Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 11

message: I'm having a bit of a problem here. Someone promoted this article to GA status without going through any sort of process, wikiproject or otherwise. I changed it back, explaining that it needed to go through the process, but was reverted. What do I do now? Wrad 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it to WP:GAR. Geometry guy 21:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I've got a good dialogue going there now. Seems to be sorting out. Wrad 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Book of Mormon]] GA problem 

message: the page was nominated on 27 august 2007 and its been a month now; nobody stood for reviewing it. i started up the article and have added up the whole content to the article. it means i can't review it. but i promise you guys that i will follow an unbiased approach in reviewing. if any body has a problem then it is henceforth requested to review the article without hesitating. rather i request you guys to review since i am waiting to move on to other articles. thanks, Sushant gupta 11:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll review it. Give me today to begin and until Friday to finish. I'll post as I go so that any changes can be worked on while I continue to go over it. LaraLove 12:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Evolutionary history of life]] GA review 

message: Hi, I recently took on my first GA review, Harold Pinter, but I may have transgressed the proper etiquette and would appreciate some guidance.   My main criticism was that the article was written in complex sentences that were sometimes very difficult to parse for lay-people who lack the background of a Pinter scholar.  Unfortunately, the chief author is a long-time Pinter scholar who naturally finds his own prose transparent.  We have worked out a mutually agreeable way of me clarifying some of the more complex constructions, and him checking that the accuracy has not been impugned.  But we're wondering whether this violates the separation of reviewer and editor, and whether another should take over as GA reviewer?  Fortunately, another has, Jay Henry, so this is a real possibility.  Any advice would be very welcome! :) Willow 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The GA guidelines only require that the reviewer has not substantially edited the article before they review it. Once reviewing begins (either at WP:GAN or WP:GAR) it is not regarded as a conflict of interest to both review and edit the article. Indeed, in my view, the more that reviewers contribute to the article, the better, as the GA process is primarily about improving articles. One of the reasons this is not a concern is that any uninvolved editor can delist the article if they believe the review was in error. Geometry guy 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper limits of GA reviewing? 

message: Would anyone object to dividing  some of the larger top-level categories into smaller top level categories? (eg:Separating the "Media" section into "Films" and "Television and journalism") --Tarret talk 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Lara❤Love 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that specific example. What else do you have in mind? Wrad 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For other examples I  was thinking about seperating recreation into  "Sports and recreation" and "Computer and video games". If anyone else has anymore suggestions feel free to say so. Tarret talk 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No place for Miscellaneous GA? It's a given Topic when placing passed GA tags but then when you come to add it to the list here, there's no place for it. Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity) is the article and I can't find in the current cats where to put him/the article. Nevermind, I figured it out. --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such a division is a good idea. Note that any changes here need to be matched by corresponding changes at WP:GAN. Geometry guy 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dividing the categories 

message: All good articles seem to be categorized automatically as GA-Class Good articles. How can a good article be categorized as a A-Class Good article instead? – Ilse@ 09:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that category is only used for maintenance purposes by the 1.0 bot. Homestarmy 11:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-class good articles 

message: Anybody have any idea what this should be categorised under? I've added it, but I'm really not sure where it should go. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would put it under recreation since people are actually playing it. --Bloodzombie 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Guyball]] 

message: This article was promoted without going through the proper process. I'm not sure how to fix it. Wrad 17:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It passed after review almost a year ago. You can see the review here. If you believe it fails to meet the criteria, list the problems on the talk page and give a week for them to be fixed. If you think there's too many issues for that, nom it at GAR unless it clearly fails on many aspects, in which case, just boldly delist it and leave a note. Lara❤Love 17:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. Then why did someone just add it on this page? Wrad 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. Perhaps someone just came upon the AH template on another page and decided to add it. But it's all linked in the archives. Lara❤Love 17:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just threw me off, because the review itself had been archived and I couldn't see it. Oh well, glad I brought it here before doing anything rash. Wrad 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, there's a big confussion going on. Batman Begins IS NOT the same thing as Batman (1989 film). User:LaraLove passed BATMAN BEGINS and i am still reviewing the other one. Today a heavy editor of Batman (1989 film) (User:Wildroot) passed the article and added to the GA list using a sock puppet (User:lightbulbinspector, proof of sockpuppetry in the userpage history). He even left me a message in my talk page telling me that "another user" had reviewed the article for me. I undid the listing (that's why it's not on the list anymore but still on the "recent adds to the list" box) and another user removed the GA tag of the talk page. I am still reviewing the article. Yamanbaiia 19:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. The whole thing really did seem fishy to me, with a new user adding an article to GA without any real review on the talk page. Yes, we are talking about something different from Batman Begins. Wrad 20:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user used fake links to throw us off. T Rex | talk 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Batman (1989 film)]] 

message: Should we alert them to the news that we've hit 3000? How does that work? Wrad 01:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we did before when we reached 3,000 back a couple of months back, but I don't think they mentioned it. I think since it's happened before the may not mention it, but if you want to give it a try, leave a message at their tip line. --Nehrams2020 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, according to the GA statistics, 3000 is a new milestone. We hit 2000 back in March, but not 3000. Dr. Cash 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes you're definitely right. I was trying to find the 3,000 figure everywhere in the archives, so I can now see why I wasn't having too much success. Thanks for correcting me. --Nehrams2020 06:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Signpost 

message: People were talking about the need for an award for Peer Review, so I made :Template:ContentReviewMedal. However, it's not only for PR; can be used for FA GA PR etc.  --Ling.Nut 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that's wonderful. I have a perfect use for that. Thank you, Ling.Nut. Beautiful work. Lara❤Love 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand ready to serve, ma'am. --Ling.Nut 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:ContentReviewMedal]] alternative to GAMedal 

message: I believe I am one of the most productive WP:GA authors.  At last count I had 38 current GA credits plus two that have been promoted to WP:FA.  For some time, I have constantly had WP:GACs in the queue for review.  In the month of October at one time I had 9 GACs, as shown here, in the in the queue.  In October, I had at least 7 GA promotions: including Rush Street (Chicago), Ricky Powers, Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood), Chicago Marathon, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Haystacks (Monet), Prairie Avenue, and Rainbow/PUSH.
Last month I posted Gilbert Perreault at WP:GAR (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault) because I felt it was being destroyed by another editor who was removing citations.  The GAR was headed to a consensus to keep the article with the citations replaced.  Then, User:Geometry guy closed the discussion as inappropriate for GAR and suggested I take it to WP:RFC.
You may recall that I had first taken the article to the talk pages of both WP:HOCKEY and WP:WPBIO without reply and then requested help at WP:PR after much back and forth editing and arguing.  
Much to my surprise the RFC is headed toward a consensus to allow the removal of my citations and essentially authorizing people to remove citations at will if they are in the mood as has been pointed out in the debate.  However, it is my opinion that I am being baited in the debate especially by User:Djasso who is making it appear that I am doing some unscrupulous.  My most serious concern is that the way the debate is going, it seems to authorize citation removal from WP:GA beyond what I believe is appropriate and I feel I have a good sense of what is appropriate for a good article.  Furthermore, the way debate is going it appears I will be handcuffed to sit by.  I am very fearful that the persons I am debating with intend to tear the citations out of the GAs I have contributed and sort of need some backup so it does not happen.  I had been thinking my work at finding citations was valued, but I am not so sure.
I am hoping that others here are concerned about protecting good articles will help reverse the debate back in line with the direction it was headed while at GAR. Please see Talk:Gilbert_Perreault#RFC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA citation debate 

message: European islands have their own section in Geography Good Articles rather than being included in Places - Europe Is this useful or is it a section too many? I have no opinion one way or the other, I just want to see waht other people here think. Lurker (said · done) 19:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Islands 

message: As information, a GA has been nominated for deletion. Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/300-page iPhone bill (second nomination). Dhaluza (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA at AfD 

message: For example, see Talk:Ottoman Empire.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 06:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the project ratings? If so, someone should change them, but it's not in :Category:Wikipedia good articles. Gimmetrow 06:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some articles are categorised as GA on the talk pages, even when they're not 

message: .. is fast becoming my new pet peeve. It is verboten, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style %28dates and numbers%29#Dates of birth and death. For an example of a GA (until a few minutes ago) that trespassed against this fair rule, see Seymour H. Knox I...Thanks Ling.Nut (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  putting places in parentheses with date of birth or death 

message: Wow, so less than 0.2% of wikipedia articles are good???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.178.182 (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By whose standard? GA is just a nominal thing. An article can be good and not be GA. It can also, though we try to avoid it, not be good and still be GA. Good is such a vague term. The correct way to say it would be: 0.2% of articles are rated as GA quality. Wrad (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good? 

message: was not a politician.  Can somebody who's more familiar with the categorization scheme suggest where this article should be listed instead?P4k 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jean Charles de Menezes]] 

message: The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]] Newsletter for December 2007 

message: I've only just noticed that Snowmanradio, updated the introductory passage a week ago. I'm not objecting: in fact, I think it is a step in the right direction. However, it prompted me to move the header to a separate page Wikipedia:Good articles/header to make it easier to make and track changes. This also means that the "recently listed good articles" list is now on a subpage, but I've provided an "update list" link in the bottom right corner to access it. I hope that editors will find this easier to use than when the list was buried amongst all the junk in the header. Geometry guy 15:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes editors add passes to the "recently listed good articles", but don't add them to the rest of the page. A few days later the article drops off the recent list but the talk page remains in CAT:GA. Could the list be done away with entirely? Also, editors don't need either to update the section counts, or to alphabetize the articles correctly. Those get tidied up a couple times a week. Gimmetrow 05:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like this change at all. It's actually adding more complexity to the passing process -- now, when we pass a new GA, we not only have to edit WP:GA, but also to add the article to the new GAs list as well as updating the count page (a total of three edits, instead of editing just one page). Previously, when I added an article to the page, I'd scroll down to the new articles list and add it there, then use the search function to search for the category in that page and scroll down and add it there -- still only a single edit to one page. I'd like it even better if I didn't have to do the second edit to the count page, but this was added some time ago, so I just put up with that. I suspect now, though, that many editors will simply forget to update the new articles listing. I urge you to please reconsider reverting this new page. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that making several changes to a long and complicated page is easier than making one change to two or three short sections/pages, especially for newcomers. Anyway, I agree with Gimmetrow that we could just scrap the "recently listed good articles". It is not used reliably and serves little purpose. As for the count, I urge other editors to ignore it. Updating it is a complete waste of time: it is maintained regularly by GimmeBot, and inbetween GimmeBot's edits it is usually incorrect anyway. Leave to a bot what a bot does well: counting. Geometry guy 09:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, come to think of it, since GimmeBot is updating everything, I wonder if the bot could just get the dates/times of the 10 or 20 most recently added GAs directly from the history, and update the "recently listed good articles" itself? If it's running every day, that way the list would be kept up to date,... I do kind of like the list, as it does make things easier when writing updates for the GA newsletter. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the bot runs based on FA promotions/archives, and it doesn't have any code easily adapted to generating a "recently listed" list. But it does have code to remove delisted GAs from WP:GA, so editors (and GA/R closers) could just update the article talk page when delisting. Gimmetrow 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been thinking about this list in connection with the GA newsletter. I'm not convinced that this is a very "fair" section to include. Over 100 GAs get promoted per month, so showcasing the 15 that happened to be listed last in the month seems somewhat arbitrary to me. Comments? Geometry guy 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure fair/unfair is an issue, unless we make it one. We would have to either drop the list altogether, or list every single newly-promoted GA... On a related note, there is no GA version of the front-page FA-of-the-day; if listing is not felt to be worthwhile maybe we could run something on these lines instead? EyeSereneTALK 12:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The header and the recently listed good articles 

