Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-19/Dispatches

History

I see there's a bit of an inline debate going on; this doesn't seem very efficient, so I'm putting it here. Comments indented.

The Good article (GA) process was originally introduced

When? I can't find this info anywhere

to recognise shorter articles, which at the time were not eligible for featured article (FA) status.

(SandyG?:)Add some history here, who started, date started, original proposal, etc.

G'guy: Save for another dispatch

JBM: a little wouldn't hurt

Hope that clarifies things. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first GA page, to add the first GA article names for History, maybe. Most interesting that, in the first iteration, GAs weren't passed by one editor. They were listed in a central place (sound familiar :-) and if no one objected in 24 hours, then they were added. Also interesting that images were generally needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I also found the date when the process began, so have in fact erased the inline debate. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that, in the first batch of GAs, several of them are still GA, but a couple of them are currently unassessed. How silly that an article goes from GA to unassessed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, SandyG! ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an article is de-listed, doesn't it go to B-class? What happened to those, did they just get lost in the system? Or even if they deteriorated over time, wouldn't they be at least start class? I might go track some of them down and figure out where their assessments got lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gguy's reply would be that we shouldn't confuse the GA/FA system from the stub/start/B/(confusingly also)GA/A system that is managed by projects, not by the community as a whole. I can see his logic; I'm not sure I'm yet fully convinced. But this is perhaps not the place for that debate, though I think that this article aims to open it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflit) Got the answer, found the same, it has to do with Projects. When they were delisted (Fall 2007), since there were no Project tags on the article talk pages, there's no place to add a current assessment (btw, GimmeBot automatically assigns B-class when articles are de-featured at FAR). Anyway, if you want to add a History stat, it would be:

Of the eight articles first listed at GA on October 11, 2005, four are currently GA, two are B-class and two are unassessed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this mention worldtraveller somewhere, and WP:ESA? Gimmetrow 06:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, if you know the history, please fill it in. I've been prompting someone to add it, but I don't know it. First time I've ever heard of WP:ESA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's too late. Maybe another time. Gimmetrow 02:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

A question about the statistics:

Even so, fewer than 0.18% of the encyclopedia's articles are Good Articles, i.e. certified "satisfactory". And fewer than 0.09% are Featured, that is, our "very best work". Approximately 99.75% of Wikipedia's content is neither.

Does this sufficiently take account either a) other featured content (lists, portals, images) or b) non-articles (dab pages, redirects, etc.)? I mean, I'm sure that the general gist remains the same, but can we be confident enough to give accuracy to two decimal places? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right; I don't know how to do the numbers, though, since I don't know how other content breaks down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I know, I know, Other Stuff calls, but...) Just looking at the chart here, if the pattern is representative of WP as a whole (can it be?), fully 14% of the encyclopedia's pages are categories. Can this be so? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index, which shows assessments on 1.6 million of our current 2.4 million articles. Using those (obviously wrong) numbers, we still come close to the same percentages, but ... I don't think we know enough about the numbers to be using the 99% number at all. Portals aren't assessed, for instance. It's safer just to say what the combined total is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back later

I've been working on this some, but have to stop for now; I'll be back later, perhaps in the morning. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry; for as long as we've been doing this, the Signpost has been running a few days late. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Just to complicate things :-) Can we squeak in a footnote or something about this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uff, yes. My God, this whole assessment thing is a can of worms, no? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ugh ... don't even want to go there, but an A-class MilHist review is definitely worth something, even if none of the others are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach. OK, I was supposed to go off and do my Other Stuff, but heck... it's not as though there are simply too many people queuing up to help out at FAC/R and GAN/R, and we have to turn them away, is it? Anyhow. Other Stuff calls. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byline and thanks

Both Sandy and Jbm have contributed enormously to the improvements to this dispatch today, and I encourage them both to consider adding their names to the byline. I've encouraged Jbm on his talk page to do so. I know that Sandy may regard her much-valued role here as coordinating and copyediting dispatches rather than coauthoring, and recognise that this piece carries some opinion. I am truly grateful to Karanacs for stepping in when I was lost for further words. I am happy with any byline, and I promise to take the responsibility and the flak as first author, but will gladly credit my coauthors and others for converting my vague thoughts into a considerably better piece. Thank you! Geometry guy 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try to stay out of the byline, as I generally only tweak and add links and things like that ... my edit count racks up because of the constant little tweaks, but I rarely add anything of substance. And everyone knows my prose stinks, so I need no credit for adding wikilinks :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, your multiple little tweaks are much appreciated, my dear :-) Geometry guy 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolates, please :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not get the lorry-load I sent you for Easter? :-) Geometry guy 21:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<grumble, grumble> Going after that UPS driver who is stealing my chocolates again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two separate lorries next year, one for the chocolate eggs, and one for the chocolate bunnies :-) (Maybe we should stage them a bit, which came first?...) Geometry guy 22:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pah! Anyhow, I think the article still lacks a little je ne sais quoi... Will return to it in a short while. Have tried to think of images to add; have generally failed to come up with anything worthwhile. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Tony; he likes to jazz them up at this stage with images and catchy marketing :-) I've got my head in malformed fac files, where I need admin tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to tell me what I have to do, I can help you with those files. I did look at the relevant page, but didn't get it exactly. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid those pages are so messed up that only Gimmetrow (who understands articlehistory and GimmeBot and FAC files) will be able to sort them. They would be a real challenge for someone learning the tools, especially since we're going back through the files to correct errors that are now years old :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, gotcha. But if you find a way in which I can be useful, then do give me a shout. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is time to persuade Sandy to accept an RfA nomination :-) That aside, note that Tony has clear views about GA (not generally positive, and I understand his position). I will be further impressed by him if he enhances this piece without changing the current tone. However he is busy and may likewise recuse, which is not a problem. Any ideas to add a bit of spice will be welcome, although I am happy with the piece as it is. Geometry guy 23:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave it up to you all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm again done for now. Must return to my endlessly-postponed Other Stuff. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

(Mostly to Acer:) Thanks for this. I did try that before, but to my eye it looks wrong, mostly because the image starts above the headline. Which is why, after also trying everything else, I gave up in (self-)disgust... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to try again, or your taking another stab yourself? (trying different sizes might be the best option) Acer (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think we're gona be able to get around the image starts above headline issue... No matter what I do that always happens... Acer (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically...

"That is three times as many as Featured, but it means that the 2:1 ratio is the last such milestone we will see: 3:1 is an asymptote." - shouldn't that have been: "That is three times as many as Featured, but it means that the 2:1 ratio is the last such milestone we will see unless the ratio of the rate increases changes, since the current ratio of the rate increases (3:1) is an asymptote.". The rest of the article makes this clear, with its talk of a possible future 10:1 ratio, but the finality of that sentence confused me for a while. Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]