries on why due process was not followed per Delisting guidelines and per Sweep guidelines are proper. This RFC has been created to get a better answer to those.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

←I am disappointed with myself for wasting my time in trying to have a rational discussion with ZincBelief. That is my final word on this ludicrous debacle. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

To introduce another piece of evidence, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps#Process clearly states that we should follow the guidelines of the GA delisting process. There is again this muddying of process, guidelines and instructions and probably criteria as well. However, the GA Sweep guidelines seem to agree with me, we should not ignore point 4, we should follow it. It goes on to say give editors a chance to respond. A laudable statement, and one which must be adhered to in a community.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with previous comments that ZincBelief's language is inappropriate, I think ZincBelief is right about the core issue – I do not think Ireland should have been summarily delisted, because it looks like there's a reasonable chance that a determined editor could get it up to current GA standard in a week, i.e. WP:SNOW does not apply in this case. My judgement may be fallible on that point, but the only way to prove it wrong would be to produce a full GAR, i.e. to follow the process. I suggest Malleus Fatuorum should undo the delisting and then produce a proper GAR. -- Philcha (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There is actually a community GAR already in process, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ireland/1. If everyone who has commented here would like to look at the article and comment at the GAR, it would be welcomed. Dana boomer (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There is indeed a community GAR, however my point is a general one, albeit produced by a specific example. I would like to here opinions on whether it is ok to ignore point 4 of the instructions. I contend that it not, for a variety of reasons given here already. I just don't think it is appropriate to refuse to allow other editors a chance of dealing with the perceived issues within any article. I apologise if repeating the abusive language used when previously trying to discuss this point offends anyone, but it offends me as well.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I am dissapointed in the tone of this entire RFC. This has devolved into an RFC on Malleus's behavior by proxy, or on the status of a single, specific article (the Ireland article) by proxy. The system is sound, it works as it is. Any further discussion should probably happen at the article talk pages or at the GAR discussion board as appropriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I think people should be allowed to comment on the general issue in hand here. There is no reason to restrict it to one article. This is a question about the process of delisting any good article.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I want that discussion to happen too. Read the above. 90% of the discussion is about the Ireland article or about Malleus. I will start an arbitrary break to refocus us... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Jayron32, I do not think that this (your words) "has devolved into an RFC on Malleus's behavior by proxy, or on the status of a single, specific article":
  • Any process problem is bound to appear first as one or two specific cases. I agree with ZincBelief that the delisting of Ireland is an instance of a general point, that the delisting procedure should be followed unless it's clear beyond reasonable doubt that the artcile cannot be brought up to current GA standard in a "reasonable time", for which the established convention is a week. Ireland does not meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion. In fact it would be very hard to show that an article did meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" criterion, e.g. Spider started with far fewer citations and passed its GAR.
  • Earlier in this discussion Geometry guy wrote that individual GAR should provide "an opportunity to fix problems," and I agree – GA and FA criteria are getting stricter all the time, and there will be an increasing need to upgraded articles to the latest current standard without provoking outrage. -- Philcha (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've done some checking, and it's clear that Malleus Fatuorum is a very good and highly-respected editor – he (?) was just unlucky enough to be involved in the case that raised the issue. -- Philcha (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Philcha, with everything you have said 100%. Teh question is not whether or not under reasonable circumstances we should not allow almost every article to go through the standard process, the question is whether we should force literally every article to go through the process. The Ireland example aside, one could easily envisage a situation where no reasonable person would expect an article to make GA standard in one week. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with following the process in place, what disaster will happen if we follow the process in place? If an article isn't going to meet GA standard it will be delisted to everyone's satisfaction when we follow due process. If we do not follow due process we simply create hot tempers.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
ZincBelief has summed up the discussion admirably.
Jayron32, can you please describe "a situation where no reasonable person would expect an article to make GA standard in one week". -- Philcha (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Let's say this article is added to the GA list and no one notices for a week or so. Is there any compelling reason to believe that the article should remain on the list for an additional week, given that the level of work it needs means it has absolutely no chance of meeting the GA criteria in that time frame? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice example , Jayron32. I'd justify summary delisting in this case by the non-appearance of a GA review on the Talk page, i.e. the promotion hadn't followed the correct procedure, which is designed to produce objective review. It's interesting that Ireland was GA-listed on 15 Apr 2006, but the Talk archive for that period shows no GA review – what was the prodecure then? -- Philcha (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone on that day just change from GAnom to GA[6] without explanation OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems to have been procedure during those times--ZincBelief (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Then that means we can categorize that as an GA that got listed without going through GAN, so it was improperly listed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice try Ohana, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&diff=prev&oldid=48602904 I'm sure you're aware already that this was a GA listed through the proper process, it should be delisted through the proper process.--ZincBelief (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the GA review? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh my god, Zinc, just because it has been listed on GAN and then later removed, that doesn't mean it has to be properly reviewed, if reviewed at all. And you don't need to worry about my integrity.[7] Let me worried about it myself. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is the process as it was then. There is every indication that it was followed. Process was followed then for this article. If somebody now, at the present time, acted like this, sure that's basically Vandalism, this can be reverted. This is something quite else.--ZincBelief (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
We don't have grandfather clause in GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ireland was approved as a GA by the normal process. There is no suggestion that anything untoward happened. The reviewer was an experienced reviewer. Perhaps you are saying all GA articles should have their status removed everytime there is a change in any part of the GA criteria?--ZincBelief (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say or suggest that. Please don't misinterpret what I said. What I said is that if an article is promoted prior to changes to criteria, it does not receive immunity from delisting (whether it be "quick-delist", "on hold for 7 days before delist", or "GAR") as long as the article no longer meets the newest criteria. Of course, we should allow a grace period for this. But in the case of Ireland, giving it a 2-year grace period sounds far fetched. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
What did you mean when you said Then that means we can categorize that as an GA that got listed without going through GAN, so it was improperly listed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)? As the article was listed through the GA process by an experienced wikipedian, it was listed properly. I don't understand your slur. The only point I can take from that is as above. Obviously no article is immune from delisting, but delisting should be done through the guidelines provided, through the process in place. Those guidelines should not be flouted because you can't be bothered following them. I don't understand your two year comment. All articles going through the delisting process should be reviewed, a response given, then a judgement made.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For reviewers of currently nominated articles

Long-standing nominations are a higher priority than more recently added ones.

Pass

If you see an article below under "Nominations" that you haven't significantly contributed to and that meets the 'Good Article' criteria:

  1. Remove it from the list.
  2. Replace {{GAnominee}} with {{GA}} on its talk page.
  3. List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under appropriate section.
  4. Update the article count at the end of the section.
  5. Optionally, update the article count and recently listed list at the top of the Wikipedia:Good articles.
To respond to Philcha's comment above, since you can justify summary delisting in atleast this one case, then, as you note at the bottom of this discussion, wouldn;t that negate the need for starting a full GAR discussion for every delisting? I am not saying that it should be done often, but the topic of this RFC is specifically if it is ever OK to short circuit the GAR process. It clearly is, in limited cases. That is all I am saying. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Break to refocus discussion