message: I found that some articles are wrongly classified. So I propose to move:
1) Apollo 11, International Space Station, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Space Interferometry Mission and STS-74 from the current location in 'Engineering/Engineering technology' to 'Physics and Astronomy/Astronomical observation and space exploration'.
2) Space Shuttle Columbia disaster from the current location in 'Engineering/Engineering failures and Disasters' to 'Physics and astronomy/Astronomical observation and space exploration'.
3) Swissair Flight 111 from the current location in 'Engineering/Engineering failures and Disasters' to 'Transport/Air transport'.
4) Surface tension from the current location in 'Chemistry and materials science/Chemistry and Atoms' to 'Physics and Astronomy/Physics'.
5) Optical fiber from the current location in 'Chemistry and materials science/Materials science' to 'Engineering/Engineering technology'.
6) Renewable energy commercialisation in Australia from the current location in 'Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy/Geology and geophysics' to 'Engineering/Engineering technology'.
7) Material properties of diamond from the current location in 'Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy/Mineralogy' to 'Chemistry and materials science/Materials science'.
8) Wind power in South Australia from the current location in 'Meteorology and atmospheric sciences/Wind and winter storms' to 'Engineering/Engineering technology'.
9) Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics from the current location in 'Physics and Astronomy/Physics' to 'Engineering/Engineering technology'.
10) Liquid crystal from the current location in 'Physics and Astronomy/Physics' to 'Chemistry and materials science/Materials science'.
Ruslik (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I broadly agree: 1) Yes to all; 2) No, this is notable primarily as an engineering failure; 3) Possibly, although again the notability comes from the engineering failure; 4) Yes; 5) Yes; 6) Possibly, but I think a better place would be 'Geography/Geography'; 7) Probably yes; 8) Probably yes; 9) Probably yes; 10) Yes. There are some judgement calls here, but as long as the talk page GA topic is aligned with the GA listing, moving things around is not a big deal. Geometry guy 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed that Swissair Flight 111 is already listed in 'Transport/Air transport' so I removed a duplicate from 'Engineering/Engineering failures and Disasters'. The former subsection contains other articles about flight accidents. As to wind power (and other renewables) articles, I think it is logical to put them into 'Engineering/Engineering technology' because this subsection already has some articles about renewables like solar power. Currently artilces about renewables are scattered over several subsections. Ruslik (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I agree in general that we should be logical about our organisation, and not scatter articles unnecessarily. However, articles about renewables vary in their content, and sometimes need to be in separate sections. In the above 8) clearly focuses on the industry and the technology, whereas 6) focuses on the issue and the politics. There is no reason why these need to be in the same section. Geometry guy 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  May it be reasonable to create a separate subsection for renewables? Ruslik (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just implemented changes that are not under dispute. Ruslik (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I don't think a separate subsection is needed: 'Engineering/Engineering technology' is a good enough place for most of these articles. I just wanted to suggest that Geography/Geography might be a better place for the ones which are not focussed on the technology. Geometry guy 14:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved but Wind power in South Australia but still not sure about Renewable energy commercialisation in Australia. 'Engineering/Engineering technology' already has Renewable energy commercialization article. So should it also be moved to 'Geography/Geography'? Ruslik (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved the articles which I think are primarily human geography to that section. I've also updated the talk page templates for these and the above. Geometry guy 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reclassification of some articles 

message: Why are film listed with the social sciences rather than with the arts?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely that films should be listed under Arts. This issue has been raised already here. Further comments can be found here. Geometry guy 01:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Given the lack of comments, I will try to implement option 2, although it will not be easy to split the TV articles. Geometry guy 21:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been done. Geometry guy 14:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films 

message: Okay, here's the difficulty. Film, like Theatre, should certainly be listed under Arts not Social sciences, but what about television (and radio)? Some television, such as TV films, TV drama, soaps and sitcoms, is creative fiction very much akin to film, and therefore ought to be listed under Arts too. Indeed, there is already a subsubtopic on "Fictional characters and technologies" which has examples from both film and television. On the other hand, television has a major role as a communications medium, and this role would seem to belong with journalism, under media, in social sciences and society. In between there are non-fictional TV shows such as game shows, problem solving shows and documentaries, which have a creative component, but also a cultural and/or journalistic component. It seems to me that we have three options.
# List all TV under Social sciences and society, and live with the artificial split between film-related fiction and TV related fiction.
# List some TV with film, under Arts, but keep the rest under "media" in Social sciences and society, and live with the fact that TV is not all in one place.
# List all TV under Arts, and live with the artificial split between print and TV journalism.
I lean towards option 2, but drawing the line is difficult, and there isn't really a perfect solution. I know it isn't a big deal, but what do others think? Geometry guy 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the lack of comments, I will try to implement option 2, although it will not be easy to split the TV articles. Geometry guy 21:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been done. Geometry guy 14:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film and television 

message: I'm wondering if the count has gotten a little out of synch by people forgetting to up the number when they add an article. I did a quick count by simply transferring the text - from Canons of page construction to Upsilon Andromedae d - to a word document and remove all occurrences of "[[" (after first removing every "[[Image:", as these are only icons). That gave me a total of 3,296 removals, while the official count (on December 26) says 3,256. If anybody wants to double-check please do, maybe I forgot something. Lampman (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will always be out of sync until the sweeps are finished because we never change the # when we delist articles in sweep. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3,296 GA's? 

message: I just noticed in the last week that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000. I believe the milestone was crossed on 20th December. It seems appropriate to celebrate this joint success in this season of goodwill and harmony, so congratulations to all those who have helped to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles both by working on content, and through involvement in the good and featured article projects! Cheers - Geometry guy 16:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5000 milestone 

message: Can someone please complete the GA templates at Talk:Europa (moon).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA passes 

message: Noting this edit summary, the entries are sorted by the piped form if it exists, otherwise by the link as given. To avoid making links like Reputation, The just for sorting, any initial "The", "A" or "An" is ignored, with an exception built in for An Khe. A fair effort is made to sort unicode: Édifice Price is with the Es. If there are any quirks in the sorting, say something. Gimmetrow 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort order 

message: Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter]] 

message: I think we should improve the procedure of reviewing the article. Many reviewers prefer to review the fields which they don't expert in it. This may lead to some problems. They can't judge whether the article has reached GA status or not. They can't judge about "Factual accuracy", "Broadness in coverage" and "Neutrality" correctly. For example Islamic astronomy had some problems but has been chosen as a GA article. I don't want to reassess the article and now I'm co-working with the other wikipedians to improve it. But this was just an example. I think there are wikipedians in this project who are knowledgeable in some fields and it's good idea to ask them to review or add their viewpoint about the issues which they know well. It may slow the  procedure of reviewing but this is the cost of improvement.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the whole review thing is a bit objective and depends on where you stand. I saw the article to be fairly broad in its coverage. We can not just add words to articles because there is some little aspect that we want to see there. length is inversely proportional to readability beyond a certain limit, and Islamic astronomy is already above that limit. Also, It was NPOV, views from all sides were present, if there is a statement here or there that someone might not like, it does not mean POV , it just means a balanced view of the article; because that someone will find a statement that he likes. Anyway, please remember that this is GA article, not A-class or FA; that it must have flaws , otherwise what is the point of having all the above mentioned classes? Ergo, problems will (and in fact should to a certain extent) exist in GA articles, otherwise , we have ourselves an FA. Λua∫Wise (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical task force is certainly a nice idea, but the problem is; even when we are allowing anyone to review , we have a MASSIVE backlog, imagine what would happen if you restrict the review process. Regards. Λua∫Wise (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don’t agree with your logic.  People knowledgeable on a given topic are likely to have a pre-existing interpretation (i.e. bias).  Whether or not they consider an article neutral, therefore, is dependent upon the content matching their preexisting notions. A reviewer with no previous knowledge is better equipped (or unequipped, as the case may be) to provide an objective viewpoint on whether both sides are covered.  Remember, also, that this is GA, not FA; the criterion is “broad”, not “comprehensive”.  A knowledgeable person is indeed better able to determine whether coverage is complete; an “outsider”, however, is entirely able to judge whether the information present is enough to relay a “broad” understanding of the topic.  Thorough reviewers – especially those looking at unfamiliar topics – look to existing GAs on similar topics to determine what information has precedent for inclusion.  Finally, factual accuracy is tied to the sources; no experience in the topic is needed to examine those.  Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If someone who really knows the subject sees huge errors, they can just delist it. Wrad (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Sometimes it is helpful to have reviews by editors with some degree of expertise, sometimes it is helpful to have reviews by editors who have little expertise. It depends on the article (both its subject and its current state). The GA process does not express any preference either way, and I would not like it to. Geometry guy 19:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement the review procedure 

message: The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter]] 

message: Shouldn't the list auto-hide itself when you go to the page? That is what it was originally supposed to do to make navigating this page easier. If it did this it would makr the page easier to navigate. Tarret talk 15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-hide List 

message: In working in the Religion and Philosophy section, I'm noticing that a lot of articles are miscategorized.  I'll work to clean that up, but I also noticed that there is a distinct absence of a "Religious Festivals and Practices" subsection.  As we have a couple of articles that would better fit in this sort of sub-category, I would like to add it.  Is there any method for adding a subcategory, or should I just Be BOLD and re-arrange things as best fit? -- jackturner3 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Improvement 

message: Check out this new book about Wikipedia: 
* Broughton, John. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, (2008) O'Reilly Media 0-596-51516-2 
This shows newbies how to use Wikipedia, avoiding the pitfalls of trial and error, and has lots of tips for experienced editors.  If you know of someplace where references like this ought to be listed, please copy this info there.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it released under the GFDL? ;) EyeSereneTALK 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sweet, one of my neighbourhood's bookstore has 3 copies. I'm definetely going to pay a visit to read the book (not buying though :P) OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New How-to book on editing Wikipedia

message: this is it:
"Advertising and Marketing
Advertising and Marketing are an esssential part of every companies plans should they wish to grow and succeed in todays world. One such form of marketing is via the search engines, i.e. Google, this is called search engine optimisation or seo for short. SEO can help to increase the presence of a website via the natural or organic listings, these are generally found on the left hand side. By investing or building a website your next step is to promote it, let everyone know who you are and what you are offering, the best way to do this is via search engine optimisation, though seo itself is not an easy task. If you are serious about promoting your website to the search engines then you need to consider hiring an ethical and affordable seo company that can look at helping you to recognise the methods that you need to implement into your website. A good seo firm can also offer extra levels of services for instance off the page optimisation which means link building, content management to keep your site fresh, article writing to attract future links, search engine submission services to help index your site, blogs, directory submissions to name a few. Besides seo, there are the more traditional but less effective ways of marketing such as yellow pages or the local paper or trade magazine. If you really want to push the boat out and you have the budget for it then radio or even better television advertising can help drive new prospects through your door. So to sumarise to gain new business, buy or build a website, hire an seo firm like <link removed>"
Adding insult to injury it's full of spelling errors, too. It needs to be deleted but I'm new at this - what is the process?Harrison789 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read more about how to correct this in WP:VANDAL, basically you go back in the history (thought the History tab at the top of the page) and revert back to the good version. In this case, a simple revert couldn't be done, because people had added important info after the vandalism had occurred. Thanks for pointing this out! VanTucky 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the audacity of this one hilarious! Thanks VanTucky for removing the spam. I've also removed the knock on effect here! Geometry guy 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the directions to WP:VANDAL! Harrison789 (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's an ad taking up the whole of the GA section Econ and Business, subcategory "Advertising and Marketing" 

message: The recently passed Verna Fields on the list?  Would she fit under "Actors, models, performers and celebrities"?  Should there be a separate section for "Filmmakers"?  Help? María (habla conmigo) 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do I put... 

message: The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter]] 

message: The April issue of the WikiProject GA Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  April GA Newsletter 

message: Is it worth submitting biographical articles of living persons that don't include images because no free ones can be found? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Images not being available will not be held against the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to have been running into this issue (and misinterpretations of it) a lot recently, but it's always been a problem. Perhaps we need to make WP:WIAGA criterion 6 clearer, to explicitly state that images are not required? EyeSerenetalk 10:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Since placeholders are in dispute at present, surely it's better to omit an image altogether than have the article failed for incompleteness. I've seen many bios where free images are not available, and therefore lacking from the infobox, but fair-use images have been used, with justification, in the body of the article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This makes sense to me. Relevant free images should be used if they are available. Non-free images should have fair use rationales. Any other images should be removed. However, if it is reasonable to expect that a free or fair-use image could be found, and the article does not have one, then this is a broadness issue. Geometry guy 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better to me, VT! I think (relevant) images bring a lot to an article and could indeed be a broadness issue, but we can gently prompt as part of a GA review while making it clear it's not a 'fail' if suitable pics can't be found. I certainly don't think we should ignore images altogether - we can't pass an article as Good if it has, for example, image copyright problems; these are policy voiolations. Next GA newsletter topic...? :) EyeSerenetalk 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: That would certainly not be my opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree. I don't care what your view on fair use images on Wikipedia is, but if there are free images readily available, then the article is not complete without them. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 03:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completeness is not part of the GA criteria; broadness is. Your argument would be a good reason to require images in FAs, but not GAs. Note that I focus on Singapore-related articles; finding appropriate images for them is difficult (and finding appropriate free images next to impossible). I thought GA should help fight systemic bias, not worsen it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't apply one criterion to the interpretation of another. My feeling is that the current image criteria reflect very well the requirement that all images should be free or equipped with fair use rationales, against the wish that GAs should have good images where they are available. Geometry guy 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It isn't, but I have not found any paragraph of WP:NOT which supports your case. Geometry guy 20:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How important are images? 

