Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Archive 1

message: Two of our tasks have been made easy - article counts get updated by Cedars' GAAuto script, and synchronising with the category is easy with Oleg Alexandrov's code on the talk page - but one has got more substantial now that all articles are to be added to the nominations page.  There are almost 30 articles listed at the moment waiting for a review.  Who fancies tackling some of them?  I've done some but there's lots I don't feel particularly like reviewing as they're well outside my areas of interest or expertise.  Worldtraveller 12:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a few now and again but I really like to analyze them and give real advice whenever I look at them, so I don't often have much time to do more than 1 whenever I have the time :/. Homestarmy 13:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Call to arms!

message: Just wondered what you all think of what to do about long articles on GA?  I ask because some of the articles on the nominations list are very substantial, and I don't feel myself that I alone could review them adequately, whereas I feel that any of us can review a short article more than adequately.  I wondered what other active reviewers thought about this.  On WP:WIAGA (which, incidentally, may well need input and refinement), I suggested taking longer articles to FA for more rigorous review, but I wonder if we should make this a stronger statement?  Worldtraveller 12:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length

message: You guys must be off your fucking rockers if you think that highlighting an article about a religious topic was a good idea.  You really need to stay away from highly touchy subjects like religion and war.  It'll just promote dickweeds vandalising them.  65.95.241.86 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already plenty of vandals against Jesus, a couple more can't hurt at the speed we revert, besides, I think the collaboration like died or something, I don't think anybody showed up and it's one day past due :/. Homestarmy 21:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics 

message: I did a huge sweep of the GA list and removed around 20 entries for missing references.  I only removed articles that had no semblence of sources -- no footnotes, no ref section, nothing.  I was cautious and left a few that looked as if the external links sec was meant to serve as references.  I've gotten through quite a bit of the list, but could use some help if anyone has time.  The following categories all need a references sweep:  War and military, Transport, Sport and games (except video games, already got 'em), Royalty etc, Religion and beliefs, Politics and gov, Physics and astro, Philosophy, Music by nation, people, etc and Instruments (already got the rest of that cat), Mathematics, Lit, Law, Language and ling, History, Geology etc, Landforms and Parks etc.  If someone could also check the article totals for each category, that would be great.  Thanks! Air.dance 08:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! It would be helpful to have a more systematic way of doing this, though. In fact there are several things that it is relatively easy to "sweep" for: referencing, appropriately-tagged images (a lot of the FAs are cringeworthy in this regard, I've seen blatant copyvios down as self-PD etc), stability (check the talk page to see if there is a dispute going on), and quality of writing. A sweeping system based on sub-section headings on WP:GA should be relatively easy to set up. A further issue is what to do about problems that are discovered. Should there be immediate delisting? Or would it be less disruptive to leave a message on the talk page, giving (say) 7 days' grace before delisting?  TheGrappler 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about that.  If we do the seven-day rule, then we'd have to do a second sweep (by hand or bot or whatever) to enforce that rule.  What about delisting and having a second section for renominations?  Say, a section for original noms and then another for renoms?  Then we'd know to go through the renoms quickly and check for resolution of the issues while original noms would need the full review.  Or is that too complicated, you think? Air.dance 01:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think there's a need for instruction-creep here - a renom is the same as a nom, fundamentally. In the nom description, people often include the fact it's a renom, which is probably a practice to be encouraged but not by additional instructions! (We can encourage people to do it by making sure if we make a renom, we write the fact that it's a renom - other people will often do the same without the need for yet another instruction :-)) Also, beware of the fact that articles can get worse as well as better - the fact that a bit that previously needed attention has got fixed doesn't mean that everything else has at least stayed the same! Basically we want to make the process for GAs (including nominations, listings, delistings) as easy and simple as possible. On the flip side, the WikiProject behind it could probably do with more structure. What would be on Good Articles:Open Tasks? I guess a list of outstanding nominations (those over 7 days? those over 5 days? I don't like the idea of a 7 day auto-promotion rule myself... just because nobody felt competent to review something doesn't mean it's AOK!) An approximate running total for the noms list. A list of outstanding, unresolved disputes. A list of sweeps not done for a while e.g. image-tag sweeps not done for such and such a section since such and such a time, or article counts only correct as of such and such a date... I'll have a think about it and see if I can come up with something usable TheGrappler 14:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work on doing so many reviews, Air.dance!  I intend to keep an eye on the phys and astro category as I feel qualified to assess articles there, and we could possibly think about getting one or two people to oversee each section, regularly sweeping listings to see if they still match the criteria.  I think there should be no great problem with just removing articles that don't meet the criteria - if problems are listed on the talk page it's no guarantee they'll be fixed, and it would surely be very easy for a reviewer to forget to go back and check.  The nomination process is dead easy so renominating should never be a big deal.  Worldtraveller 20:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tasks