The above discussion does not appear mostly relevent to the RFC at hand. Problems with personal behavior should be directed to WP:WQA or other dispute resolution forums. Problems with specific articles should be addressed on that specific article's talk page or at the community GAR board, where appropriate. Let's bring this back to the focus of the RFC here: Is it ever appropriate, in any situation, no matter how bizare, to remove a GA from the list, or must every GA on the list go through an extensive review process before it is removed? You know where I and ZincBelief stand on the issue, it would be nice to hear how others feel about this.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron; the system is sound, and summary delistings should not be forbidden. GAR is available as a recourse, and process for process's sake is bad. I don't really see an issue here. Mike Christie (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that individual delistings without prior notification are generally unacceptable. They should be only be done when the article meets the quick-fail criteria or was inappropriately listed (such as being listed without going through GAN). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that ZincBelief's intemperate language has obscured the issue, because there are general issues:
  • While I agree in principle with Mike Christie's "process for process's sake is bad", the point of processes is generally to avoid feuds. Delisting GAs without showing good cause will provoke feuds, as the heated discussion above exemplifies.
  • The "beyond reasonable" criterion that I suggested above for summary delisting is very hard to satisfy, as the exmaple I quoted shows.
  • I'd prefer to see summary delisting forbidden. There are cases where summary action is necessary, e.g. in relation to WP:BLP, but GA status is not important enough to warrant such controversial action.
PS I came second in an edit conflict with J.L.W.S. The Special One, but don't mind at all because I agree 100% with J.L.W.S. The Special One's comment. -- Philcha (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec)JLWS, I like your criteria for not using the process. Inappropriate listings or meeting the quick fail criteria should be reasons for boldly delisting an article without prior notification or a full community GAR. I disagree with following process simply to follow process. If it is the case that an article has only a few minor issues and could be brought to GA status with a minimal amount of work, then full procedure should be followed. However, if it appears that the article has been completely abandoned by it's editors, and has cleanup banners or is significantly lacking in refs, and has other significant problems, then there is no reason to follow the procedure when the end result will 99.9% of the time be the same anyway. If an editor has a problem with a bold delisting, they can easily take it to a community GAR or renominate the article at GAN, after fixing the problems. Dana boomer (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm lucky and able to found some "fallen through the cracks" articles on the spot. Take a look at Wine fault and Pasta. We can't just send every single GA that requires delisting to go through GAR first. This will backlog and overload GAR. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Not that lucky. Both lack refs, but: Wine fault is mainly about chemistry, and I'll bet there are plenty of WP:RS that serious amateur wine-makers can cite; although I'm no cook, I could almost fix Pasta myself from cookery books and web sites, if I weren't so busy on paleontology / biology articles. both need revised leads, but that's 15-30 minutes' work per article once the main content is right.
If GAR is in danger of overload, the correct answer is to recruit more resources, not to resort to arbitrary delisting. -- Philcha (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the comments by OhanaUnited and Philcha confuse individual reassessments with community reassessments. Requiring community reassessments for every delisting would obviously drain reviewer resources, but this is not what is proposed. The discussion deals with individual reassessments. Should we require that all individual reassessments give contributors reasonable time to address the issues? Doing so would not strain reviewer resources. All the reviewer has to do is check back a week later to determine whether the issues have been addressed and whether the article should retain GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't confusing individual reassessments with community reassessments. I interpreted OhanaUnited's comment as a complaint that requiring the individual GAR procdure to be followed in almost every case would cause overload, since it's roughly equivalent to a new GA review, and there's always a GA review backlog. -- Philcha (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree, there should be no suggestion that the workload of the GA Sweep Commando Unit is to be the promary consideration in these matters. That is simply not how wikipedia works. If the backlog of featured article candidates went past 100, you don't simply approve them all to make life easier.--ZincBelief (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I would counter Philca's arguement above, where he says "GA status is not important enough to warrant such controversial action." with the idea that if GA status is not that important, why do we need to send through the formal GAR process every article, even those that everyone agrees will not be fixed. Seriously. The entire problem is that, if the article can be fixed, it should be fixed, and whether or not there's a little green plus on the talk page is moot. There is nothing in the green plus that is so vital that if an article spends a few days without it, major doom will befall the project. If the green plus is removed, then fix the article, and renominate it at GAN. Or if it was removed but did not deserve to be, start a community GAR. To quote Philca again, "GA status is not important enough to warrant" this level of mindless bureaucracy! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
"why do we need to send through the formal GAR process every article?" – to avoid feuds.
"even those that everyone agrees will not be fixed" – by what criteria would you judge this?
As for "mindless bureaucracy", it appears that "mindless bureaucracy" is OK when it annoys editors but not when it gives them a break. -- Philcha (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Here are my views. First, I agree with Jayron and others that summary delisting should not be banned; that is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, in particular Pillar Five. For the same reason, and per WP:BURO, I further agree that adding bureaucratic conditions to restrict its use is unhelpful. However (and this is a very big "however"!) summary delisting still happens too often and should be more firmly discouraged. This is not a criticism of any individual case, but a desire to move the consensus approach towards at least allowing a day or two for anyone watchlisting the page to respond. I delisted a couple of articles recently which were a long way from meeting the criteria, but I still gave each of them 2 days just to be sure that a superhero wasn't going to come riding over the hills to rescue them.
One option would be to add the delisting guidelines to Category:Wikipedia guidelines so that they truly are only subject to "common sense and the occasional exception".
On a negative note, I would point out that even a hold period with full notification does not avoid feuds. This stems from a misunderstanding of GA: it isn't like FA (which has a 3-6 month grace period after a successful FAC); anyone can list a nomination, and anyone can delist a current GA at any time, as long as they give reasons. This is necessary to compensate for the efficiency saving that the one-nominator, one-reviewer mode provides. Sadly it is only rarely that a nominator complains that their article was listed without a good review.
I would like to end with a positive note. The use of community GAR has fallen considerably since the introduction of dedicated pages for GAN reviews. I think this shows that increased accountability has enhanced review quality, and also that many careful individual GARs are taking place, without the need for community input. Geometry guy 20:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I find that position inconsistent. Articles which are basket cases get two days to sort themselves out, but those which are closer to meeting the criteria get seven days. Perhaps one day you'll invite me for a ride in your time machine. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
No. The two days was for someone to respond. No one responded, so I delisted. The point of allowing editors to respond is purely to find out if someone wants to fix the article pronto. Then the amount of time given is up to the reviewer, the work that needs to be done and the nature of the response. Geometry guy 20:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have often put an article on hold after making a few initial comments, even at GAN, just to see if there was anyone interested in stepping up to the plate. But when I have, it's always been the usual seven days. No names, no pack drill, but some articles are so far away from the criteria that they ought never to have been listed in the first place, and a summary delisting (IMO) is appropriate. I am quite prepared to accept that community norms change over time, and that the mood now is that no article ought to be delisted without a full UN debate followed by a resolution passed by the permanent members of the security council. So be it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing of the sort is being proposed and you know it. Summary delisting is occasionally appropriate, but testing the water is often helpful. It's a completely different notion to the inflexible "all or nothing" approach of no warning vs. seven day hold. Geometry guy 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have agreed with your notion of a "foot in the water" initial review, and have often done the same thing myself. Where I disagree with you is in your arbitrary two day limit to allows fixes to basket cases, but seven days to fix those close to the criteria. Seems illogical to me, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please stop misrepresenting my comments and point to anywhere where I have suggested that the notification is equal to the time to fix the article? Geometry guy 22:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please just try and get your act together? Applying a little logical thought before replying might also be a good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems OK to me. Notify for about two days, to see if anyone replies. If not, delist; if they do, let them have more time if they want. Seems harmless. Geometry guy did say this earlier, in slightly different words; I thought it was fairly clear, and a sensible enough approach. Mike Christie (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It may be then that either you or I or you have misinterpreted Geomtery guy's words. I understood him to be saying that rubbish articles would have two days to get their act together whereas articles closer to the GA criteria would be allowed seven days. Seemed pretty plain to me, but then what do I know. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Mike has interpreted my words accurately. I have tried several times to explain the misunderstanding, but I evidently failed. I guess I don't need to now. Thank you Mike, Geometry guy 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
As you say, no further response requested or required. It might be helpful to future reviewers though if this arbitary new two-day review procedure was documented somewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It is documented here. Ruslik (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Quite, and as it is documented there, I don't understand why people are claiming a summary delisting is ok if you feel the article is bad.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be two days. To be more flexible, how about we say something like "Allow time for editors to respond"? That should cover it. Geometry guy 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit two days' initial notice seems odd to me, too, as even "superheroes" (Ge ometry guy's term) take the odd day off. I'd make it a week. -- Philcha (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
If the superhero is away, then they cannot save the day. So what? A week is the time needed to fix the article, not the time needed to find out if someone wants to fix it. Why are editors so blind to the difference between two utterly different concepts? Geometry guy 22:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are you so blind to the inconsistency in your position? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I will wait for someone else to restate it so you can agree with it; my words evidently do not carry the same meaning when you read them as when I write them. Geometry guy 10:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You have invented some arbitrary two day hold period which is at odds with the delisting criteria as documented elsewhere.Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#How to review an article I understand that you would wish to see "quickfails" banned, and perhaps that's a discussion that needs to be had. Who knows, I might even be persuaded to that pov. But "quickfails" are patently consistent with the process as currently defined no matter how much kicking and screaming anyone does. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I think rather it is you that has invented the summary delisting. I can't find any reading of the guidelines in place that support this, and nobody has produced one. All that has been said it that if we GA sweepers feel like delisting, we'll delist, and in your case, we'll swear at you if you complain about it. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

← I did not invent this, and nor did I write it: "If the article has any of the above problems, it can simply be failed ... without going through the on hold process of improvement based on specific issues[my emphasis]." Seems plain enough to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is worse than I thought. The delisting guidelines do not support this. The original sweep guidelines do not support this. However, the "man this backlog is pretty big, we'd better take a short cut to get rid of it" self important attitude of the GA Sweepteam bodges this in to speed things up. This is outrageous. --ZincBelief (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It is nothing to do with the GA Sweeps team. That has been part of the instructions on how to carry out a GA review for as long as I can remember. If there is a consensus to change it, and to disallow quickfails then so be it. But to claim that quickfails are somehow improper or out of process is disingenuous given the present guidelines. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum, I think you need to explain why you you just quoted one sentence from WP:RGA but omitted the two that directly follow it: "However, because the GA process is intended to help editors with article improvement, "quick-failing" may not be the best option. Even if an article has obvious shortcomings, the more specific information that the reviewer can provide to help editors meet all six GA criteria, the more they will help the overall process of article improvement. Therefore, "quick-failing" is discouraged." (my emph) -- Philcha (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Why? Because I generously gave everyone credit here for being able to read it for themselves, even though it appears that many have not. To say that "quickfail" may not always the best option is not the same as saying that it is never the best option. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Misses the main point. Why should the Sweep team behave any differently to everyday wikipedians? They are not admins and they not experts. They have no need of this exception which even they strongly discourage.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
They do not, and no amount of your disingenuous comments will alter that fact. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment does not talk about summary delistings. This is what this RFC is about. Is it okay to ignore the Good Article Reassessment instructions--ZincBelief (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have nowhere invented an arbitrary 2 day hold procedure and repeatedly saying that I have will not change that. I am not even proposing anything new. All I am saying is "Allow time for other editors to respond" (as in my remark above). This sentence has been in the delisting guidelines for more than a year.