message: See WT:FA. Simply south (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this idea has now been withdrawn. Geometry guy 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for sections 

message: I'm just curious — how many former GA's have wound up deleted? I know Zig Zag (character) (yeah, there I go, adding yet another red link) was once ranked GA (although apparently it was totally devoid of third party sources at the time), and it has since been deleted. Have any others wound up deleted like this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Torchic (which was an FA, but still...) Sceptre (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of both FA and GAs that have been deleted would be amusing! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Former FAs are at WP:FFA (as you can see, there are no redlinks).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious question 

message: As I'm sure many editors have noticed, we crossed the 4000 good articles mark very recently. We are also about to cross the 2:1 GA to FA ratio, which I think is an important symbol of the mission of GA to get as much of the encyclopedia as possible up to a good standard, while accepting that this daunting task will always result in some imperfections. Geometry guy 07:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2:1 milestone should be a Signpost article ...like the 2000 FA article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that is right, but I also think such an article might be a great opportunity to present some mutual respect between GA and FA. There have been disagreements in past, but there have been very few such disagreements recently. There are probably still a few editors on each side who still enjoy making snipes, but my impression is that most mainstream editors support both processes, and I would encourage those editors to make their voices heard. The two processes have different goals. GA does not attempt to define our best articles, in the way that FA does; instead it attempts to provide a way to make many articles on WP meet certain minimal requirements: it doesn't always succeed immediately in doing this, but it has a flexible process of listing and delisting that is designed to reach consensus in the end. This is a different process from FA, where it is important that the quality stamp of approval really means that the article has been approved by the community. Both processes are extremely important to the quality of Wikipedia. Lets celebrate them both. Geometry guy 20:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I've seen recently, the snipes are really coming from less than a handful of editors (and they usually follow on the heels of a new editor suggesting some part of FA needs to look some part of GA, and responses to that being misunderstood or misinterpreted.  A lot of it would probably stop if some editors would stop expecting FA to behave like GA.)  I agree that mainstream editors support both processes, and that both have a place, but I'd add that most editors also recognize that a GA is only as good as the GA reviewer, and we all know who the good ones are. (I wish y'all would take this bull by the horns; as long as the FAC archives give you the data showing that one-third of failed FAs are GAs with non-reliable sources, you all have a hook you can use to get those reviewers to be more thorough, which will help raise standards and raise respect.)  G guy, do you want to allocate a Dispatch post to the ratio issue (we're starting to get backed up on requests for space there, so you need to speak up and sign up and get a date).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd be interested to know how many "articles" are disambiguations and lists.  The "1 in 387" claim in the header has always struck me as an incomplete picture; accounting neither the number of eligible articles or the number of FLs. --JayHenry (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, number of eligible articles might be hard to determine, but shouldn't FLs be included with the FAs and GAs, since lists are included in the total? Lampman Talk to me! 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be a helpful tweak, although it would affect the timing of the milestone if FLs were included with FAs. Re "GA is only as good as the reviewer", no, it is as good as all the reviewers who look at an article throughout the course of its article history. Re Dispatches, see my talk page. Re Sweeps, good idea, I've commented at WT:GAPQ/S. Sweeps is an important part of making my claim (that GA is as good as all the reviewers who look at it) actually have some practical value: if only one reviewer has ever looked at the article, then its GA status is indeed only as good as that reviewer was. Geometry guy 19:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe stubs should also be included as they are potential articles as well. Simply south (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milestones 

message: There is a problem with articles dealing with appeal decisions in that there is usually only one source- the official Law Report itself. Hence these articles cannot have "multiple independent sources" per the usual requirement, in fact the official law report is the official source as sanctioned by statute, and is usually reported, if not in BAILII , then in offline Law Reports, which is why we cite these, to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. I've recently had a couple of articles quick-failed because of this, although they are now restored. Since these articles are of their own type, is there a case for a more focussed GA guideline? Have notified this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law for input. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there no commentary? Off hand, it sounds like the Law Report is some sort of primary source...at least a source everyone refers to. A wikipedia article ought to have commentary of some sort on the source else it is just a mirror of the Law Report. But, I might be misunderstanding. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There will be various commentaries in legal textbooks, but they are only opinions. It's rare that the press comment on the legal issued raised by these cases, because to a lay audience it's just not relevant (and doesn't sell papers). However, as I see it, the article here is meant to be a more accessible version of the law report, suitable for a non-lawyer. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you could include those commentaries / opinions perhaps in a sub-section called commentary which would go a long way to satisfying multiple reliable sources. I'm sort of suspicious of "a more accessible version of the law report, suitable for a non-lawyer" as you say. This sounds like original research in that you are providing an interpretation - simplification - of a primary source. I think it would be best to provide those commentaries. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just looked at the only criminal law textbook I have to hand, which cites part of a judgement and then says "The law gives the defence (of automatism) a very narrow interpretation, emphasising that there must be a total loss of voluntary control". That doesn't help, and doesn't expand the point of the judgement. So I'm not optimistic on that point. As for original research, every time we write a plot summary of a film or television episode, we are interpreting what should be important for our readers. For a law report, all we should need to do is set out the facts proved, the arguments raised, the decision reached, and the reasons (including precedent) for that decision. More would be useful, but not necessary in my view. For example, R v Hancock was a case linked to a labour dispute, but the legal issues had nothing to do with that; however, the dispute is linked from the article if the reader wants a wider context. But for most appeal decisions, that context is lacking. You see the problem? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Rodhullandemu, it is key for you to consider that you're participating in a process that is almost entirely checklist driven, as opposed to one involving contextual review or topic-minded insight. In this sense, a good article that you worked on may not be a Good Article, and only you can determine whether this matters to you. Conversations of this sort ("your overview may be original research"—down with encyclopedia articles then, I suppose) make me, for example, stay far away from the majority of "process wonkery" on wikipedia, because process wonks always get lost staring at trees in the forest. Comment from uninvolved –Outriggr § 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Wikiproject Law seems remarkably understaffed, probably because activity there is not chargeable to a client, but in terms of UK law, it's a mess of Byzantine proportions. Perhaps there is a law wiki somewhere that appreciates the need for this sort of thing. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There are clearly "leading cases" in different areas of law - indeed, one of Lord Denning's early publications as a rising junior barrister was the latest edition of Smith's Leading Cases in Contract.  Ways to prove that R. v X or Smith v Jones is a leading (i.e. notable) case would be to show (a) judicial commentary in subsequent cases - important cases get mentioned, followed, distinguished, confined to their facts, disapproved or overruled depending on the circumstances, changes in legal opinion, reassessment of circumstances etc and / or (b) academic commentary in articles and textbooks. It's not just a question of saying that "various commentaries in legal textbooks... are only opinions" since for example, if Archbold for a criminal law case or Chitty on Contract (what, that's a redlink?) for a contract case says that a Court of Appeal decision is right or wrong, that may be "just" an opinion in one sense but it's a very authoritative one and one that may well be followed in later cases on the topic.  By using these further sources, the notability of the case can be verified and the requirements of multiple independent sources met. (What do you mean that I can't charge this to a client? We're all paid by the Foundation for editing WP, aren't we?!) BencherliteTalk 23:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem is this, in a nutshell: Wikipedia:OR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources says  That's good enough for an article, but apparently not good enough for a Good Article. For an article describing a legal decision, the official Law Report (sanctioned by statute) is by definition the source for that article. We are not interpreting the law report, and nor should we, per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Any legal textbook that mentions that case uses the law report as the primary source; any opinion which the authors may offer is just that, and nothing more. If all they do is to cite passages from the law report (which very largely is all they do), there is no point citing them because they are no better than we are as secondary sources. We cite the official Law Report on BAILII; that satisfies both WP:RS and WP:V. That should be all that is needed for a GA evaluation as far as sourcing is concerned. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, is not the judgement itself (now usually online in higher courts), the primary source, and the Law Reports the official secondary source?  The Law Reports may point up conflicts with other cases, and further implications etc that the judgement itself does not. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacuna re legal articles 

message: I wrestled with how to summarize what I learned from talking with the fr.wikipedia.org, but I don't think there's a good way to summarize it.  I'm not trying to prove any points here, I just think it adds useful information to the discussion.  Note how friendly they are; imagine what would happen if an unknown person popped into the wikipedia-en channel and asked to speak in French :) [Please note: I really don't care about the symbol, I was just making conversation.]
<dank55>	je voudrais parler un moment en anglais...c'est ok?
<gribeco>	bonjour le chan !
<Darkoneko>	dank55: go ahead
<hegesippe>	salut
<Arria>	dank55: Go ahead. :-) Need help on fr:wp?
<dank55>	bonjour
<dank55>	we are arguing about whether to put a symbol on "Good Articles" in en.WP
<dank55>	most of the other wikipedias do this
<dank55>	does fr.WP?
<Arria>	dank55: Yeah.
<fugace>	dank55: yes
<Arria>	A silver star.
<dank55>	which page can i look at on fr.wp?
<Arria>	The FAs have a golden star.
<Darkoneko>	a symbol, as in an interwiki symbol ? or a tempalte in the page ?
<Arria>	Wikipédia:Bons articles
<Pymouss>	dank55: you can speak any language you want, Arria will understand
<dank55>	that was actually exactly what I suggested... no one liked my suggestion :)
<dank55>	merci bien
<Arria>	dank55: An example : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francium
<Darkoneko>	dank55 > as a link next to the interwiki, or as a template ?
<Darkoneko>	a tempalte in enwiki, I mean.
<dank55>	the symbol would direct people to the Good Articles page
<Arria>	dank55: Both the interwikis (to other languages which have Good Articles) and the top of the article have a silver star.
<Arria>	dank55: It does, too, on fr:. Click it. :D
<Darkoneko>	the symbol would be *where* ? (which wiki ?)
<dank55>	i read french better than i speak it, i will look
<dank55>	en.wikipedia.org
<Darkoneko>	oh
<dank55>	has fr.WP had problems with people expecting a lot from bons articles, more than is being promised?
<Arria>	dank55: I've often wondered why en: had no symbol for the GAs.
<Darkoneko>	dank55 we have that for featured
<dank55>	that is the big argument at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles.
<Arria>	dank55: No, I think not. GAs are a nicer, don't-bite-the-n00bs way of getting an article recognized as good.
<Darkoneko>	like, they earn the title, then well, only noob edit it so the quality degrade
<phe>	dank55: we get less trouble with good articles than with featured articles
<dank55>	i'm very glad to hear that!
<Arria>	In the votes for GAs we get less dramahz and less pickiness, which encourages the people writing the articles.
<dank55>	you all have been very helpful, thank you!
<Arria>	Happy to help. ^^
<Darkoneko>	arr're welcome
<Arria>	dank55: Why has it taken so long for en: to start thinking of a symbol for GAs?
* Arria	always thought that was odd
- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion in the wikipedia-fr channel on IRC 

message: The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]] May Newsletter 