message: the previous discussion has become fractured and confusing so i will try to assume good faith (despite users like User:RJN currently behaving in an unacceptable manner), and bring some clarity to the issue, and suggest a satisfactory "middle ground". 
As i see it, 3 separate issues are being mixed up here: (a) the "good article" process and its standards, (b) the existence of the template, and (c) the addition of that template to hundreds of main article pages. 
*(a) is not up for discussion here. 
*(b) only is an issue if its inserted into hundreds of main article pages, and 
*(c) is the current contentious point. 
The contention is that the template was added to hundreds of main article pages without prior discussion or consensus. this is not an attack on you, your articles, or the good articles process. it is simply about following wikipolicy where big changes to policy are concerned. wikipolicy was not followed here.
so here is my proposal to solve the problem:
# the policy process to add the goodarticle template to the main article page is removed FOR NOW.
# a bot is used to remove the goodarticle tags from all main article pages FOR NOW.
# a new discussion is created, FOLLOWING POLICY, to find if there is consensus to introduce the template on the main article space. the discussion is publicized on village pump policy page, featured article talk, template talk, good article talk, and anywhere else such discussions normally take place.
# a few weeks are given for the dust to settle.
# if there is consensus to add the template to main article pages, it is added to the GA policy and a bot runs to add it to all the main article pages.
# if there is consensus against it, the template is deleted. 
is this ok for everyone? we basically revert the "gun-jumping" on the main article pages, but keep the template until the outcome of the discussion (3) is known. i will request a bot to do step 2 in a day or 2. Zzzzz 16:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this sounds good...Flying Canuck 18:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is exactly what should happen, regardless of the TfD vote, which is conflating the issues you mentioned. By the way, I implemented step (1) yesterday in this edit. Melchoir 21:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree with the above. The people who say that this list is full of unreferenced articles thats why anyone can remove these articles. This is also why we have the wikiproject good articles. Also so articles don't accecdentally end up on the list I would prefer the Peer review → GA nomination → FA nomination process proposed above. Not only would it clear up the nominations page but it would also make it easier for the featured article candidacy reviewers as it would tell them that it has been reviewed at least twice. Tarret 22:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that reviewing an article is about the same difficulty regardless of how many times its been read before -- either way, you have to read the article and examine any potential problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, and on another note, if it is re-added it belongs at the end of the source code where it will not distract from editing. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wish you would stop hurling accusations of this so-called "unacceptable" behavior.  I don't think anyone has done anything except state their position and defend it.  That said, this is a very good solution and I firmly support it.  Zzzz, thank you for finding a compromise. Air.dance 01:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Zzzzz, can you stop attacking me and referring me as a vandal? "...(despite users like User:RJN currently behaving in an unacceptable manner)..." How was I behaving in an "unacceptable" manner? All I did was vote to keep it and informed other participants in the project that the template was up for deletion—just like you did by informing other people to vote against it. I never attacked you in anyway—you attacked me by saying I have defaced articles and that I refused to take the icon down. I was not part of creating the icon or unilaterally enforcing the icon as I just joined the project this week—I found out about the icon this past week as well. I would appreciated if you would stop attacking me and saying that I am behaving in an "unacceptable" manner. Also, I didn't realize that there wasn't any prior discussion whether to put the icon on the main space or not. —RJN 01:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a fine suggestion to me, I mean, it's just a little dot that im not even sure was ever in the GA policy in the first place.... Homestarmy 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the 6 points proposed by User:Zzzzz however I disagree with Peer review → GA nomination → FA nomination. This would add unneccesary bureaucracy to the FA process. Joelito 19:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose. Talk about hypocritical: a person posts this on this page to get rid of something that never had a discussion, and someone decides to just go ahead and get rid of them themselves without consensus here! That's kind of not the point! I don't think these should have been removed at all. They look fine, no one opposes them (even the intentions of the person who posted this here were strictly to do it the right way and not let someone else get away with creating policy), and all it takes is a quick vote on policy. I find it rude, then, that people just start ripping all of these templates down without consensus to do so. In the future, it'd be nice to give more than a day and a half's notice before doing such a thing. → J@red talk+ ubx  20:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No one opposes them"? You obviously haven't read the rest of this page! Pagrashtak 23:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment Wouldnt it make sense to replace the GA template on those pages with another one? Some sort of pre-GA template? I just see it as removing lots of peoples work for no reason. With a subsitution no work is lost. -Ravedave 21:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've got a counter-question, why is it some people seem to place such a high amount of importance on "clutter in the article namespace"? What does a tiny dot "clutter" anything with that makes it so important to write big long dissertations on why it should be deleted? Homestarmy 21:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, there are people who like to keep the article namespace as free from clutter as possible. But as a 'counter-question' to my question above that is totally beside the point. My argument doesn't have anything to do with 'clutter'.  — mark ✎ 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I just thought i'd ask. I mean really, it's one little dot, and it's taking up what seems to be all the attention of this wikiproject :/. Homestarmy 13:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we followed that line of reasoning I'm sure there would be a lot more 'little dots' in our articles. Looking at the arguments used over at the TfD ("I like to know if an article has been deemed 'good'", "it promotes the good article project", "I think it's easy to identify good articles this way"), I think it's clear that too few editors realize that we are not writing the encyclopedia for ourselves. Other keep-voters (the ones that think it is a good idea to let the reader know that they are, in fact, 'reading a good article') I'd like to refer to my question above. I really think it's a serious issue. — mark ✎ 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is I voted weak keep, I mean, I just plain don't care very much, so what if it gets deleted, if we want it again we can just remake it really quickly :/. and if I am not mistaken, you have chosen the path of ze Slippery Slope fallacy? :D Homestarmy 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The good article tag on main article space