I am not against summary delisting of articles which meet the quickfail criteria (neither do I wish to advocate it), but calling them "delisting criteria" is disingenuous: the sentence you quote and the page you link are discussing good article nominations, not good article reassessment. How can you quickfail an article that hasn't been nominated? Geometry guy 15:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly was nominated at some point in time. If you want to have different processes for reviewing GANs and GARs by outlawing "quickfails" or "bold delists" or whatever other form of words doesn't inflame your sensibilities then fine, go ahead and suggest that and see if there's a consensus to make that change. So far as I'm aware though GA Sweeps are assessed against the GA criteria in just the same way as any GAN would be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Point 3 of the GA Sweeps Process clearly says: "Review the articles against the criteria as you would an article listed at WP:GAN or WP:GAR".Wikipedia:GAPQ/S --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
All GA processes involve reviewing articles against the criteria—that does not mean the processes are the same! What you do after assessing the articles against the criteria is very different in a community GAR than it is at GAN for example. Geometry guy 16:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining that. Silly me. The review processes are not the same because what you do after the review has finished is different. That certainly clears thing up in my mind. Don't know how I could have been so stupid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Where did I say "after the review has finished"? After I have assessed an article at community GAR against the criteria, I leave a comment or a recommendation on the reassessment page. The process is different. There are separate pages describing the different processes. You cannot hide your feeble attempt to equate distinct processes by wheeling out spiteful sarcasm at every turn. Luckily I'm too busy falling about laughing over "The article clearly was nominated at some point in time" to be offended. Geometry guy 17:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A proposal

I want to propose a compromise. Reviewers should be able to delist an article, whose quality if far below GA standards and which can not be expected to be brought up to them in a reasonable time, without any waiting period. However if an editor (or editors) manages to fix unfixable in 7 days after the delisting, they can ask the reviewer to reconsider the delisting. If the reviewer believes that the article is of GA quality, he withdraws his delisting and keeps the article. Ruslik (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you clearly explain what the benefit to wikipedia is if the article is summarily delisted on the say so of one editor, rather than following the normal process? I haven't seen any reason I feel to be valid yet amongst the natter here--ZincBelief (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The reason is that such articles should not be in the GA list even for just two more days. You should think not only about offended editors, but also about readers of Wikipedia, who expect to find a really good article, when they open something labeled with GA sign. Ruslik (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Can't say I would believe people would stop reading wikipedia over that kind of thing. If we're talking about 2 to 7 days for an article that's been in place for 2 years, that's really quite a small amount of additional time. What's to say they won't look at the talk page and find it's status is under review, then muse, jolly good show.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it is far better to adhere to the process as described by GA delisting instructions/guidelines. In the case of vandalism, we can circumvent them. It seems like an improvement to add in something like "If no response is received within 2 days, the article can be delisted".--ZincBelief (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting idea, Ruslik, but I think some aspects need further thought:
  • Is the delister required to be available to respond within 7 days if the "rescuers" think they've improved that article to about GA standard?
Of course, delister may not be available after 7 days, in this case go to GAN, sorry. If the delister simply refuses to act, GAR is an option. Ruslik (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What if the delister then says, "No, it still has defects X, Y, Z"? Should the delister then start a regular GA review?
If remaining defects X, Y, Z are minor delister can wait a couple more days, if not the article goes through the normal GA nomination. Ruslik (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Should the delister be required to give some reasons for the initial delisting? This would help to minimise the risk of drive-by delistings and also reduce the review time if a "rescue" is attempted. How much detail should the delister be required to give up-front? -- Philcha (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The delister should always give reasons, like now. Ruslik (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
If delister and "rescuers" can not agree, GAR is always an option. However I think such case will be rare. Ruslik (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time that this worry about "drive-by delisting" has cropped up. What does that mean, exactly? Has anyone ever seen a drive-by delisting? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are well aware of what he means. Delisting, basically without affording any notice, and without affording any chance to correct the issues you are delisting for. I have no idea why you are asking that now. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to hear from Philcha rather than any more of your malevolent ranting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless ZincBelief summed it up pretty well. I would also add to the definition "without providing good reasons". Ultimately the aim is to make it clear whether a delisting is well-grounded or malicious vandalism. The sad fact is that, while there are many nice people around Wikipedia, there are also a few thoroughly unpleasant ones who do as much damage as vandals, and anything that limits the damage they can do is good. Note that this is not in any way aimed at Malleus Fatuorum personally, he (?) seems to be a very good editor and has just been unfortunate to be the one involved in this "test case". -- Philcha (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I would still be curious to know whether you or anyone else has ever seen a drive-by delisting. Are you suggesting that the "test case" you refer to was a drive-by delisting? That good reasons were not provided or that it was not well grounded? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hasn't seen it once (whether GA Sweeps team or normal editors) for two and a half years. Trolls usually just vandalize articles or blanking pages, they don't bother to make things up just to get it delisted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
How many instances of summary delisting have you see? Where a reviewer subjectively decides that the article will not be brought up to speed and removes it without leaving the opportunity to respond. Thus not acting in accordance with the delisting instructions that we are discussing here.--ZincBelief (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you know that more often than not, we spend more than a day on reading an article and decide what the problems are before we make a decision on it? While I cannot speak on behalf of others, I usually write down a list of problems onto my Word document and copy the list over when I finish reading. Others may do similar actions but we rarely, if ever, do drive-by delist. Just because we evoked "quick-delist" doesn't mean we just read the article a minute ago. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you please answer my question?--ZincBelief (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
So far as I can see you (ZincBelief) are the only one (incorrectlty) claiming that summary delisting is out of process. The issue with drive-by delisting seems to be a non-issue, because it nevers happens. Surely the proposal that is being discussed here is how articles that it has been judged fall far short of the GA criteria, requiring significant work, ought best to be handled. To keep repeating that summary delisting is not allowed by the present guidelines is both untrue and unhelpful. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good articles says The process for designating an article as a good article is intentionally straightforward. If you find or contribute to an article meeting the good article criteria, you can nominate it on the good article nominations page for impartial reviewers to assess and, if it is accepted, it will be added to the list of good articles. Similarly, anyone can propose that an article which no longer meets the good article criteria is delisted by following the delisting instructions. If an article's nomination fails or if an article is delisted, an explanation and possible improvements should be provided on its talk page by the reviewer or delisting editor. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/guidelines#delist Yet when we go here and read the delisting guidelines we find point 4. Point 4 is what this RFC is about. Point 4 states Allow time for other editors to respond. It is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The == Good article reassessment for [[{{{1}}}]] ==

[[{{{1}}}]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/{{{1}}}/ |reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. template can be used for this purpose, by placing ArticleName has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. on talk pages. It is thus completely true for me to repeat that summary delisting is not allowed. It may even be helpful. --ZincBelief (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

When did this become an RfC? I thought we were discussing Ruslik's proposal here? My question was to do with Philcha's concern about "drive-by" delistings, which clearly are very rare occurrences, so do not require special provisions to deal with. All delistings should be, and are, accompanied by appropriate explanations in the form of a GA review. Unless you know differently, of course, and have evidence to prove it. It may be helpful for you as well to read all of the guidelines, and even what others have said here and elsewhere. Summary delisting is quite within the guidelines, whether you like that or not, and whether you accept that or not. I would suggest it might be more productive to join in the discussion about if, how, and when summary delisting ought to be applied, instead of repeatedly banging your tired old drum. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It became a RFC when I created the RFC. You notice that the proposal is a subheading in the RFC I take it? Sorry if you didn't notice that. However this proposal is part of the RFC. It miight help if you read the whole RFC. Your incorrect comments are at odds with your username. If I create a project and make guidelines, that doesn't mean they take precedence over wikipedia guidelines. I'm sorry that neither yourself not Ohana can understand that. Summary delistings are not within the guidelines. It is as simple as that. You are wrong. You are completely wrong.--ZincBelief (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I know of no recent example of a "drive-by delist" (that is a delist without specific explanation of issues and hence suggestions about how to improve the article). However, c.18 months to 2 years ago, they did happen, just as over 2 years ago, article were listed as GAs without review. Geometry guy 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ruslik's idea has merit. What do others think? Majoreditor (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
With the additional explanations Ruslik provided (12:27, 23 October 2008), I'd be happy with Ruslik's proposal. -- Philcha (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any real advantage to this proposal over the existing guidelines. Ruslik suggests that we do this so we do not offend readers of wikipedia, I think the percentage that could be offended would be neglibile. --ZincBelief (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see some merits to this proposal, but I think it adds unnecessary complication. The real problem we have is that editors do not understand what it means when an article they are interested in gets delisted: they sometimes take it as an affront. Making the process more complicated won't resolve this issue. Also the proposal effectively suggests a mandatory 7 day wait period, albeit with the condition that article remains delisted rather than listed during this period. What if a reviewer doesn't respond? GAR. But GAR is available anyway for contested delisting.