message: A GA symbol akin to the well-known FA symbol should appear on an article. 
==== Support ====
# Support. The little green dot would help the project. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an untenable dichotomy, are you saying editors don't consider the "substance of the arguments" when deciding for or against? If an overwhelming majority of editors consider the arguments on one side as stronger than the arguments on the other side, then that is an argument in itself. Lampman Talk to me! 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Out of curiosity, will this be limited to the GA talk, or will an RFC or the like be opened to ensure a wide range of editors are aware of the discussion? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have consensus here on the talk page among GA editors, then I think it should be opened up for comment by the rest of the community through an RfC or similar avenue. will381796 (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, like anything Wikipedia, it'll have to advance 'up'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Second place is first loser! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to have a GA Green circle, what next? The start "Yellow Flag"? The Stub "Pencil Icon"? I would also have to suggest the B-Class "Orange Triangle" and perhaps an A-Class "Crystal Diamond", since A-class rated articles are so hard to find... —Rob (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As A-class, B-class, etc., are project-specific, then they don't really come into it.  (Geometry guy has a much better explanation of the difference between the FA/GA system and the A/B/start system.)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and stubs are already rather prominently indicated in mainspace.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Stub-Start-B-A issue is a red herring. I've explained this in so many different places that it is a great relief to see someone else taking it up. Just think about it: WikiProject assessments are reached in a completely different way from GA and FA status. Each WikiProject does it slightly differently, and the goal is to help WikiProject editors track article quality and target improvements. Contrast this with GA and FA, which are community wide assessments based on community agreed criteria. The confusion arises because most good articles are GA-Class (not all: some are A-Class, and if a WikiProject wants to rate a good article differently, that's up to them). So I would request that anyone reading this who sees another editor confusing GA with GA-Class, please politely remind them that these are really conceptually different, despite the similarity in terminology (an unfortunate historical error, in my view). Geometry guy 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: * Wrad, I don't think that's what people mean when they say "community process".  They're talking about the review itself which is performed by one person.  Not the entire GA system.  To use a WikiAnalogy, one might say that AFD is a community process because everyone has a chance to comment and Speedy Deletion is not.  This doesn't mean speedy deletions cannot be overturned, or are not (generally) performed along consensus driven guidelines.  I don't think anyone misunderstands or disputes the things you're saying--there is a semantic difference about interpretation of the phrase "Community process"; nobody has a false set of facts about GA. --JayHenry (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The GA review process is very broad, and I feel that people are tunneling their vision far too much by only focusing on the first review. "The review itself" never really stops. If that first review was all we could count on, then it would be a problem, but it isn't a problem when delisting is so easy and simple. I can see why people are confused, but I do not agree with their conclusions. GA is not the same as AfD or FA, but it is still a community process as much as anything else on wikipedia. Wrad (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: * That is an interesting analogy. So which notion of "community process" is relevant here? Which notion of community process determines whether an article should exist or not? Is it the single AfD, or is the whole combination of AfD, DRV, article recreation, speedy deletion, salting, etc.? The latter, methinks. And which notion of "community process" is relevant to the quality of an FA? A single FAC, or the whole process of FAC, FAR/FARC? Well, I've mentioned Emile Lemoine already: passed only a day or so ago, it manifestly fails the featured article criteria. Geometry guy 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree. GA is a community process with a broad arc that bends toward continual improvement, just like the rest of wikipedia. Saying that it isn't a community process is not seeing the big picture. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, knowing if an article is a GA/FA is the first step in deciding if it deserves delisting. The call to attention of GAs with an icon would put it under greater scrutiny. That alone would increase the overall quality of GAs. --Dodo bird (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: LOL! It was added here, in I believe a good faith edit to illustrate what exactly it is we are talking about. But the irony of the green dot appearing above the discussion about its use did make my day. Geometry guy 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Strength of argument is what counts, not numbers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed 86.29.139.70 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Please find the archive of our IRC discussion here for those interested in how this line of thought progressed. will381796 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a trial run is the only way we will ever resolve this issue. Otherwise, it will just keep being brought up over and over again. VanTucky 01:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's solve the biggest mystery of all... What the heck happens when you add a GA symbol? Wrad (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chance of mini black holes. Don't say I didn't warn you. ;) /Carson 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In what way do you feel that six-month period would enlighten us about any of the issues being discussed here? If you can explain the information you plan to gather over this period, I would support the proposal, provided that the test run is followed by a six-month test period where the GA symbol is removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we should be able to collect data from the last 6 months, shouldn't we?  Basically everything on WP is archived somehow so it shouldn't be hard to get the info we need to compare life w/o the icon to life w/ the icon.  I'd also argue that comparing data gathered w/ the icon to data gathered after the "trial run" would not be an accurate representation of life w/o the GA icon. The trial run should be compared to a period of time before the icon was implemented...not after. will381796 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what sort of data you feel could be gleaned from our archived discussions. There will probably never be data on the most important questions (whether our readers like the symbols, whether they understand what the symbols mean, etc.).  Our answers to those most important questions are and will continue to be largely speculative, and a test run will not change this. To your second point, why would the period after the "trial run" be any different from the period before? To get a fair picture, we need to actually examine both states. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care whether or not users "like" the icons.  I care if they achieve a purpose, which is to improve the encyclopedia.  Nobody is not going to improve an article simply because a little icon is on the top right corner that they think is ugly.  There's plenty of quantitative data out there for us to analyze: how many GA nominations were there in the last 6 months?  How many of those nominations were passed and how many failed?  How many new members joined the GA WikiProject?  How many reviews were done each month and total for the last 6 months?  Then compare these results to the data generated during the test run.  If we see an increase in the number of failed articles compared to the number of passed, then it may be argued that the increased presence of the icon resulted in increased submission of mediocre articles in an attempt to possibly run up individual user's "GA numbers".  If the ratio stays the same or if there are more passes, then we can say that the inclusion of the icons helped increase the quality of the encyclopedia or at the very least did no harm.  The comparison of these types of quantitative data to a data gathered during a time period immediately after the removal of the icons will be confounded due to the fact that some of the effects of the icon might have been long-running and not cease immediately after their removal.  Also, it will take time for all editors to realize that the icons are no longer present on articles. will381796 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, this dicsussion will appear every year until the end of Wikitime, and people will argue based on what could happen, and what could go wrong, and what could go well. Or, we could give it a test run, and we could make our decision and reach a consensus based on actual fact rather than opinion. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you don't propose any way to collect actual facts. Six months from now, we will know precisely nothing more than we do now about how the change affected the community or our readership. You can't have a "test" when you don't intend to measure or assess anything. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm for a test run. If it is a disaster, it'll be removed. The history of the FA bronze star is much the same: let's do it and see what happens. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If it is a complete disaster, we can remove the symbol before the scheduled end of the trial time. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: We should only remove the symbol if something goes wrong. It should not be an automatic removal. Anyone can gather information and we will all discuss whatever people think is worth bringing up. We have a GAN report. The biggest thing would be to watch that and see if the backlog becomes huge. Wrad (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also be interested to see if the ratio of passes to fails changes, as well as whether there is an increase in active GA reviewers.  A question: on the list of people that have joined project GA, how many of these would you say are active reviewers in that they review at least 1-2 articles a month? will381796 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree with trial run. This is the same dilemma as WP:ROLL. It can't be resolved until a trial run is conducted. But I disagree with automatic removal. If it does no harm, it should be kept. And data can be retrieved easily in Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report, for those who always wonder how we get the stats for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter without counting the GAN. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no automatic removal it is not a test run at all, it is just implementation. That's fine but it requires the strong consensus that would be expected for the implementation of this sort of change. With regard to your links, none of the interesting questions are addressed by the data there. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument is funny. We can get the data right now because it's not placed in articles yet. You're just trying to look for ways to revert everything back and place the entire community into chaos once again when 6 months of trial period is over and forcing us to waste our time to go through this kind of discussion when we could have been improving articles, which is the objective of GA and FA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The data (of which I described to you in my response to you above) can be generated quickly enough that it should be able to be presented to the community and commented on quickly.  The icons can stay in place during the discussion (few days to a week) and then removed afterwards if the consensus is that the test failed.  That week with the icons being present won't affect anything and the removal for a week may confuse and will probably cause additional work. will381796 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I and many others think they are interesting questions. I think the ones you're asking are the uninteresting ones, the things we can't measure. If we can't measure them, why are they even an issue? Why do they even matter? Can't we have a test run in which the symbol's existence is called into question after six months? Doesn't that seem fair? If it works, there is absoloutely no reason to remove it. Automatic removal just seems silly to me. Wrad (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By interesting, I mean relevant to the dispute here and useful for resolving it. The discussion here focuses on the differences in quality between GAs and FAs, the reader interpretation of the various symbols, etc. None of the data on that page is likely to make anybody here change their mind. To your second point, the current system "works" fine. Why change it? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you would find widespread agreement that the symbol would provide an incentive for users to increase their involvement with the GA process, though perhaps people would disagree on the degree of the change. Unfortunately that issue is not at the heart of the dispute here. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that page is relevant! If a really huge backlog builds up, then we know that GA reviews are likely to decrease and quality and the symbol is hurting the system. On the other hand, if the number of GAs goes up and we get a lot of good, solid reviewers pouring in, it will be great! The dispute here is about backlogs. Backlogs will tell us a lot about reader interpretation. If people see the symbol and think "I want that" and make good articles then that will show in the numbers of open nominations on the GA report. It's that simple! I have no idea what you're trying to say about my second point. I was just trying to say that things which aren't measurable don't really matter. If you can't detect anything wrong, then there is no reason to get upset! Wrad (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between things that are absolutely not measurable and things that are really really hard to measure.  In this case, it would be really really hard to measure whether ordinary readers are confused by the GA icon, but I think that is a more important question than whether the number of GA nominations goes up. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, any time you're trying to figure out what the "ordinary reader" is thinking you come up with nothing but guesses and conjectures. Any number of case studies in one direction can be opposed by an equal number with an opposite response. I have never seen one work. What rules on wikipedia is what the editors think the reader is thinking, not what the reader actually thinks. It isn't just really hard to measure, it is impossible to measure. Wrad (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is confusing about the GA symbol that cannot be said about the FA symbol?  You click on the symbol, if you're curious, and it takes you to a page that clearly explains what the symbol means.  It's impossible to confuse the icon as part of the article because it is clearly located above the horizontal line that separates the article's title from the body of the article.  The only true test of something are quantitative results.  If the symbols are "confusing" then we should see a corresponding decrease in GA submissions over that time period, shouldn't we? will381796 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I don't see any of the oppose commenters who are talking about backlogs. The main thrust of the opposition concerns the quality of GAs and whether readers will understand the symbol. Readers (i.e. the massed tens of millions) are not going to up and decide to write a good article because they "want that." Their perceptions of the symbol and what it means will be not registered in the good article backlog in any way. I don't see how you can characterize the dispute as being about backlogs. Care to clarify? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It's a good idea, but I don't know that those results would be comparable to what we'd see with GA.  FA has, as long as I've known, had mainpage advertisement space, so FA is automatically much better known than GAs.  So there's never really been a time when FA were banished to the depths of the talk page headers.  lol will381796 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummmm. If we have a six month trial, there is no way in a cold cold eternity that anyone will muster up the energy to start a discussion to get rid of the green dots, no matter what the results of the "trial" are. The whole issue of a green dot id trivial, as G-guy says, but I would not have thought that adults would stoop to such a degree of dissembling. I am disappointed in the crew who are arguing for it. Simple honesty limits the discussion to an up-or-down !vote [Don't fall even further into this hole by running to the refuge of quoting WP:AGF at me.. we all know what I said is true... a "six month trial" is a permanent change, end of story.] Ling.Nut (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite flabbergasted by your apparent belief that your opinions have the status of facts, and that anyone who doesn't share them is in some way "dissembling". "We all know ..."? No, I don't know, and neither do you. If it's no big deal, then why make it a big deal? Let's just try it and see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Someone on WP is disappointed in me because of my opinion.  I feel so special now.  Also, is it appropriate of you to be changing the words of another editor, even if it is a typo?  Just curious...will381796 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that meant for me? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: haha...no.  Ling.Nut. will381796 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Obviously, this is the case. A test-run that is open-ended is the same as implementation. This is the same gimmick that was used to ram through the rollback feature, it is not new. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I suggest a lesson in civility for your comparing us to teenagers, as well as a lesson in assuming good faith in your apparent belief that all that support this proposition are some how acting poorly.  It is inappropriate to edit another editor's comments w/o their consent.  Otherwise, I could go throughout the entire encyclopedia "editing" everyone's comments and correcting their spelling and grammar (and possibly the meaning of their statements).  With that said, there are plenty of people that oppose the entire icon proposition, so I'm sure that at least one of them would muster the "energy" (as if it takes any real energy to begin a debate on WP) to begin this discussion again in 6 months.  I'd rather run the test and see the results and then have this discussion again in six months to go over the results rather than having this Great Green Dot Debate re-emerge every 6 months from now until eternity. will381796 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It is completely inappropriate to in any way alter another editor's posting without their permission, and in no way childish to point that out to you. Perhaps you've been teaching teenagers for too long, and have forgotten how to interact with adults? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let you have the last word. As is usual in these debates, anyone who is foolish enough to speak the truth is charged with incivility and with violating WP:AGF. Lather, rinse, repeat. I should never have tried. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Spanish Wikipedia seems to do this:   STORMTRACKER   94   Go Irish!  21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: # Support. The little green dot would help the project. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: #Oppose, while GA may be improving, the decision to promote is basically done by a single editor with little oversight. While GA is certainly a good thing, with properly awarded, without the in-depth reviewing offered by the FA/FL process, having a GA symbol on the front of an article is unnecessary and gives a false impression as to the quality of the article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: # I'm generally in support of adding the GA plus sign on the top right corner of the mainspace, as I've never thought that WP:ASR is a good idea in these cases to begin with. I've found that with a few exceptions, GA tagging has become more consistent, and since perfection is not possible in a process, I can live with the outliers. That said, I think we should wait until Flagged revisions to come forth; at that time, this issue may be moot, or we could even decide to use the tag as some sort of indicator to show the reason why the article was flagged. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: #EVIL! --Carnildo (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an untenable dichotomy, are you saying editors don't consider the "substance of the arguments" when deciding for or against? If an overwhelming majority of editors consider the arguments on one side as stronger than the arguments on the other side, then that is an argument in itself. Lampman Talk to me! 11:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting is evil