message: I have great trouble understanding the point of the GA tag in main space. Is it that we want to tell our readers that the article they just consulted is indeed "worth a read"? Do we want to note that the article "may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic" (WP:WIAGA)? Now why would an encyclopedia need to tell its reader such things? Shouldn't that be the standard case? And if for some reason it isn't (i.e. if there are many articles that are 'worse' than our 'good articles'), shouldn't we be doing something about that instead of patting ourselves on the back by means of a pointless self-reference that is useless to the reader? Please, let's remember that we aren't writing the encyclopedia for ourselves, as editors. I believe some 80% of the page views come from readers, not editors (not sure where I read that, correct me if I'm wrong). This tag is utterly useless to them; confusing even. As I said elsewhere, I don't think WP:GA is without merit, but I do think this tag in the article namespace is a very bad idea. — mark ✎ 12:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got a counter-question, why is it some people seem to place such a high amount of importance on "clutter in the article namespace"? What does a tiny dot "clutter" anything with that makes it so important to write big long dissertations on why it should be deleted? Homestarmy 21:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, there are people who like to keep the article namespace as free from clutter as possible. But as a 'counter-question' to my question above that is totally beside the point. My argument doesn't have anything to do with 'clutter'.  — mark ✎ 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I just thought i'd ask. I mean really, it's one little dot, and it's taking up what seems to be all the attention of this wikiproject :/. Homestarmy 13:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we followed that line of reasoning I'm sure there would be a lot more 'little dots' in our articles. Looking at the arguments used over at the TfD ("I like to know if an article has been deemed 'good'", "it promotes the good article project", "I think it's easy to identify good articles this way"), I think it's clear that too few editors realize that we are not writing the encyclopedia for ourselves. Other keep-voters (the ones that think it is a good idea to let the reader know that they are, in fact, 'reading a good article') I'd like to refer to my question above. I really think it's a serious issue. — mark ✎ 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know is I voted weak keep, I mean, I just plain don't care very much, so what if it gets deleted, if we want it again we can just remake it really quickly :/. and if I am not mistaken, you have chosen the path of ze Slippery Slope fallacy? :D Homestarmy 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question to supporters of the GA icon in article namespace