GA status is primarily intended for editors not readers. The principle about protecting the reader would suggest that whenever a good article is nominated for reassessment then it should be delisted until the reassessment is complete. I am against this, both in terms of the unnecessary work it creates, and the flawed nature of the underlying principle. Geometry guy 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to create any new bureaucracy. I actually want the guidelines to explicitly allow delistings without waiting in the most serious cases. However the guidelines should also encourage reviewers to reconsider delistings when justified. Currently guidelines are unclear. Ruslik (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to restart the discussion

The present discussion seems to be going round and round in ever-decreasing circles. Perhaps it would be best to take it in bite-sized chunks. Regardless of what the present guidelines are interpreted to mean, perhaps we first of all need to have a discussion about whether "quickfails" or whatever else the PC term of the week is ought to be allowed or not. Can we maybe establish a consensus that it's either not permissible to ever delist an article without putting it on hold (for whatever period of time), or that it is? And if it is permissible, under what circumstances? Should there be different procedures for GAN and GA Sweeps? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a completely new heading. Then starting the discussion with bite-sized chunks, as you suggest. I tried to follow the discussion above, but I cannot. Ultimately, I do not know what is being talked about up there. Discussing the "quickfails" would be good. Also, I would appreciate a discussion of the instructions on the GAR page. Perhaps the instructions could be clarified to distinguish between when an individual assessment and when a community assessment is appropriate. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
To break down the chunks even more, I think it is important to distinguish between a notification period, which involves letting editors know (perhaps only on the article talk page) that the article is being reassessed, and a "hold" period, which involves giving time for editors to address concerns raised. Notification only requires the reviewer to say "I'm reassessing this" (although it is probably best to list issues in broad terms) and editors to respond "I want to help", whereas "on hold" means detailing issues and giving time for them to be fixed. I am in favour of notification in almost all cases, but believe that delisting with or without a hold period is a matter for reviewer discretion, just as it is at GAN. The current delisting guidelines are compatible with my view. Geometry guy 19:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you've explained quite well my earlier misunderstanding about what you meant by "on hold". And you also raised the issue of trying to drum up editor support during a GA Sweep for an article that may have been listed two years ago, but whose main editors may no longer be active, which requires substantial work to maintain its GA listing. I'd still like to see, as a first step though, at least a consensus that summary delisting is or is not to be allowed with the GA reviewing guidelines. ZincBelief, for instance, seems quite adamant in his belief that it is not currently permissible, and presumably by extension that it ought not to be permissible in the future. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm all in favour of a notification period, and have tried that by notifying significant contributors I know to be still active about an upcoming sweeps review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedians active in GA Sweeps are neither superior not inferior from other wikipedians. They do not require special guidelines. They do not merit special guidelines. To grant special guidelines for projects groups would set a pretty dangerous precedent. It leads to inconsistency, which we have no need for. I cannot see any reason why the politeness of allowing people to respond to GAR should be done away with it. It is a normal and correct procedure around wikipedia. Unless we are talking about vandalism, there is no reason not to allow wikipedians the normal chance to redress perceived issues.--ZincBelief (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There exist hopeless cases. In such a case delayed delisting would only tease editors and create false hopes. In the end the editors may feel duped into believing that the article can be saved. I think, if the article is going to be delisted anyway, waiting is meaningless. However reviewers are not infallible. Therefore if they make an error and somebody manages to fix the article in a reasonably short time, they should be ready to reconsider their decision. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I am coming around to agreeing with your proposal. If the unachievable is actually achieved, then why not relist the article? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of the above. "Sweeps" is certainly not a special case, and sweepers should follow the same guidelines as other reviewers follow (and they do, in my experience). Waiting is meaningless if no one is going to fix the article. Notification is a good thing, to find out if anyone cares anyway (and that can inform the delisting decision). If the unachievable is achieved, then why not simply use GAR, rather than inventing a new variation?
Because GAR is used as a hammer to batter hapless reviewers with? What is it a review of? The review, the article, the reviewer, or some arbitrary combination of all of the above? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Community GAR is, and has been for some time, a reassessment of an article against the criteria. This issue seems somewhat off topic, however, but may deserve a separate thread. Geometry guy 21:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
That may be what it was intended to be, but it is quite clearly not what it is.Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment#Ireland GAR If you're offering GAR as an alternative to Ruslik's proposal then I'd suggest that it is very much on topic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
In my view the main problem is that the current guidelines are unclear, misunderstood, and not widely read. Recent events have certainly helped to publicize them. I think we only need to clarify them and promote better understanding. I don't see the need for significant change. Geometry guy 20:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
So what clarification needs to be made? I suggested starting with what I thought was rather a bite-sized chunk. Are "quickfails" within the guidelines or not? If they are, then why isn't that clear to everyone? If they're not, then why isn't that clear to reviewers? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The current guidelines say "Allow time for other editors to respond", but they are entirely compatible with a quick-delist happening if there is no response (or even if there is one). I suggested earlier that we clarify the issue by actually adding WP:GAR to Category:Wikipedia guidelines. This would make it quite explicit that "Allow time for other editors to respond", and many other aspects of the guidelines, are subject to common sense and the occasional exception, while also making it clear that it is best practice to follow the guidelines in most cases. Geometry guy 21:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that just seems like more obfuscation to me. Can we at least start by agreeing on whether or not the current guidelines allow summary delisting? Without any ifs or buts? And then perhaps move on to whether they should or not? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Now I don't feel so bad for not understanding the GAR directions, if you guys can't agree on what they say! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think a little bit of honest plain talking might help here. What about a straightforward answer to this very simple question:
  • Is summary delisting allowed under the current guidelines?
It's just a yes or a no. How hard is that? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, it is hard. You have asked this question several times. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing hard here to understand for to a person with reasonable intelligence. When point 4 says allow time to respond, it doesn't mean 15 minutes. I would be happy with placing a standard length of time such as 2 days in that part for some clarification. Not allowing a reasonable period of time to respond is a summary delisting. There is a case in point here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACharles_Matthews&diff=246011670&oldid=245975203 shows a case where a member of the arbitration committee became quite upset when somebody allowed him an hour and a half to respond. That person chose an hour and half during UK nighttime. This person didn't then verbally abuse the person who asked why, but it still caused ill feeling.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
And I have been told more than once recently that I am a racist, a loose cannon, and an incompetent reviewer. I think establishing a baseline here might help. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I cry for you every night Malleus, wondering what school you went to and why they didn't teach you how to read properly. Don't worry, we still love you, every time you cry here we are with you. Everytime you tell us this is your final word, we wait for you to come back and cry again.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruslik's proposal is looking even more attractive to me. It's a simple, non-bureaucratic way to permit quickfails while allowing for non-GAR remedy. Majoreditor (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum's first post at the top of this section defined the core issue – whether quickfails should be allowed. Unfortunately we seem to have drifted away from that.
WP:RGA says quickfails are "discouraged". Either "discouraged" is a WP:WEASEL or it means the quick-failer must be prepared to show cause and to take consequences if the grounds for the quickfail are found inadequate.
I suggest WP:RGA should be amended to say something like "quickfails should be used only in exceptional circumstances and, if as quickfail is challenged, the person issuing the quickfail must demonstrate promptly and convincingly why it was justified." This wording deliberately makes quickfailing less attractive than producing a normal set of GA review comments and giving editors time to improve the article. I assume that improved articles are what we actually want to achieve. -- Philcha (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
This RFC is about deslisting, not reviewing for the first time. The GA process was initiated on 11 October 2005, with the current nominations system instituted on 10 March 2006.[5] Since then, the good article criteria have been changed or added to many times. Therefore, it is not uncommon to find articles on the list which no longer meet the criteria. If you come across an article which no longer meets the criteria, you may remove it from the GA list by following the delisting guidelines. If you feel that an article was improperly delisted, it may be taken to Good Article reassessment. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific proposal

1. Add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (this is a subpage of the article talk page, just like a review of a good article nomination).

2. Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article.

3. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window.

4. If you feel that the problems with the article are so serious that they can not be resolved in a reasonably short time, delist the article. In this case the review should include detailed description of the problems that led to the prompt delisting. It is courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer about article's delisting. Decision to delist the article without giving editors opportunity to make improvements should not be taken lightly; the article should be severely deficient to justify such an action.

5. If you feel that the problems can be fixed a reasonable time, allow time for other editors to respond and to improve the article. In this case it is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for this purpose, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages. If the article does not meet the criteria after the holding period (usually a week), it can be delisted.

6. To delist the article, remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles and then remove the {{GA}} template from the article talk page.

7. To close the reassessment, replace the date in the {{GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted".

8. A reviewer can reconsider their decision to delist an article if it was made in error. For instance, if an article was delisted without hold, but the problems were quickly fixed, the reviewer is encouraged to reopen the review and reinstate the article in GA list.

I created draft guidelines. They are not ideal, please, feel free to edit them. Ruslik (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor tweak. Majoreditor (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Point 4 is ultimately just weasel words. The current guidelines are perfectly acceptable, there is no need to make them subjective like this. Point 8 is also not paticularly tight. Compare these to the Featured Article delisting process.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that point 4 makes instant de-listing just a matter of one editor's opinion, with no accountability and no progress towards improving the article. I suggest adding "Instant de-listing should be a rare exception and an editors who de-list an article without giving a few day's notice should be ready to justify their action promptly and in detail if challenged. -- Philcha (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no suggestion of consensus in point 4. Creating a timescale of around a week allows at least a suggestion of consensus to be formed.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Whether such delisting is a rare exception or not depends on the number of severally deficient articles. As to justification, the reviewer should justify such delisting in detail in the review. I added the language to emphasize that the review should include such a justification. Ruslik (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
If the reviewer states the reasons why the article falls short of GA, I don't see the need for instant de-listing. For example Spider was recently threatened with de-listing, the reviewer gave a week's notice, I happened to have a good textbook that provided about half the required refs so I had a go, and Spider remained a GA. If the reviewer in this case had summarily de-listed Spider, which was almost totally lacking in refs, I wouldn't have bothered as my main interest is paleontology. So the patience shown by the reviewer resulted in there being one more GA than there would have been. -- Philcha (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
For me one very crucial point is this: Are we really saying that wikipedia will lose all credibility if Good Article status remains on an article an additional 2 to 7 days longer than it should have otherwise done. --ZincBelief (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The reviewer thought that the article was not severally deficient. He said that the lack of inline citations is the only problem, and the unsourced information was not controversial. However you removed a lot of information for which you could not find sources. The removal caused some complaints. Imaging now the article that has no inline citations, whose lead consists of just one sentence, and, in addition, there are several maintains banners (like {{POV}}, {{Disputed}}, {{Cleanup}} etc. What the reviewer is supposed to do? Ruslik (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A lead usually takes 15-30 mins if the main content is solid – most exceptions are articles of extremely wide scope or technical complexity. Re maintenance tags, I'd look to see if they were justified by entries in the Talk page. I know editors who add {{fact}} tags as reminders to themselves. {{POV}} and {{Disputed}} may be signs of trouble, but it's impossible to know of what sort or how serious without checking the Talk page. {{Cleanup}} is so vague it's meaningless.
I don't see what your comments about Spider have to do with whether articles should be de-listed at very short / zero notice.
I removed unsourced material from Spider in line with WP:V, which is pretty uncompromising. As far as I could see none of the items I removed was as well-known and uncontroversial as e.g. "the sun normally rises in the East".
You omitted to mention some other points from Talk:Spider:

What a mess!