message: Please, add comments here. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, will this be limited to the GA talk, or will an RFC or the like be opened to ensure a wide range of editors are aware of the discussion? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have consensus here on the talk page among GA editors, then I think it should be opened up for comment by the rest of the community through an RfC or similar avenue. will381796 (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, like anything Wikipedia, it'll have to advance 'up'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Second place is first loser! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to have a GA Green circle, what next? The start "Yellow Flag"? The Stub "Pencil Icon"? I would also have to suggest the B-Class "Orange Triangle" and perhaps an A-Class "Crystal Diamond", since A-class rated articles are so hard to find... —Rob (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As A-class, B-class, etc., are project-specific, then they don't really come into it.  (Geometry guy has a much better explanation of the difference between the FA/GA system and the A/B/start system.)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and stubs are already rather prominently indicated in mainspace.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Stub-Start-B-A issue is a red herring. I've explained this in so many different places that it is a great relief to see someone else taking it up. Just think about it: WikiProject assessments are reached in a completely different way from GA and FA status. Each WikiProject does it slightly differently, and the goal is to help WikiProject editors track article quality and target improvements. Contrast this with GA and FA, which are community wide assessments based on community agreed criteria. The confusion arises because most good articles are GA-Class (not all: some are A-Class, and if a WikiProject wants to rate a good article differently, that's up to them). So I would request that anyone reading this who sees another editor confusing GA with GA-Class, please politely remind them that these are really conceptually different, despite the similarity in terminology (an unfortunate historical error, in my view). Geometry guy 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: * Wrad, I don't think that's what people mean when they say "community process".  They're talking about the review itself which is performed by one person.  Not the entire GA system.  To use a WikiAnalogy, one might say that AFD is a community process because everyone has a chance to comment and Speedy Deletion is not.  This doesn't mean speedy deletions cannot be overturned, or are not (generally) performed along consensus driven guidelines.  I don't think anyone misunderstands or disputes the things you're saying--there is a semantic difference about interpretation of the phrase "Community process"; nobody has a false set of facts about GA. --JayHenry (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The GA review process is very broad, and I feel that people are tunneling their vision far too much by only focusing on the first review. "The review itself" never really stops. If that first review was all we could count on, then it would be a problem, but it isn't a problem when delisting is so easy and simple. I can see why people are confused, but I do not agree with their conclusions. GA is not the same as AfD or FA, but it is still a community process as much as anything else on wikipedia. Wrad (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: * That is an interesting analogy. So which notion of "community process" is relevant here? Which notion of community process determines whether an article should exist or not? Is it the single AfD, or is the whole combination of AfD, DRV, article recreation, speedy deletion, salting, etc.? The latter, methinks. And which notion of "community process" is relevant to the quality of an FA? A single FAC, or the whole process of FAC, FAR/FARC? Well, I've mentioned Emile Lemoine already: passed only a day or so ago, it manifestly fails the featured article criteria. Geometry guy 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree. GA is a community process with a broad arc that bends toward continual improvement, just like the rest of wikipedia. Saying that it isn't a community process is not seeing the big picture. Wrad (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, knowing if an article is a GA/FA is the first step in deciding if it deserves delisting. The call to attention of GAs with an icon would put it under greater scrutiny. That alone would increase the overall quality of GAs. --Dodo bird (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: LOL! It was added here, in I believe a good faith edit to illustrate what exactly it is we are talking about. But the irony of the green dot appearing above the discussion about its use did make my day. Geometry guy 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Strength of argument is what counts, not numbers. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed 86.29.139.70 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Over an IRC discussion, User:Will381796 and I came up with the idea of a trial of adding the GA symbol for a period of 6 months or so. This way, there would be no more discussion about what could happen. After the trial time ends, editors could make the final decision of whether to keep it or not based on actual fact, not just opinion. Thoughts? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find the archive of our IRC discussion here for those interested in how this line of thought progressed. will381796 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a trial run is the only way we will ever resolve this issue. Otherwise, it will just keep being brought up over and over again. VanTucky 01:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's solve the biggest mystery of all... What the heck happens when you add a GA symbol? Wrad (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chance of mini black holes. Don't say I didn't warn you. ;) /Carson 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In what way do you feel that six-month period would enlighten us about any of the issues being discussed here? If you can explain the information you plan to gather over this period, I would support the proposal, provided that the test run is followed by a six-month test period where the GA symbol is removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we should be able to collect data from the last 6 months, shouldn't we?  Basically everything on WP is archived somehow so it shouldn't be hard to get the info we need to compare life w/o the icon to life w/ the icon.  I'd also argue that comparing data gathered w/ the icon to data gathered after the "trial run" would not be an accurate representation of life w/o the GA icon. The trial run should be compared to a period of time before the icon was implemented...not after. will381796 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what sort of data you feel could be gleaned from our archived discussions. There will probably never be data on the most important questions (whether our readers like the symbols, whether they understand what the symbols mean, etc.).  Our answers to those most important questions are and will continue to be largely speculative, and a test run will not change this. To your second point, why would the period after the "trial run" be any different from the period before? To get a fair picture, we need to actually examine both states. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care whether or not users "like" the icons.  I care if they achieve a purpose, which is to improve the encyclopedia.  Nobody is not going to improve an article simply because a little icon is on the top right corner that they think is ugly.  There's plenty of quantitative data out there for us to analyze: how many GA nominations were there in the last 6 months?  How many of those nominations were passed and how many failed?  How many new members joined the GA WikiProject?  How many reviews were done each month and total for the last 6 months?  Then compare these results to the data generated during the test run.  If we see an increase in the number of failed articles compared to the number of passed, then it may be argued that the increased presence of the icon resulted in increased submission of mediocre articles in an attempt to possibly run up individual user's "GA numbers".  If the ratio stays the same or if there are more passes, then we can say that the inclusion of the icons helped increase the quality of the encyclopedia or at the very least did no harm.  The comparison of these types of quantitative data to a data gathered during a time period immediately after the removal of the icons will be confounded due to the fact that some of the effects of the icon might have been long-running and not cease immediately after their removal.  Also, it will take time for all editors to realize that the icons are no longer present on articles. will381796 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, this dicsussion will appear every year until the end of Wikitime, and people will argue based on what could happen, and what could go wrong, and what could go well. Or, we could give it a test run, and we could make our decision and reach a consensus based on actual fact rather than opinion. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But you don't propose any way to collect actual facts. Six months from now, we will know precisely nothing more than we do now about how the change affected the community or our readership. You can't have a "test" when you don't intend to measure or assess anything. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm for a test run. If it is a disaster, it'll be removed. The history of the FA bronze star is much the same: let's do it and see what happens. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If it is a complete disaster, we can remove the symbol before the scheduled end of the trial time. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: We should only remove the symbol if something goes wrong. It should not be an automatic removal. Anyone can gather information and we will all discuss whatever people think is worth bringing up. We have a GAN report. The biggest thing would be to watch that and see if the backlog becomes huge. Wrad (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also be interested to see if the ratio of passes to fails changes, as well as whether there is an increase in active GA reviewers.  A question: on the list of people that have joined project GA, how many of these would you say are active reviewers in that they review at least 1-2 articles a month? will381796 (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree with trial run. This is the same dilemma as WP:ROLL. It can't be resolved until a trial run is conducted. But I disagree with automatic removal. If it does no harm, it should be kept. And data can be retrieved easily in Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report, for those who always wonder how we get the stats for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter without counting the GAN. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no automatic removal it is not a test run at all, it is just implementation. That's fine but it requires the strong consensus that would be expected for the implementation of this sort of change. With regard to your links, none of the interesting questions are addressed by the data there. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument is funny. We can get the data right now because it's not placed in articles yet. You're just trying to look for ways to revert everything back and place the entire community into chaos once again when 6 months of trial period is over and forcing us to waste our time to go through this kind of discussion when we could have been improving articles, which is the objective of GA and FA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The data (of which I described to you in my response to you above) can be generated quickly enough that it should be able to be presented to the community and commented on quickly.  The icons can stay in place during the discussion (few days to a week) and then removed afterwards if the consensus is that the test failed.  That week with the icons being present won't affect anything and the removal for a week may confuse and will probably cause additional work. will381796 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I and many others think they are interesting questions. I think the ones you're asking are the uninteresting ones, the things we can't measure. If we can't measure them, why are they even an issue? Why do they even matter? Can't we have a test run in which the symbol's existence is called into question after six months? Doesn't that seem fair? If it works, there is absoloutely no reason to remove it. Automatic removal just seems silly to me. Wrad (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By interesting, I mean relevant to the dispute here and useful for resolving it. The discussion here focuses on the differences in quality between GAs and FAs, the reader interpretation of the various symbols, etc. None of the data on that page is likely to make anybody here change their mind. To your second point, the current system "works" fine. Why change it? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you would find widespread agreement that the symbol would provide an incentive for users to increase their involvement with the GA process, though perhaps people would disagree on the degree of the change. Unfortunately that issue is not at the heart of the dispute here. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that page is relevant! If a really huge backlog builds up, then we know that GA reviews are likely to decrease and quality and the symbol is hurting the system. On the other hand, if the number of GAs goes up and we get a lot of good, solid reviewers pouring in, it will be great! The dispute here is about backlogs. Backlogs will tell us a lot about reader interpretation. If people see the symbol and think "I want that" and make good articles then that will show in the numbers of open nominations on the GA report. It's that simple! I have no idea what you're trying to say about my second point. I was just trying to say that things which aren't measurable don't really matter. If you can't detect anything wrong, then there is no reason to get upset! Wrad (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between things that are absolutely not measurable and things that are really really hard to measure.  In this case, it would be really really hard to measure whether ordinary readers are confused by the GA icon, but I think that is a more important question than whether the number of GA nominations goes up. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, any time you're trying to figure out what the "ordinary reader" is thinking you come up with nothing but guesses and conjectures. Any number of case studies in one direction can be opposed by an equal number with an opposite response. I have never seen one work. What rules on wikipedia is what the editors think the reader is thinking, not what the reader actually thinks. It isn't just really hard to measure, it is impossible to measure. Wrad (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is confusing about the GA symbol that cannot be said about the FA symbol?  You click on the symbol, if you're curious, and it takes you to a page that clearly explains what the symbol means.  It's impossible to confuse the icon as part of the article because it is clearly located above the horizontal line that separates the article's title from the body of the article.  The only true test of something are quantitative results.  If the symbols are "confusing" then we should see a corresponding decrease in GA submissions over that time period, shouldn't we? will381796 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I don't see any of the oppose commenters who are talking about backlogs. The main thrust of the opposition concerns the quality of GAs and whether readers will understand the symbol. Readers (i.e. the massed tens of millions) are not going to up and decide to write a good article because they "want that." Their perceptions of the symbol and what it means will be not registered in the good article backlog in any way. I don't see how you can characterize the dispute as being about backlogs. Care to clarify? Christopher Parham (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It's a good idea, but I don't know that those results would be comparable to what we'd see with GA.  FA has, as long as I've known, had mainpage advertisement space, so FA is automatically much better known than GAs.  So there's never really been a time when FA were banished to the depths of the talk page headers.  lol will381796 (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummmm. If we have a six month trial, there is no way in a cold cold eternity that anyone will muster up the energy to start a discussion to get rid of the green dots, no matter what the results of the "trial" are. The whole issue of a green dot id trivial, as G-guy says, but I would not have thought that adults would stoop to such a degree of dissembling. I am disappointed in the crew who are arguing for it. Simple honesty limits the discussion to an up-or-down !vote [Don't fall even further into this hole by running to the refuge of quoting WP:AGF at me.. we all know what I said is true... a "six month trial" is a permanent change, end of story.] Ling.Nut (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite flabbergasted by your apparent belief that your opinions have the status of facts, and that anyone who doesn't share them is in some way "dissembling". "We all know ..."? No, I don't know, and neither do you. If it's no big deal, then why make it a big deal? Let's just try it and see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Someone on WP is disappointed in me because of my opinion.  I feel so special now.  Also, is it appropriate of you to be changing the words of another editor, even if it is a typo?  Just curious...will381796 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that meant for me? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: haha...no.  Ling.Nut. will381796 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Obviously, this is the case. A test-run that is open-ended is the same as implementation. This is the same gimmick that was used to ram through the rollback feature, it is not new. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I suggest a lesson in civility for your comparing us to teenagers, as well as a lesson in assuming good faith in your apparent belief that all that support this proposition are some how acting poorly.  It is inappropriate to edit another editor's comments w/o their consent.  Otherwise, I could go throughout the entire encyclopedia "editing" everyone's comments and correcting their spelling and grammar (and possibly the meaning of their statements).  With that said, there are plenty of people that oppose the entire icon proposition, so I'm sure that at least one of them would muster the "energy" (as if it takes any real energy to begin a debate on WP) to begin this discussion again in 6 months.  I'd rather run the test and see the results and then have this discussion again in six months to go over the results rather than having this Great Green Dot Debate re-emerge every 6 months from now until eternity. will381796 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It is completely inappropriate to in any way alter another editor's posting without their permission, and in no way childish to point that out to you. Perhaps you've been teaching teenagers for too long, and have forgotten how to interact with adults? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let you have the last word. As is usual in these debates, anyone who is foolish enough to speak the truth is charged with incivility and with violating WP:AGF. Lather, rinse, repeat. I should never have tried. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Spanish Wikipedia seems to do this:   STORMTRACKER   94   Go Irish!  21:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Test-run?

message: Not sure how many people know about this, but if you go to Special:Preferences, click on "Gadgets", go to "User interface gadgets" and click the box for "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article.", you'll be able to view not only the GA on GAs, but the current assessment of any article. Now I know this doesn't address some of the reasons people want the GA icon, but I figured it might be interesting to people in this discussion anyways. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that should be the default view for all readers.  Let people know how good we think an article is, not just whether it's a stub or a FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to do that, we need to end the silly assessment drives where people "assess" about 10 articles per minute based on length, infobox, and number of things in the references section, pretty much everything but actual quality. Right now, any assessment below GA is basically worthless because the odds are good that the assessor didn't even read the whole article. Mr.Z-man 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Ned, thanks for bringing this up. I too wonder how many people are aware of it. I think it might even be a satisfactory alternative for the green dot proposers. - Neparis (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: View GA as a gadget

message: Based upon the above discussion/straw poll, this section is for listing each argument for and against the inclusion of the GA icon in the mainspace for articles that have been passed to GA status.  This section is not for the debate of each point so please keep your commentary out of this section. Feel free to re-word the arguments if you think that the way the initial contributor worded them does not adequately project the true meaning of the argument, and please, add more arguments (based upon above discussions) if you notice that any have been omitted.  will381796 (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument-by-argument summary for/against GA icon inclusion in mainspace 

message: * The GA icon will provide "mainspace" advertisement of the GA process to editors that may otherwise not know that it exists (because they may not peruse talk pages).
* GA icons may provide incentive for improvement of articles to GA status, thereby increasing the quality of the encyclopedia overall.
* GA icons may provide incentive for additional editors to become involved in the GA review process.
* Editors/reviewers involved with the GA process would like recognition for the time and effort that they place into improving/reviewing articles for GA.
* Provide more transparency to the GA process.
* GA icons will provide incentive for articles to be improved to GA status versus the much more stringent (and time consuming) effort of improving an article to FA status.
* GA Icons represent achievement even though it is not the best work of Wikipedia. (Example: Silver and bronze medals were handed out in sport competition in addition to gold medals to represent achievement.)
* GA icons may inform readers that the article has been through and passed a quality review.
* GA icons may inform skeptical readers of the existence of quality control processes on Wikipedia.
* GA icons are widespread practice on other language encyclopedias. (The Spanish, Chinese, and French Wikipedias have been cited as examples that have already been doing this for some time.) The only 2 languages that do not have such practices are English and Japanese. 
* GA icons provide an additional reward for nominators who have worked to reach GA-class.
* GA icons recognize high-quality work that is of insufficient length to ever meet FA standards. Many articles cannot become FAs merely because of length, not the quality of the work. Pushing on to FA for recognition is, for these article, not an option.
* Using the icon has never been tried in the widespread way required to really see what it would do except on foreign wikis, in which it has proven relatively harmless.
* The issue has been clouded by the historical origins of GA, leading to a perception that the community is against the GA process. Other Wikipedias have not been impeded by this historical baggage; this disparity needs to be rectified.
* Good quality article's status should be shown to the general public and not just mostly Wikipedia editors.
* Per Pillar 3, anyone can edit, and all content that someone might want to edit should be in mainspace, rather than in invisible comments, subdirectories, or the talk page.  This is why innumerable tags show up in mainspace, even though many editors wish they didn't.  If the results of the Good Article process, or status as a Good Article, is something that readers might want to have input into, then Pillar 3 requires notification in mainspace. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments '''for''' inclusion

message: The following are several proposed solutions/outcomes to this debate.  Please add more if something has been omitted. will381796 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed outcomes to this debate

message: Just to draw attention to the fact that the GA:FA ratio (mentioned in a previous post) crossed 2:1 today. Special thanks to SandyGeorgia for holding off a couple of FAC promotions so that the milestone was crossed this morning. At the moment the number of GAs grows approximately three times faster than the number of FAs, so the although the ratio may cross 2:1 a couple more times, it will soon be stably larger. This observation also means that the 3:1 ratio will never be reached unless we can up the rate in which GANs are processed.
Anyway, that is just food for thought. After all the issues raised in recent discussions, this might be a moment to celebrate the fact that GA is providing independent oversight against well defined criteria to so many articles, and hence is helping to address the major problem that Wikipedia faces: more than 95% of its articles are very poor, with no independent oversight at all. Geometry guy 10:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This calls for a celebration. Champaign to all! I feel generous today. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 11:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Has Sandy already talked to you about making this a Dispatch article for the Signpost?  This would make a great stand-alone article, since we haven't had one on GA yet. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; there's a tentative suggestion to have a dispatch on GA related matters on 19th May. Geometry guy 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I'm going to beat G guy up if he doesn't take the 19th slot :-)  And just to clarify, I didn't intentionally withhold promotions :-)  Archiving FACs requires having only two tabs open, so I can easily do that when I'm on my laptop.  Promoting FACs requires four more open tabs, and a spreadsheet on my main computer, so I only do that when I can get to that computer and fully concentrate on six open tabs.  I pointed out to G guy that the ratio was reached on his predicted date because I hadn't promoted for three days :-)  We'll probably bounce up and down around the ratio for a few days because FA promotions usually decrease GAs (if a GA is promoted FA, it's removed from GA), but by the 19th Dispatch, the ratio should be firmly established, and G guy can also cover the icon poll.  By the way, thanks to Sam for doing such a fine job of summarizing the issues in a neutral way.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes! Last time that happened, I was in hospital for weeks :-) Looks like I'd better do the 19th... Geometry guy 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2:1 milestone crossed 

message: I have created a "two star" design pattern for the top right corners of articles, showing a clear hierarchy in the icons between Featured Articles and Good Articles.
The advantages of this are:
*A higher rating denoted by multiple stars is a universal and easily-recognized convention.
*The FA star is golden and elaborate, and clearly meant to be superior to the plain black GA star.
*There is a clear symbolism of FAs building on GAs. 
*The GA star with an empty box above looks "incomplete".
*The venerable form of the FA star is retained, and can continue to be used without the box everywhere it is normally used now, except on the top right corners of articles.
This should be considered a conceptual design at this point, very much open to improvement.--Pharos (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the empty star, but I'm not so sure about the box thing.  Little military-ish. Drewcifer (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this idea, I think it should be either the GA button or the star. "Ranking" boxes would look cheap and un-encyclopaedic. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 10:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree.  There's enough controversy adding a single symbol to the top of the article.  Turning this into two symbols with a more complicated interpretation is probably not the best route to go. will381796 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, a GA article could have just one, empty star, and a FA article could have just one, filled star (i.e. no change). Kevin Baastalk 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, since several people have suggested this now, it appears I overdesigned this.  I can see the merit of just a simple 'empty star' too.--Pharos (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK guys, we now have an svg of the GA star alone, per your suggestions.  Thanks to User:Cradel at the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve for creating this.--Pharos (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I've suggested below adding some brief text:  This article has passed the good article criteria. But then one might argue that the same should then be done to FA (This is a featured article.). And this would be a whole 'nother proposal altogether. Kevin Baastalk 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No position on whether to add words, but if you add them, I'd prefer GA inside or underneath the star, or maybe "Good article rating". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's a suggestion from the approve section of the straw poll: .  Apparently they are already doing this on the spanish wikipedia. (example) Kevin Baastalk 18:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Then I say switch.  From what I understand, some people opposed the GA icon articles because of how it looks there.  So we're entertaining alternative icons.  If an alternative icon can be found that more people like, then by all means we should switch to it - completely if necessary.  But the point is that if we can make it look good there, that'll eliminate an objection.  FWIW, I like the spanish version the best.  Nothing says "reviewed" like a check-mark. Kevin Baastalk 20:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is saying no to the button's design, opposes are either saying no to all symbols or no because of the way GA's are reviewed. Adding text, boxes, colours, etc will change nothing.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 20:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected.  Upon review of the "oppose" section I see you're right nobody is saying no on account of the aesthetics.  Apparently I was mistakenly attributing comments made in the "Aesthetics" section to oppose votes.  However, some of the comments in this section constitute "saying no to the button's design" in the context of it being placed in the upper right corner of GA's.  And as far as I understand it, that's what led to the current discussion. Kevin Baastalk 21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but since talking about the wrapage, when we can't agree on the gift, is stupid, I think we should all focus on other things, like making this other wicked idea a reality. That's frigggingggg aawwwweesome!! Is that a project you are working on? is that being discussed?--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 21:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just a proposal I put on Wikipedia talk:Stable versions (Wikipedia_talk:Stable_versions#Branchless_stable_version_-_Kevin.27s_mods).  Apparently Wikipedia:Flagged revisions is what's going to be implemented.  Flagged revisions is probably easier to program, but I don't see how it's much different than WP:GA w/permalinks.  And I think we really need a much more democratic solution that will always have a public revision for every article.  I could go on, but this isn't the place for it.  Suffice it to say it's not implemented and not currently being discussed.  I've never done any coding for wikipedia, but I know it would require some new database tables and it would be a substantial project (requiring a full testing environment, etc.).  One that I'm not ready to work on, esp. when I don't have any clear idea on whether it's going to be taken up in the end.  Right now it's just an idea. Kevin Baastalk 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, User:Indopug did specifically mention newbie confusion over the hierarchy of the symbols in their oppose.--Pharos (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: A star is bad not for purely aesthetic reasons (though I'm not partial to it), but because the last thing we want is to confuse GA and FA. That will really bring the wrath of the community down on our heads. VanTucky 21:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerns have been raised that the current symbols do not clearly indicate that FA is superior to GA.  Using a related symbol that is clearly "deficient" (the 'empty star') could address this problem.--Pharos (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the symbol is not to clearly indicate that FA is superior to GA. The point is to identify it as GA, and link to the main GA page, which says in it's very first sentence that GA is a step below FA in quality. Not only that, but the empty star is just plain ugly. VanTucky 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of putting the symbol on the front side is to make GA status visible to newbies, who do not normally click through every little thing.  As part of making that status visible, I think the meaning of that status should also be made intuitive, because again most readers will not click through everything (but I do think that intuitive designs encourage greater participation in the long run).  I am open to any suggestions for improvement of the 'empty star' (or, "not-quite-fulfilled star", I should say) design.  For example, it might be more appealing (while retaining its same intuitive meaning) if the outer border was a green color, like the old plus symbol.--Pharos (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this version I made (bottom image) -- Cradel 17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like that! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That green star rocks, lol its better than the featured star. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 19:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my concern, actually.  At small resolution in the top corner of an article (we use only 14px), it will be hard to tell that the FA star is supposed to represent something superior to the GA star with your current version.  If we took your version and "hollowed" it out while keeping the green border, that could still keep it jaunty while being intuitively "plainer" than the FA star.--Pharos (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this one then ? -- Cradel 10:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool!  You get my vote.--Pharos (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I like your idea, but, if the effects of the icon are to be tested, shouldn't all current GA get tagged with the icon?  I mean, part of the effect of the icon will be the result of individuals stumbling upon random articles and seeing the icon and thinking "hey, what does this icon mean?"  If we're only tagging a select few of the current GAs, then aren't we in essence reducing the "intensity", so to speak, of whatever effect we hope to see.  And how would we decide which articles to tag?  From what I understand, all of the GAs are currently undergoing a quality check in what they call "Sweeps."  In addition, if we're only going to select a sample of all GAs, I think that will increase the work needed to A) add/remove the icons (as it will probably make it more difficult to program a bot to tag select articles rather than all GAs) B) collect information on specific article's.  I like your overall design, but that's the only thing I would look into further. I'd be for implementing the icon on all GAs versus a select few. will381796 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In an effort to promote the GA sweeps process, I would support the tagging of all articles with the symbol that undergo a successful GA sweeps review. That way, articles that get the symbol have undergone at least two GA reviews, probably by two different editors, so the quality issue is addressed. We might get more participation in sweeps, too. This could ultimately lead to a system whereby GA reviews are done by more individuals at the initial WP:GAN level, and ultimately undergo a second review later on by a more experienced reviewer, in which the symbol is added (sort of a two-tiered GA system). Dr. Cash (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We already have Sweeps going on. It's just that the progress is slow due to the limited number of experienced reviewers. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Then comes the question - what are we awarding: GA status or the little GA dot? will381796 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the dot shouldnt be used at all to say "hey this is a GA article" maybe the dot should indicate "hey this review has been double checked and hell yeah its GA worthy, no question about that". An application process does a number of things, 1st it would only give a dot to articles that truely deserve it, 2nd bad GA from long ago will be rooted out, someone will put a GA article up for application and a reviewer will clearly get the opportunity to see its no longer a GA article and delist it entirely, in essence its also a double check on old articles that has been GA for ages. This way people who oppose on the "one person makes the decision" argument loss, with this method at least 2 people must have reviewed it before its allowed a dot. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame, people arent taking this option more seriously, i think some of those who oppose might just support with this idea. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be a little late, but I strongly oppose the usage of a star as a GA icon and the inclusion of any icon denoting "merely" GA status in the main namespace, both for the same reason: it intrudes too much on FA, and implies quality that isn't there. (if it was, it would nominated for FA status. If you care for more details, see that big red box a few sections above this one.) The star, in my opinion, is trying to steal the thunder of FA. We "feature" articles (and other content) to readers because it is of the highest quality; the GA and assessment programs are primarily for editors in "in-house" sorting and classification.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign of symbols 