I saw a request for comments on WP:VPP, and waded into this horrible mess. My take on the situation:

  • Some people need to get over themselves. Sure, you may consider yourself an "experienced GA reviewer", and even be considered as such by others in the same situation. And people might be hostile when you start a GAR. But none of that is an excuse for incivility or belittling of other editors.
  • Some people on the other side need to calm down too. Sure, someone may have been a dick, but it's not something to start a holy war over.
  • There is no deadline. It won't hurt things if even the worst article remains listed as GA for an extra week.
  • As far as I can tell, the process does call for a waiting period. The "quick fail" wording is for failing nominations, not delisting existing GAs.
  • My suggested solution: If it looks like an absolutely hopeless case (and not just "I don't think anyone will bother" or "We're backlogged!"), allow a speedy delisting. But if anyone contests the issue, politely revert the delisting and have the damn GAR instead of a ton of drama.

Anomie⚔ 13:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Anomie! Although I have been following the discussion, I haven't been getting into it because it seems to be more of a drama fest than anything else. The above is beginning to turn into a productive discussion, but common sense, calm discussion and civility (from all sides) could probably have averted this whole mess before it even began. Dana boomer (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I have been a dick myself, but I really do want some considered opinions on how a GAR should be conducted. I hope we can stay focused on this. :) --ZincBelief (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No consensus

There seems to be no consensus to implement my proposal. Probably, it was doomed from the beginning as it is really difficult to define what constitutes common sense and what is an occasional exception. Ruslik (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GAs on living people

Is there a list anywhere of which GAs are about living people? I'm asking because a problem I have noticed during my sweep of sports persons is that except for a those that are regularly maintained by dedicated editors, many of the articles about active sportspersons haven't been properly updated in a year or more (except for the occasional "hE is teh GAY! lol!"). This is being cleared up as I draw the attention of respective wikiprojects to the issue, but a list would be useful to enable future sweepers to check which articles are about living people and thus are likely to significantly change over time.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

GAs on Main Page

There's currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about including new GAs in the DYKs on the Main Page. Is this something we would want? Lampman (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have commented there. My point of view is that the main page has two roles: to promote Wikipedia to readers, and to encourage good contributions. Including GAs on the main page needs to be discussed in this context. I think there is a gap in promotion and encouragement between Wikipedia's newest articles (DYK) and our very best work (TFA). I think this gap needs to be filled. There is no a priori reason why GA should fill this role, but I think GAs are an underexploited resource including many interesting articles of reasonable quality that we could use to promote Wikipedia, while also recognising the work that has gone into these articles. However, we do need to target such promotion carefully. Which articles and editors do we want to encourage the most? Do we want to target systemic bias, or are we happy to promote the production of articles on (e.g.) television episodes and hurricanes? I am definitely not against the latter kinds of articles, but would argue that they don't need further encouragement and that we can promote Wikipedia better by showcasing other kinds of article. Geometry guy 21:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that separate projects tend to get very insular and protective of their turf, and it gets hard to achieve any sort of cooperation like this. I do agree with you that the GA project needs and deserves more exposure, though we seem to disagree on whether to feature new or existing GAs. My take is that the main purpose of such a scheme would be encouraging the creation of more GAs, and as such I think it should work as a reward for newly promoted GAs. Lampman (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point, but editors have been giving each other barnstars for all time, and not always for their most recent work. The encouragement happens nonetheless. Geometry guy 04:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I would rather have two FAs on the main page than one FA and two GAs. bibliomaniac15 04:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I would rather see some semblance of rational thought, but that's clearly asking for too much. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Bibliomaniac, are you willing to share your reasoning as well as your conclusion? Anyway, an FA takes up the space of at least five DYKs. As proposed, two GAs would occupy the space of about three DYKs. Also there are not currently quite enough new FAs per month to feature two. (The current rate is about 55 per month.) Geometry guy 04:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the discussion is more detailed in Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Featured content OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I was incorrect about the number of new FAs per month, because I forgot to take into account FARs. There are about 65 new FAs per month, which is enough for two per day. However, the featured article director has stated very clearly that he does not want to feature two per day. Geometry guy 18:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) after reading the discussion at the link kindly given by OhanaUnited , I would lead to not bothering. GA are doing what they say, the gates to jump are a lot harder and higher that they were a short time ago when I became involved. The review process is much tighter and because of this much fairer. There will always been a reviewer that an either destroy a GA review by making unreasonable demands and a reviewer that will decide to give a fly-by pass because they wish to. These will always exist even with the sterling work the sweeps have been doing. The main page sees far more negatives to adding GAs than positives and I am not sure GAs being placed on the main page will not add layers of stress, demands, etc that do more than just "improve articles" and GAs but actually start to redefine them more than it is worth. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And how about DYK? Most are shorter, not as referenced, have problems with MOS yet they're on main page. If your point holds true, then DYK would have gather more negatives. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Edmund Patrick. GAs will never be featured on the main page because there are too many who are biased against the GA project and consider them second-rate, so no point in even considering it. Strange how those same individuals seem quite happy with the too often appalling DYKs or ITN articles though. Still, that's life. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Selection is the key: not every recently created or expanded article gets a moment at DYK. Similarly there should be no entitlement for GAs to appear on the main page. Instead we should regard the pool of GAs as a resource which we can use to provide articles which represent Wikipedia well and encourage new contributions. Geometry guy 18:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think Raul told us before that some FAs he will never intent it to appear on main page ever. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Malleus: I think you're wrong. A straw poll about the Main Page redesign indicated that there was support in the wider community for including GAs in DYK. The main opposition to this comes from the DYK project itself being very protective of their own turf, as can be seen in the ongoing discussion there. Lampman (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This one time I'd be very happy to be proven wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I think what we need is a community-wide debate on including GAs in DYK, with focus on how this would actually increase overall Main Page quality. Lampman (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect

We have an I.P. today either maliciously or in good faith trying to list McDonald's, an article that has not yet gone through the GA process. I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to semi-protect the page indefinitely; while the volume of vandalism isn't high at all, the consequences are problematic and I can't think of any reason that a non-autoconfirmed editor would need to edit the page. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point but this doesn't happen often and it will be reverted in seconds. I don't think it merits semi-protect just yet seeing that this page was never protected even once in its entire life (3 years and 1 month) OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report

Why didn't the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report run last night?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a line on bot owner's talk page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing every quote

Apologies if this has been discussed before or if this is the wrong venue. I'm in the midst of reviewing It's About Time (Christina Milian album) and the hold-up is the lack of citations following each quote. I've had several GAs of my own held up for this reason, with the reason given that the article could be re-arranged and the quote moved away from its source. The nominator notes that there are featured articles (e.g. The Other Woman) that don't hold to this standard. I'm not an enormous stickler on the point but would like to get some feedback from more experienced reviewers as to whether such referencing is needed. Otto4711 (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The good article are very clear: inline citations have to be provided for direct quotations (2b). It matters not one whit what some featured article may or may not do. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Every sentence of the article containing a quote should have a citation where that quote can be found. That citation is usually immediately after the quote, but if the quote occurs mid-sentence and is clearly sourced by the citation at the end of the sentence or clause, then that is surely fine. (For instance The whole album took "between six months to a year" to produce,[12] and Milian so-titled the album because she said "it took so damn long" to complete.[9] is fine as long as the first quote can be found in [12] and the second in [9]. However, In 2008, Milian sued the writer and producer of "Dip It Low", Poli Paul. Milian claimed that Paul "very definitively" assured her that "there were no samples whatsoever in […] 'Dip It Low'". is not fine: not only are the quotes uncited, but the sentence refers to legal action, which should be cited.) Geometry guy 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested split of "Recordings, compositions and performances" subsection

Nearing 300 entries, "Recordings, compositions and performances" is now the largest subsection of Good Articles. I propose that this section is further split into something like "Songs", "Albums", and "Other recordings, compositions and performances".--Remurmur (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The section should be split rather than subdivided, if you see what I mean (we don't want another level in hierarchy). How about just "Songs and compositions" and "Albums, other recordings, and performances"? Singles would go under "Songs and compositions". Also, is someone (e.g. you) willing to do the work? Geometry guy 19:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and split the songs off. Further separation might be done at a latter date.--Remurmur (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the links at WP:GAN to reflect this change and the change below. Geometry guy 19:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Operas

Any objection to grouping them under ["Art" < "Theatre, film and drama" < "Theatre and musical theatre"] instead of ["Art" < "Music" < "Recordings, compositions and performances"] (the current location)? I think they should be grouped in the same category as musicals. It's also pretty difficult for someone to find opera articles where they are now, being surrounded by a huge number of album articles.--Remurmur (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree again, with a rename to "Theatre, musical theatre and opera". Geometry guy 23:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Done, though maybe not fully. I didn't check every article to see if it was an opera; I just went for the "opera-ish" sounding ones.--Remurmur (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks okay to me, although Music of Final Fantasy clearly has Wagnerian proportions :-) Geometry guy 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Singkawang a Good Article?