message: If only everyone who has commented on this topic could now go and read (or ideally review) an article that is up for GAN or for GAR, it would make the GA system still more of a community process.  
Meanwhile, if nothing else, this discussion has drawn attention to the GA process.  Let us hope that more people help out as a result.  --216.19.185.160 (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: If only...

message: Let's say that we try this out. As editors above pointed out, we need something to test. So here's what I propose.
*Set up a random sample of GAs; this will require coordination on how many we have and how many users can watch over them for data collection. Obviously, if we want to test global effects, we should prolly pick a whole mess of old GAs and then tag every new GA that gets promoted
*Record statistics. Whatever we want, but I think that reassessing each GA for a look at quality vs. quantity is interesting. Subjective, but interesting. If we have the mean number of articles promoted before the test, then we can just compare the number promoted after (over six months) to a normal model, get a z-score and test our variables that way to see if there has been a clear, significant increase or change period.
*Conclusions and such.
Just putting down my thoughts on how to go about; obviously, it needs fleshing out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like your idea, but, if the effects of the icon are to be tested, shouldn't all current GA get tagged with the icon?  I mean, part of the effect of the icon will be the result of individuals stumbling upon random articles and seeing the icon and thinking "hey, what does this icon mean?"  If we're only tagging a select few of the current GAs, then aren't we in essence reducing the "intensity", so to speak, of whatever effect we hope to see.  And how would we decide which articles to tag?  From what I understand, all of the GAs are currently undergoing a quality check in what they call "Sweeps."  In addition, if we're only going to select a sample of all GAs, I think that will increase the work needed to A) add/remove the icons (as it will probably make it more difficult to program a bot to tag select articles rather than all GAs) B) collect information on specific article's.  I like your overall design, but that's the only thing I would look into further. I'd be for implementing the icon on all GAs versus a select few. will381796 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In an effort to promote the GA sweeps process, I would support the tagging of all articles with the symbol that undergo a successful GA sweeps review. That way, articles that get the symbol have undergone at least two GA reviews, probably by two different editors, so the quality issue is addressed. We might get more participation in sweeps, too. This could ultimately lead to a system whereby GA reviews are done by more individuals at the initial WP:GAN level, and ultimately undergo a second review later on by a more experienced reviewer, in which the symbol is added (sort of a two-tiered GA system). Dr. Cash (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  We already have Sweeps going on. It's just that the progress is slow due to the limited number of experienced reviewers. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Experimental design

message: A lot of people are opposing the GA dot over the "one person makes the decision" argument. I suggest that once the article has passed GA statues, in order for it to be given a GA dot/star/whatever,  the/a nominee must apply for it. Then, someone else gives it a second review to be 100% sure it is indeed GA standard and the dot can be awarded to the front of the article. In essence the dot confirms that the GA review was double checked and is indeed a trusted GA article.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then comes the question - what are we awarding: GA status or the little GA dot? will381796 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the dot shouldnt be used at all to say "hey this is a GA article" maybe the dot should indicate "hey this review has been double checked and hell yeah its GA worthy, no question about that". An application process does a number of things, 1st it would only give a dot to articles that truely deserve it, 2nd bad GA from long ago will be rooted out, someone will put a GA article up for application and a reviewer will clearly get the opportunity to see its no longer a GA article and delist it entirely, in essence its also a double check on old articles that has been GA for ages. This way people who oppose on the "one person makes the decision" argument loss, with this method at least 2 people must have reviewed it before its allowed a dot. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame, people arent taking this option more seriously, i think some of those who oppose might just support with this idea. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be a little late, but I strongly oppose the usage of a star as a GA icon and the inclusion of any icon denoting "merely" GA status in the main namespace, both for the same reason: it intrudes too much on FA, and implies quality that isn't there. (if it was, it would nominated for FA status. If you care for more details, see that big red box a few sections above this one.) The star, in my opinion, is trying to steal the thunder of FA. We "feature" articles (and other content) to readers because it is of the highest quality; the GA and assessment programs are primarily for editors in "in-house" sorting and classification.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Apply?

message: Can we get a better icon for this section? Here's one suggestion:
Physics and astronomy
: Good idea and something atomic is a good option. It isn't completely obvious that this represents an atom however: can anyone find an even better image? Geometry guy 11:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; a crescent is not exactly bringing science to mind; on the other hand, an icon depicting an atom with the electrons orbiting it will not only be science-related but also remind its viewers of the solar system. Two birds with one stone. Waltham, The Duke of 11:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that the crescent of the moon is quite a good symbol, but perhaps it could be solid in colour. Perhaps the moon should appear with the earth. The atom is not a good symbol of most of mechanics or motion, and the image presented above may be mistaken for a flower. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The icon just needs to be recolored, so that the electrons are a different color than their paths. Then it'd look fine. Pal Jasper (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Best not to mention the confusion caused by the school-taught 'Solar system' atomic model then... ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Go for it. --.:Alex:. 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icon for Physics and astronomy 

message: I see that Greece Runestones has been listed under "literature". Runestones can be called "art", "memorials", "obituaries", "documents", "corpora" and so on, but they are not "literature".--Berig (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you suggest? EyeSerenetalk 12:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. The only runestone that is usually categorized as "literature" is the Rök Runestone, but it's a special case because of its references to Norse mythology. Usually runestones fall under linguistics in Scandinavia since linguists are the ones who have the expertise to study them. However, runic inscriptions are also referred to in works on history, art, archaeology and literature so they are a special case.--Berig (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal feeling is to place them under " Archaeology", but I think it's probably one of those articles we'll never classify properly. The categories it's in don't help much either. There could be an argument for a new classification ("Artefacts" perhaps?) under Archaeology, but I'm reluctant to contribute to the category bloat on WP:GA ;) EyeSerenetalk 14:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although I don't think archaeology is an ideal category for the Greece Runestones, it already covers some quite similar articles such as Funerary art, Singapore Stone and the Ring of Pietroassa.--Berig (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and agreed. I'll move it - thanks for the help ;) EyeSerenetalk 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Addendum: I noticed it is actually listed as a History GA on the talk page... EyeSerenetalk 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help!--Berig (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of runestone article 

message: Over the last few days I've idly looked at a few of the new GAs as they've been listed. Out of that half a dozen or so I've felt in two cases that the article was so far short of the GA criteria that in one case I delisted it and in the other here I will very likely be delisting it as well.
There is clearly a very serious QC issue here. What is the point in a sweeps project that, even if it ever completes its self-appointed task, is then faced with another mountain of shoddy GAs? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once flagged revision comes, then this problem will be solved. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I totally agree with you Malleus Fatuorum. And it's on some of the simple things too. It's objective whether an article is long enough, the sources are good enough or the scope wide enough, but some of the GAs I've seen passed have typos, spelling mistakes, poor grammar and scores of MOS issues. Peanut4 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it won't be solved, because these poor GA listed articles will still be poor GA articles. This has to nipped in the bud. Any reviewer passing poor articles ought no longer to be allowed to review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you should probably have a chat to the said reviewer. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we have a mechanism to prevent someone from being disruptive by listing lots of articles (like... above 10) that shouldn't be promoted? I'm not stuffing beans but this is the best worst way to waste experienced reviewers' time for a vandal. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I, too, have noticed an uptick in the amount of quite poor GA reviews. While some reviews are just poor (e.g. little actual comments (e.g. a template and a quick, 'congrats'), but the article still mostly meets the criteria, there are other poor reviews of articles that don't come close to the criteria. I think I've spent more time doing second reviews of articles and QC lately than reviewing new nominations. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See a few threads down, and the suggestion for using subpages for reviews, in the manner of peer reviews and FACs.  This solves archiving problems, making old reviews immediately accessible, but can also be used to encourage reviewers to provide lengthier comments. As part of my original suggestion, I considered the possibility of discouraging the "quick congrats" by keeping the review "open" for a minimum period, and encouraging comments from others. Regulars can drop into reviews-in-progress, leave a few comments or  express concerns/encouragement; might eliminate the need for 2nd reviews and delisting, and other QC concerns. Gwinva (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point? 