The article Singkawang is tagged on its talk page as a Good Article, but not only is it not listed on this page, it seems to be well below the quality expected of GAs; I presume that it has been tagged as such mistakenly or falsely, but I hesitate to remove it myself; could someone more knowledgeable than I look into this, please? //Programming gecko (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That page is not tagged as a good article. It has a wikiproject tag with a GA class rating. Feel free to change it, especially if you're active with that wikiproject and know if it uses the GA class rating in some special way. Gimmetrow 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Judging from talk page's history, the article is given GA status by User:David Charles Singkawang, which its name kind of shows COI with the article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding Good Articles to the main page

There is a relevant discussion involving adding GAs to the mainpage going on here Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Introducing GA to main page. Some of the ideas proposed include creating a separate WP:FA-like box to feature the GA, incorporating into DYK or not including GA on the main page at all. AgneCheese/Wine 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Pages needing attention

The following pages are in Category:Wikipedia good articles without corresponding article links from Wikipedia:Good articles

Thanks. Gimmetrow 03:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Aloe vera

I suggest that Aloe vera is moved to the heading Organisms. It is about a species and it does include a taxobox. --Ettrig (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of GAs?

{{GA number}} currently lists 5,701 GAs, but there are 5,717 pages in Category:Wikipedia good articles. Is this a) a glitch, b) due to GA maintenance pages being listed in that category, or c) due to delisted GAs still being in the category/GAs passed without due process? If this has been asked and answered before, I apologize in advance :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In my understanding, this is because the GA number template is in general updated every 2-3 days by a bot, while the GA Category is updated constantly as people pass and delist good articles. The articles that are newly promoted or demoted (since the last bot run) account for the difference between the two numbers. Dana boomer (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, all right then. That was the first thing I thought of, but then I thought it was very unlikely that 16 GANs had been passed in 24 hours :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Most of the discrepancy is caused by the fact that subcategories contribute to the article count in a category: here there are fifteen. Geometry guy 23:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation; I really should have noticed that. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There are also articles in the category which are not listed on WP:GA. A few are mentioned above. Some people who close GARs don't incorporate the GAR into articlehistory, which also leaves the article in the GA category. Gimmetrow 23:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
OK—I really should have seen that, considering it's two sections above this one. Just... never mind, feel free to archive this section :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Double counting?

Saxbe fix was added to two places in the GA page. Does this cause double counting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Double listing is allowed, but I would strongly discourage it. It is much better for each GA to be listed in just one place on the GA page, even if this involves making hard choices and compromises. Geometry guy 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of articles in a section

When I add an article to a section, should I update the number of articles in that section? I just passed my 7th GA but this is the first time I noticed it. It's probably not worthwhile to fix the other cases, but I'm just wondering if I should make sure to update the number in the future. Crystal whacker (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you remember to do it, that's fine. But there's an automatic bot that updates these things periodically, so don't worry about it if you forget. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Lego Modular Houses, where?

I just promoted Lego Modular Houses, but I have no idea where to put it. Any suggestions? Lampman (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, that's a nice one! I was originally going to suggest "Architecture" as a joke, but it may in fact be one of the better options. Here are the possibilities as I see them:
Lego is an artform of sorts, so "art" or "architecture" might be okay.
Lego is recreation, so it should go under "sports and recreation" (a new or changed subheading would be needed to cover toys).
Lego is about culture and society, so "cultural symbols and objects".
Lego is a business and this is a product, so somewhere under "economics" (a change of subheading to "businesses and products" perhaps?).
Lego is an engineering technology? This article partly takes that view.
Hmmm... Geometry guy 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
My first thought was "sports and recreation", but at the moment the subheadings only cover "sports" and not "recreation". Would it be ok to create a new "toys" subheading? Or maybe a somewhat broader "recreation". Lampman (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Listing under a different heading

When I nominated Stella Power Station, I nominated it under the Architecture section. When recently nominating Blyth Power Station, I felt it made more sense to list it under Engineering and technology section. I'd like it if Stella Power Station could be listed under engineering and technology instead of architecture because I think it would be a better place for it. However, I do not know if there is a proper process to go through in doing this, or if it is simply moved there. Fintan264 (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no special procedure, but I've moved it for you now anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing another person's GA in WikiProject?

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but: is it inappropriate or not allowed for one Wikipedian to review a GA article nominated by another person? For example, I'm part of WikiProject Barack Obama, and one of the other members has nominated an article for GA. Can I review it, or it is better to have someone from outside the WikiProject do it? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's an advantage if the reviewer is someone who shares the nominators interest in, and knowledge of the subject. So I don't see any problems with members of the same project reviewing articles, and I certainly don't think there's any rule against it.
The only problem is if your association with the nominator is so close that an objective review becomes impossible, or if there is quid pro quo reviewing – I'll pass your article if you pass mine. Lampman (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
As long as you haven't been a major contributor to the article and objectively review the article against the GA criteria as an independent editor, being a member of the same WikiProject is not a problem. I also agree broadly with Lampman that it can sometimes be advantageous, although it can also be helpful for an article to have an outside view. Do as you think best in each case. Geometry guy 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Page is massive

The page is far too long to be practical. It's currently 267K. Only twenty or so articles are longer than that. Would it be more constructive to split the page into subpages? EA Swyer Talk Contributions 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's encouraging that the number of GAs is growing, but you may have a point. It's handy to have them all listed on the one page though – I suppose collapsible sections might work, or transcluded subpages may be easier to edit. EyeSerenetalk 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
That won't help with the page load time, though. Geometry guy 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it won't. Whether for convenience or ease of access or both, this is probably something we'll need to address fairly soon, so I suppose now would be as good a time as any. EyeSerenetalk 08:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want a faster loading page, try Category:Wikipedia good articles. All nice and alphabetized within categories. Gimmetrow 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on breaking the GA page into subpages? Geometry guy 00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We had a prior discussion about this back in May 2008 found here. Like EyeSerene said above, now is a good time to start making changes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose sub-pages by top-level topic would be logical (Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion etc). As Gimmetrow says, we've still got the category page if we need to see all GAs in one location. EyeSerenetalk 09:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Noting GAs on article pages

If this has been asked before, please forgive me and just point me to the relevant discussion, but I was wondering why we don't note GAs with the GA symbol in the upper right hand corner of the article like we do with the FA star. It seems that readers would be interested to know that the article they are reading has been through a review process and found to be at least adequate for an encyclopedia article. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out this for the archived debate if you feel like spending some time reading. Basically, there was a rather large controversy over it (it was before I became active at GAN, so I'm not really sure of all the specifics). If you want to bring the discussion back up again, I think I'm going to go get popcorn and just sit back and watch the drama :) (Not by you, just check the thread to see what I mean...) Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Dana. I knew this had surely come up before. I'll read the discussion if I have some down time, but if it's going to cause drama, don't look for me to propose it. I write articles, and mostly articles that few people read at that, because I don't do drama. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 02:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

With all this talk about Flagged Revisions and such, why not bring up the Great Green Dot Debate again, just to throw even more fuel onto the fire,... =) Dr. Cash (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest, but I loathe policy debates. Writing articles is much more productive. :) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 00:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think GA-symbols in mainspace inevitably will come with time; support seems to get wider every time it's brought up. One important step on the way is to finish the sweeps project, which aims at getting rid of articles that were passed at a time when the criteria were more lax. Currently it's only about 45% through. I've done a bit, but I could certainly do more, and the project could need more participants. Lampman (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of stalled at the moment. I haven't calculated the latest stats but it is probably still under 50%. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I updated the stats yesterday. As at the end of January it was 44.4%, with 1,561 articles still to be looked at. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
See WP:PEREN. --A. di M. (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:PEREN ought to be nominated for deletion IMO, as it's too often used as a tool to stifle discussion. Consensus is not set in stone. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree. --Philcha (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It can be useful to know that an issue has been discussed many times in the past. However the segment on GA contains palpable nonsense: "Whether or not an article is a Good Article is decided by one reviewer, not by a consensus-based process". This shows a complete failure to understand both GA and WP:CONSENSUS. I offer the article history of "Hillary Clinton" as one of many examples which demonstrate that one reviewer doesn't decide, and that consensus develops over time. I've always been ambivalent about the dot: widespread misunderstanding about the way GA processes work is a far more serious problem. Geometry guy 20:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost perfect example of the Pareto Principle

There are some ineluctable laws of human nature that no amount of elimination drives will have the slightest effect on. Has anyone else noticed, for instance, that the progress of the GA Sweeps Drive mentioned above is an almost perfect example of the Pareto Principle? Would you believe that 80% of the reviews have been done by 23% of the reviewers? Spooky! --Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweeps question

I have stared at the "Sweeps" page and wondered what it all means. Sorry to say, I don't understand how the process works. Can you give a simplified explanation of how the reviewing of old GAs works? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Subarticles

I've listed House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 under "Political figures", since that seemed to be the most applicable category. If we handle subarticles differently than that, feel free to correct me and drop a line here so I know for next time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nephew relationship relevance

In all articles I have written, if a nephew/uncle/aunt of the subject has done something notable they are mentioned in the article. This includes articles such as Elmer Gedeon, Bob Chappuis, Barry Bonds. This is true even for infamous things such as Elmer Gedeon and his infamous uncle. Being part of a family of athletes is a significnat thing for an athlete bio. At the current Keith Bostic (American football) there is discussion on the relevance of a nephew who is most notable for his infamy. It does not makes sense to me that an article would be considered more complete without such facts. Although you can not choose your family it is not relevant. Regardless of whether he raised his nephew the guy is his nephew and shares his last name. If people want to know if they are related, we should WP:PRESERVE that info if we have it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn. Maybe cut the info down a bit? Like "Then, he received a scholarship to play football for the Oklahoma State Cowboys and seemed destined for the NFL, but his promising professional football career was ended by a felony gun arrest in 1992." Leaving off "After a long series off arrests he was given a gun trafficking sentence." That would relate the football aspect of his life, since his uncle is a football player, without documenting his whole sad story. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Expandable table of contents

Has an expandable TOC been considered, or a normal TOC? It's really hard to find the minor sections. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

TV episodes split

I saw at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 12#Suggested split of "Recordings, compositions and performances" subsection that the songs and recordings was split as it neared 300. The TV eps section is over 300. Any ideas? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Since almost half seem to be Simpsons episodes, a separate "Cartoons" section seems logical. Lampman (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I think there may be some Family Guy and other cartoons mixed in like Pokemon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a good pragmatic solution to me. If you go ahead, please update the links at WP:GAN. Geometry guy 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Any similar split is fine with me. I might even make Simpsons episodes its own section. Gimmetrow 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I split it, but I'm not sure what needs to be changed at GAN. They're still part of theatre, etc. right? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, I don't know how the number of artilces at the bottom of each section is updated, so I put in question marks. That might screw up a bot or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Counts are automatically updated by Gimmebot on a regular basis. I've done the GAN section header change here. Geometry guy 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Got it. I changed both to Animated television episodes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So we got 145/173, seems my estimate wasn't too far off then! Lampman (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New section?

Hi! I was wondering if a new section for (non-computer) "Role-playing games" could be added. The Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject has been doing a lot of work on bringing articles up to Good status, but they don't really fit in anywhere on the current table. We've been putting most of them in with "Board and card games," but there's also some in literature. Having an additional section just might make categorization for this kind of article easier. Thanks for the consideration! -Drilnoth (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently, how many are there? Personally, if there are only a few, I would prefer them all to be in the board and card games section. However, there may be enough to merit their own section. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Not that many, less than 17. Maybe we could change the name of the section to match its contents. Maybe Tabletop games. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd support Peregrine's idea, although it's also worth mentioning that there are quite a few sections which have less than 14 or so articles, which is about how many would probably be in an RPG section. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Tag Confusion

An editor recently delisted Moonrise (Warriors) from GA status with no warning on the talk page and no reassessment page. I reverted his delisting, and left a note on his talk page that it was considered polite to follow the individual reassessment guidelines, and at least leave a message on the article talk page. He replied, saying that the GA tag stated that "If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment." (bolding mine). He felt this meant that the article could be boldly delisted with no notes on the article talk page. Is there anyway we could change the tag to point to the instructions for an individual reassessment, rather than apparently encouraging editors to remove GA status with no discussion or comments? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello; editor who delisted the article here. I'd like to add on with what has been said, as well. I went to the Wikiproject novels assessment page for second opinions. After some time, I delisted it myself, as per what the tag said (and the total quality of the article, which has prose, referencing, and other issues). The article wasn't actively being worked on, either, which also influenced my decision. Very rarely each month would someone even edit it. The clarity of the line should be fixed, I agree, or even removed if enough users would prefer it. I'm careful about what articles I delist and ask for second opinions, even if not on that talk page. Some may not. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup templates on GA articles

Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We also got plenty of uncategorized good articles to categorize OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

GA project ratings

The GA rating is given to Wikiproject templates on article talkpages via the GA review, at least this is indicated in WP:GAN. However, the reassessment page does not, I think, state what one should do with the Wikiproject ratings after delisting, and this confuses me. When a good article gets delisted, the ratings in the Wikiprojects should reflect that delisting, right? Then should one delete the quality ratings and ask the projects for reassessment? This is a heavy burden on the projects. Should one let the ratings remain GA because they are not in the major Category:Wikipedia good articles? This would I think go against common sense, since the projects get the GA rating from the good article review in the first place (and they are simply not GA after delisting anymore). Or is one supposed to assess the article per the general criteria, which I think one could possibly do since only the importance of an article is dependent on the Wikiproject ("Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope." from WP:1.0/A). Note: I saw a somewhat similar question asked on the GAR talk page here. I'm thankful for comments or clarification. Hekerui (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The GAN instruction was added here. I'm sorry I missed the well-intentioned addition, and have reworked it into a footnote. WikiProject ratings are not within the remit of the Good articles process, but they have been tied to the GA process through historical accident. It is not a responsibility of GA reviewers to change WikiProject ratings, but in the spirit of collegiate editing, a simple rule of thumb is the following: when listing an article as GA, change all WikiProject assessments below A-Class to GA-Class; when delisting an article as GA, change all GA-Class WikiProject assessments to B-Class. The system is imperfect and efforts to reform it are ongoing. Geometry guy 23:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Good month for GAs

Just wanted to point out that February was perhaps the best month ever for GAs:

  • A record number of GAs were promoted, with 383. This is even better than the ridiculous 316 that were promoted in December 2005, mostly because the standards were too lax back then.
  • Quality articles (GA, FA, FL) passed 10,000. GAs make up close to 2/3 of these.
  • For the first time ever (excepting December 2005), GAs outnumbered FAs 10 to 1 (383/35).

Now obviously, there is no purely numerical battle between the FA and GA projects; FAs still have a quality highly superior to GAs. Also, it should be remembered that the growth in GAs in February was to a large extent due to the elimination drive. Nevertheless, I think the above numbers give cause for optimism, and celebration. Lampman (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A little bad news: that counter on the GA page that gives the numbers of GAs, FLs, and FAs and their prevalence went backward. When combined, the total was that 1 out of every 271 articles was one of the three, but it went back to 272. Anyone who knows anything knows that quality is much more important than quantity. I don't know to blame, but it's a combination too many new articles and a hopefully temporarily slowed rate of FA/GA/FL promotion. Reywas92Talk 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I attribute it to unskilled reviewers; two of the four people who reviewed my article said it was definitely ready for GA. However, the first skilled reviewer said my article was definitely not ready, and the next reviewer found numerous problems. TechOutsider (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Unlisted

H.M.S. Pinafore is tagged as a Good Article, but it doesn't seem to be listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. What gives? – Quadell (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, Society and culture of the Han Dynasty is linked at Wikipedia:Good articles as "recently added", but isn't actually listed under any of the sections. – Quadell (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
So why don't you add them? There are dozens of non-listed articles. Gimmetrow 01:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if they were "official" good articles, or if someone had mistakenly tagged them. Thanks for fixing it! – Quadell (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It's part of the GA process for the reviewer to list "pass" articles on WP:GA, but reviewers do not always do that. Gimmetrow 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A list of the non-listed. Gimmetrow 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added these to the good article page. Hopefully in the right places. Sasata (talk) 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

New list. Gimmetrow 03:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewers are responsible for adding articles to this page. Gimmetrow 20:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest list. Gimmetrow 23:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

*Talk:Chuck E. Cheese's
*Talk:Edward the Martyr

The WP:GA page was last synced on March 29, when the page had 6583 unique articles listed. This page now has 6620. Therefore, a net 37 articles were added to WP:GA; since there were about 7 delists, that means about 44 articles added. During the same period, another 34 articles (listed above) became GA but were not added to this page. Thus, about 43% of the articles that become GA are not showing up here. If this trend continues, might as well just declare this page historical. Gimmetrow 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

These are lists of articles which have the GA tag but are not listed on WP:GA. For the most part, they are articles which some reviewer passed but never listed on WP:GA. Gimmetrow 23:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I get it. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This edit removed mention of WP:GA, with an edit summary: "unrequired steps and matters beyond the scope of the GA process". I suggest redirecting WP:GA to Category:Wikipedia good articles. Gimmetrow 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a mistake – throwing the baby out with the bath water. I've fixed it. Geometry guy 11:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

GAN Statistics bot

The bot has not run three nights in a row. Last night I complained at User talk:StatisticianBot and User talk:Dvandersluis.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dvandersluis (talk · contribs) has made no edits since acknowledging my complaint. No one seems to be working on the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I've asked a question about why demoted FAs don't regain their GA status (if the still meet GA criteria) at WT:FA#FAR. Your thoughts would be appreciated there. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Who would determine if those failed articles meet the GA criteria? Many FAs have never been GAs in any event, so they can hardly regain a status they never had. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD notice

(I know this belongs at WT:WGA, but there doesn't seem to be as much activity there, so I'm posting here as well just so more people see it.)

A template called {{Good Article}} has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Good Article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that many here are tired of the interminable objections to the "green dot on the mainpage"; I know that I am anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Good article criteria"

The two wikilinks to "Good article criteria" in this project article link to two different places: Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:What is a good article?, the second of which redirects to the first. That would seem both unnecessary and against WP:ASTONISH-- for one thing, it means that the browser doesn't highlight that the link has already been visited.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it: let me know if not. FYI, though, WP:ASTONISH concerns articles, i.e., the main space, not project pages. Geometry guy 08:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlisted now listed

Just in case anyone's wondering, I listed the most recent list of unlisted articles (dated April 11) that disappeared with the last archive. Sasata (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice job. Looking at my watchlist I thought you had started a new backlog drive and had begun reviewing numerous articles! At that pace we would have cleared the backlog in no time. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Many many thanks for doing this. Much appreciated! Geometry guy 10:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

How can I verify an article's GA status?

How can I verify an article's GA status if it is not listed on Wikipedia:Good articles? Finell (Talk) 20:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If ArticleHistory is not forthcoming, you can check the history of the talk page. Do you have a particular article in mind? Geometry guy 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for answering, Geometry guy. I've been doing some work on Portal:Free software and its subpages, including some fact checking. On Portal:Free software/Wikipedia featured articles, which includes FAs and GAs, the first several listed GAs (before I did my edits today) were not on Wikipedia:Good articles. Going further, I looked at the Talk pages of all the GAs that were listed on Portal:Free software/Wikipedia featured articles: some indicated FA status in a project box at the top of the page; some had project boxes that indicated former FA status (I deleted those); I'm not sure about Common Unix Printing System.
Taking verification one level further, how can one verify that a project box is accurate when it recites GA status? How can one verify that articles listed on Wikipedia:Good articles in fact have that status today? Anyone can edit these pages, and most people would not question an edit promoting an article to GA status. Shouldn't there be a definitive list of GAs on a protected page? Finell (Talk) 00:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The FA list is not protected, so why should the fact that the widely disparaged GA list is also not protected be a cause for concern? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
"widely disparaged GA list"? See next comment. At least GA review is independent, unless someone really sets out to game the system. --Philcha (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Finell has an unrealistically formal view of WP's artcile review processes. E.g. I've seen comments that if the editor's pals turn up to FAC and no-one else does, the article is passed as FA just like that. --Philcha (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
OTOH there's no real excuse for internal inconsistencies in our records. Perhaps we should ask some clever person to write a bot that handles all the paperwork for GA review and GA reassessment, so all the reviewer has to do is press "pass" or "fail". It would also need an "undo" facility in case of mistakes or misuse. --Philcha (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
So is the answer that there is no reliable way to find out with certainty whether a particular article is in fact GA??? Finell (Talk) 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Is there a reliable way to find out whether a particular article (on a health issue say) is in fact, accurate? You answer my question, I'll answer yours. Geometry guy 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I am well aware of the reliability problems on Wikipedia, and spend a decent amount of my Wikipedia time removing misinformation. The answer to your question is, Yes, for the most part: one can look at the soruces cited and other reliable sources to verify statements of fact (I am aware of Wikipedia's distinction between verifiability and truth). However, I am afraid that you have already answered my question; I was hoping that the answer would be different, that there would be a record that can be checked to determine an article's FA or GA status. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 03:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
As stated before, a quick look at the history of the talk page should tell you. If there is no GA review page and the status seems to be changed without review then you can simply remove the GA status as false. I have never seen this happen before though. Anyway, what vandal would really be interested in project ratings? It's the equivalent of a thief coming to your house and stealing your lecture notes – it has no value to them. It's only a rating anyway so the article is the proof of the pudding: if it's a load of crap littered with clean up banners then it (a) was never a GA or (b – the more likely outcome) it is an old/poorly reviewed GA that should be taken to GAR.
So, to reiterate (and I think I speak for everyone here), if you cannot find evidence of a review then you can simply change the project rating. The system works, and quite simply. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 13:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Finell, if you have any suggestions for how to make an articles GA status more readily and reliably easy to check, please add your suggestions here. Geometry guy 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

Could somebody review Jim Gilmore presidential campaign, 2008 to stop Uga Man's gloating? --Retracted (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, because the article has not been nominated for Good Article review. At this relatively early stage of its development, it probably shouldn't be either. (It doesn't even have a talk page.) –Whitehorse1 21:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Good Article

{{Good Article}} has been nominated for deletion. See WP:TFD.

76.66.202.139 (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Procedure for expedite reviews

Briefly: I am teaching a course over the summer, and I want to teach students how to write Good Articles. But classes, unlike most things on Wikipedia, have specific timeframe. The students would greatly benefit if their articles (related to family) would be reviewed within the time they can still make adjustments and before the course ends; in other words, there will be ~4 or 5 articles that will need to be reviewed within a day or two of being listed (on 21 July), as I'll be grading them on 28 July (and the students will need a few days to read the comments and make modifications). I run a similar course last year (see here), but I don't think a single article the students listed was reviewed in the time frame needed for the course. I understand that GA reviewers have a backlog, and I don't mind waiting several weeks for my own GA to be reviewed, but in this case (and I expect that there are other teachers out there who would like to use GA to teach) some form for expedite review would be useful. Perhaps we can create a page where expedite reviews could be requested, as a form of collaboration between WP:GA and Wikipedia:School and university projects? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

I would like to update everyone on the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

New bot task

I have requested that a bot handle the task of updating Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. If anyone wants to throw in their two cents, the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 28#Newly listed GA articles. Also, there is the question of should we rely on the bot as a backup plan in case someone forgets to add the article, or should it be the primary updater so the humans don't have to worry about it? And of course once this plan is finalized someone will probably have to post a notice somewhere that editors no longer have to update the list. --ErgoSum|talk|trib 17:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 not listed

In Category:Wikipedia good articles without links from Wikipedia:Good articles

Gimmetrow 16:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Temporarily disabling LivingBot so all these don't get added to /recent. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If you gimme a shout when you're done, Gimmetrow, I'll turn it back on again. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, switching back on. Anyone can turn it off themselves at User:LivingBot, if they want to do bulk edits. Finish editing, wait ten minutes, then remember to turn it on again though, please. Or they could just revert it, or leave it, I don't really mind. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I just realised my timestamp check was an hour off, so that's why the bot hasn't been doing anything. I fixed that and wrote in an exemption of all pages linked to from this page, so we don't have to play games every month. Sound good? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

/recent bot: an update

Okay, the bot's been approved and is here to stay! One recent improvement: proper reporting of what's added (tested on one edit) and what's been taken away (just added, untested yet). That should help to give the bot a slightly less automata feel to it, and helps in the history of the page. Meanwhile, links on this page remain on the exempted list; if anyone has any questions or suggestions, please do shout. The big question is of course now: can we rely on the bot? Perhaps a little too confidently I am going to say "definitely" now, so you can afford to post to WP:GA and then just get on with improving the encyclopaedia, rather than spending time propagating that listing to /recent. Congratulations everyone. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That works great. As a sidenote, is there a way to scan the edit summary in good article nominations page and from there onwards letting the bot do the whole job of adding the article to WP:GA page as well. If that is possible, we can kind of standardize the edit summary for articles that pass and bot doing the rest of job. - DSachan (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have been giving this some thought. First off, there is no reason to limit this to an extension of my bot's capabilities – there are bot-ops much better coders than me that may be able to succeed where I fail. The problem here lies in the transition period – the period when humans and bots will have to work together. But it's certainly possible. See WP:BOTREQ discussion. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Many many thanks for introducing this bot. I've long regarded /recent as an unnecessary extra burden on reviewers. I'm very happy that it has been automated. Geometry guy 21:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who requested a bot to take care of the recently listed GAs. So thanks to Jarry for taking care of that one. But like DSachan, I also wondered if a bot could handle the whole process of listing GAs under their respective categories. The only problem with this one, would be requiring editors to place a proper subtopic tag into the GA template, then the bot could simply read this and place the article in the correct category on the GA page. I asked Jarry about it but he suggested I place a separate request for that one. So, I think I might, as long as everyone else thinks its a good idea. OhanaUnited expressed a concern over this very issue over at Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Newly listed GA articles, but further discussion should probably take place here as I'm sure that discussion will be archived soon. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 22:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I also think that this GA listing thing should be made further botomatic. How about putting that subtopic thing in the edit summary itself (in some standard format) and letting the bot pick the whole information from there. It would go something like 'SM UB-11 promoted as History good article under Weapons and Military equipment category'. - DSachan (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to ErgoSum also (I have been following this since it was proposed). The GA page is trickier to automate as it is organized by subsubtopics. GA and GAN are synchronized at the subtopic level (I try to check it from time to time), but the subsubtopics are unique to the GA page, and not particularly stable: they get subdivided and/or reorganized when they become too large. Also the GA page itself is now almost at the limit of acceptable size, and so will have to be split into multiple pages or otherwise rethought in the near future. Geometry guy 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt, by all means continue the above below. Just while everyone's following this thread: firstly, Hekerui raised a question on my talkpage, and I would just like to say – humans make mistakes; bots always do what they're told (for better or worse!). Arsenikk's perfectly accidental listing of Eurostar was duly propagated to /recent in the time it took him to fix his mistake; if everyone's aware of this then everyone should be fine. Of course, when these discussions about fully automating the system are concluded, we'll be able to take accident-prone humanity out of the equation altogether :). Secondly, apologies for the appearance of the word "Array" in the edit summaries, that should now be fixed. Happy editing! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

A bot generated a listing for Good Articles in need of cleanup: Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing, Tom B (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested comments

I have requested comments over at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/recent, suggesting an increase in the number of recently listed good articles, and adding a commented-out bot notice to the page. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 08:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Astronomy GAs

Could someone please enlighten me on GA criteria (for astronomy articles) ? I'll try to explain myself. Scroll to the very bottom of WP:GA and locate the category "Stars, galaxies and extrasolar objects". Click some numbered article, e.g. HD 217107. Is it GA ? What is the lowest limit on the amount and importance of information for an article to be GA? More than half of the articles in that and nearby GA subsections (i.e. remote astronomical objects) are like that. I could understand that they passed on old standards, but they were reassessed this spring and found suitable. Perhaps another sweep by an experienced astronomer is long overdue. Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked the refs or done any research on breadth of coverage. At first sight it appears to meed the GA criteria, e.g. I would not rush to start a GAR if I saw it by chance.
Is the problem that the article meets WP:GNG but the subject is, from a real-life perspective, insignificant? There's a fun discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#multitude of minor direct references, which started with a different aspect of notability but spawned a sub-thread about insignificant characters that meet WP:GNG (search for "Briseis"). --Philcha (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_12&oldid=1251438940"