message: It seems a problem is growing with the road articles that are passing GA, that are very short and according to Derek.cashman's opinion, that insignificant routes (that no one is gonna read), such as shown in New York State Route 308, shouldn't be GAs, and that the more significant articles should be passing for GA. I feel its ok to have small route GAs as long as they're comprehensive and broad. 
In the case of Route 308, Derek delisted the article for 2 reasons, small lead, and the history section was complete enough. The first reason, to us is not a problem, but the second is. Route 308 is only 6.19 miles long, you're not gonna expect too much on the highway, compared to something like New York State Route 17, which would have to be really comprehensive because its a longer route, and has construction and designation history. 308, and like many others, have only designation history. Us at USRD feel anything pre-designation isn't necessary for GA and would be more suitable to be A-class. As long as the article has the major history written, its defined as good enough for GA, along with a few other small things. 
However, if this is a problem, feel free to bring it up. USRD is open to new suggestions on how to improve. If a mass delistment is necessary, then be it. But a solution has to be made.Mitch32contribs 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is GAs place to be judging whether an article is significant or not. That belongs to the AfD process. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrad, the discussion Mitchazenia brought up was to determine whether short road articles can be listed as GAs. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm completely aware of that. How is what I said not related to that discussion? Wrad (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the way I read your comment, it seemed to me that you thought Mitchazenia's comment was to determine whether the article is significant, when it seems to me it's more about the listing of road GAs. I may have misread it, though. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: If an article can survive AFD, it can theoretically go to FAC, so I don't see what should be different in the GA process. If there's a question about the significance of the article, that is within the purview of the deletion process. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina for an example. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: What are the notability criteria for roads? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly state-maintained roads/formerly state-maintained routes and higher. County routes are not as notable, but notability has been established in a few.Mitch32contribs 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the particular case of New York State Route 308 I'd have to agree with the delisting. Not because the article's short, but because it lacks breadth and it's not well written. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Breadth is more important in a GA than length.  I've looked at a few of the road GAs, and am surprised many of them passed.  To my mind, broad coverage of a road requires more than discussion of the route.  How about geography: hills, land formations, topography?  Did this require engineering issues? How about the ground: what is the soil/rock/ need support?  relaying?  What prep needed doing to make it? Who planned it? What about bridges and other structures?  what type are they? When were they built? What is the landscape like?  Important sites/views?  Social history: local response to roads?  campaigns for/against?  controversies? funding? What did people do before? state land or compulsory purchases? Safety: major accident black spots?  death and accident tolls?  Tricky corners?  Local effects: susceptible to flooding, or subsidence?  Who uses the roads?  Major trucking route?  holiday makers? local commuters? farm traffic? Traffic flows: problems at certain times of day? Bottlenecks? How many cars use it? Policing: regularly patrolled?  which jurisdiction?  Speed cameras?  tickets? problem with boy-racers?  Slow tractors? and so on... Look at New York State Route 210 (selected at random).  How many of the above questions does this address? Compare with (another random) A500 road, which is broader (not perfect, but better) and addresses some of these issues. Gwinva (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So should we make this a special checklist for a road article to be come a GA in addition to the usual criteria and automatically fail any road article that does not satisfy all of the above? --Polaron | Talk 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! Good idea!  But seriously, it's hard to claim that an article is "broad in coverage" if it raises more questions than it answers.  A GA doesn't need to be definitive; it does need to be more than one-dimensional.  Gwinva (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I actually like the idea of something like "genre checklists" for particular types of articles.  I've raised this before, particularly regarding film articles.  It would seem necessary to work with the relevant WikiProjects, however.  When I have time, I hope to move ahead with this, again at least for film articles, and if nothing else in an informal manner: i.e. write out what I expect of a GA film article, and run it past others.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While mainly sarcastic, I was also a bit semi-serious. It would really be helpful if there was a checklist that is WikiProject-specific that could be used to determine whether an article is sufficient for GA or not. If this is done in close cooperation with the WikiProject, it would be much easier to review an article (thus reducing backlog) and it would also help reduce nominations that would have little chance of passing.  --Polaron | Talk 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some "guides to reviewing X articles" would be a helpful resource for reviewers (and nominators).  It may be that there is a backlog in, for example, TV & film noms, because there are few reviewers who are confident reviewing them?? But such guides should be illustrative, rather than prescriptive.  Otherwise they may become detrimental to the GA ethos: leading to quick "tick the box through the template" reviews or, at the other extreme, creepy hoop jumping and fails on technicalities.  (Letter rather than spirit, and all that.)  Gwinva (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Just as an additional comment, for the time being, I have relisted New York State Route 308. While I still think that there may be some issues with some of the road articles, mainly with not being comprehensive enough, perhaps I was being a little too bold by just automatically delisting it then and there. So I apologize about being so blunt. I think, however, that we've started an interesting dialogue here, and perhaps we should look at ways to better verify the comprehensiveness criterion of WP:WIAGA, since this particular one doesn't seem so cut-and-dry (unlike things like images or reference citations, which is more or less just checking). Perhaps in the next couple of days I'll take a closer look at some of the road GAs and see if I can offer any suggestions to WP:USRD on how to improve their comprehensiveness -- assuming they'll still listen to me after being such an asshole,... Dr. Cash (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its ok, man - We can discuss this on WT:NYSR if you'd like, and move it from here.Mitch32contribs 16:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roads vs. Other GAs 

message: I nominated the article M54 motorway a while ago, but it has been under review for more than two weeks, which strikes me as a little odd! I know GA has huge backlogs, so I expected to wait, but I fear the user may have forgotten about it (and the Channel Tunnel article, too). Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: On a side note...

message: I agree with all those who suggest the GA process is not yet perfect.  Having read through the above discussion, it seems clear that one of the main problems is transparency: it is not always clear why an article was passed, who passed it, and how rigorous the review was.  It would be a simple matter (ie. not increasing bureaucracy or making the process anymore complex) if all reviews took place on a subpage.  Take a look, for example, at the article history box at Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs.  The peer review, A class review and FAC all have clear links to subpages.  The GAN has no link at all (other than diff) and the GA sweep links only to a small section on the talk page, which will get lost with archiving. Why is the GA the only one lacking transparency? Suggestion:  1. the review instructions on the GAN header should provide instructions for creating subpage, and request that review takes place there. 2. When passing (or failing) reviewers should use an article history box  (with links and diffs) rather than the  Template:GA.
Further possibility Currently, with peer reviews and project A class reviews, the nominator creates the subpage by pasting a template on the  article talkpage. The current GAN template could be altered to allow this.   
Inviting reviews There has been some debate above about having a team to oversee the passes.  Instead, why not a more open review system?  Discourage fly-by "this passes" listings, and suggest reviews stay "open" at least three days (whatever) to invite other comments.  It would be impossible to transclude the subpages onto the GAN page, but the listing  should include a link to the review page, and other reviewers invited to make comments.  The final decision on listing should belong to the reviewer who "opened" it.  People can make one or two comments, or offer support, or disagreement.  This keeps process open, collaborative, and supportive of editors time. Many editors do not have time to perform a full review, but have time to read an article and raise a point or two. Sometimes, a concern leaps out at one person but not at another. Some are familiar with MOS, some might be familiar with reliable (or unreliable) sources, another might run down the noms checking for fair use rationale, and tick that they're checked. It's also a good way for new or tentative reviewers to familiarise themselves with the process and criteria.  This could be advertised more clearly at the top of the GAN instructions, and encouraged (how many ever respond to the "under review" tag's "other comments welcome"?).  But a pass is not held back (after required days) if no one else comments. (ie desirable but not essential.)  Thoughts?  Gwinva (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed several GA reviews recently where the GA review is started in a new main section, something like 'GA review'. Some comments are posted there, and they are responded to. Then, when the article finally passes, the reviewer starts a new MAIN SECTION again with something like 'GA passed'. And some of these have other, unrelated sections between the review and the pass. I don't think it helps the process to put the 'GA pass' in a totally different section from the 'GA review'. As we already have enough problems with keeping archives of GA reviews, this is almost certainly going to make the problem much worse. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry; my suggestion above was too wordy, and it's confused myself on a re-read. My suggestion was actually simple. To clarify: All GA activity (review and pass) should take place on a subpage, in the manner of peer reviews and FACs. This can be linked to from the Template:ArticleHistory, which is placed at the top of the talk page and remains there even after talk content is archived. Gwinva (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like how you did it in this case. It's an extra step, but I think it's a worthwhile, good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a good idea. No more links lost when the review is archived. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, a subpage of article talk is best. My own thoughts on the division of labour here are that the nominator generates the subpage, linked from the template, and the reviewer provides the transclusion of the subpage as a review section in article talk. Together with (ideally) automation of the GAN page itself, the nomination process could be like peer review: the subpages would have the form Talk:Article Name/GA1, Talk:Article Name/GA2, and so on and the GAN template could direct the nominator to the next free GA review subpage. This would contain the nominators username, date and the case for nomination. The reviewer would edit this page, adding their name and preliminary (or perhaps final) review and transclude it onto the talk page. The review would proceed as usual, but at the end the information would be in place for a bot automatically to provide a permanent article history link to the review. Geometry guy 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of moving GA reviews to their own subpage. This will bring us in line with the other review processes, and allow for easier archiving. Perhaps the subpage could be created when the nominator adds the  template to the top of the talk page (e.g. add template and provide the link to the next incrementing GA1, GA2, etc page as a parameter; then click on the red link in the template to open the nomination). Dr. Cash (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's right: it would actually have to become  so that the template can automatically find the next free GA1, GA2 etc. page, but then a click on a link could not only generate the page, but provide advice on completing the nomination.Geometry guy 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea to transclude the review (while in progress) onto the talk page. The nominators and others working on the page can easily access the comments, in much the manner they do now. Gwinva (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we try this? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but I think we need a process accompanying with that. See the sub-heading below. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we need to go ahead with this. There's a fair amount of support (and for automation too I think...) EyeSerenetalk 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Please stop trying to make GAN a mini-version of the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. In my opinion, the current system is fine. What we need to improve is the quality of reviewers. Better reviewers mean better reviews. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with any of that I'm afraid. IMO Hildanknight is quite right, GAN ought not to try to be an FA-lite. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: We'd need five reviewers, at least, to promote an article to GA. I presume these reviewers should furnish more extensive feedback than I like it, preferably of the quality solicited by item three of the review process guideline. In light of that, then I believe this proposed new process would cause most nominations to fail for lack of participation. I think the dragon that this proposed change hopes to slay is that of the 'drive-by reviewer' who does little more than checking off ; five editors presumably furnish enough redundant cross-checking so that flimsy reviews are canceled out. I don't think we have enough reviewers to make this process work. To my mind, the basis to most criticism levied at the Good article project stems not from a defect in process, but in a shortage of editors who know how to conduct the process effectively. To that end, we should look to process improvements that enable editors to make more effective use of their review time, or help new reviewers understand what constitutes quality reviews. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head Gosgood. GA needs to look at ways to improve the quality of its reviewers, not its process. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the rest of this is a good beginning, but I would like to see how the separate page thing works and let it run awhile before trying anything like this. I also think the "net five" may be a bit more than we can handle right now. Wrad (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One high quality review is much better and more widely appreciated than five brief comments. What we need to do is enhance both the accountability and the fun of reviewing good articles, so that reviewers will know that they need to produce a good review, and also they really want to produce a good review. Ensuring every review is permanently linked is a step towards the accountability issue. We also need help for reviewers when nominators get argumentative or discouraged, and that often means helping the nominator as much as the reviewer. GAR is a reasonable recipe for the first problem, but perhaps not ideal for the second. I've had recent experiences helping out at Group (mathematics), where a detailed second opinion generated some enthusiasm to improve the article, and at White Mountain art, where a nominator needed encouragement to work with a reviewer. Both were a lot of fun. Both also originated with posts at WT:GAN, but this forum is not always very nominator-friendly, so I wonder if there is any way we can encourage nominators to seek help when they have problems with the review process before resorting to GAR? Geometry guy 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest way might be to insist on template messages for concluding reviews, which will have all the appropriate links present. I know a lot of us give links to GAR etc anyway, but there's perhaps more we could include (eg WP:GAN/M). Other than that, we could perhaps publicise a list of experienced reviewers willing to give second opinions and oversight, mediate disputes, help out with the noms process etc (again, WP:GAN/M might make a good starting point). EyeSerenetalk 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Permanent linking is something that's got to be addressed. I'd pretty much given up on the GA process after the green dot debate, but my faith in it is slowly returning. Let's not give GA's detractors an easy shot, by saying they can't find the review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to echo something else that Geometry Guy said. The most rewarding reviews are where the nominator and reviewer work together to get the article through GA. I fear that sense of collaboration may be diluted by this proposal to move GA towards FA-lite. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, scrap my proposal. But we need someone to actually make a guideline on the new format, instead of just supporting the idea but not contributing to the actual process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it may be possible to implement the above proposal with only a superficial resemblance to FA (in criteria if not process), but I do have concerns about introducing voting. We would probably need to either restrict votes to regular GA reviewers who know the criteria, to avoid WP:ILIKEIT votes getting articles through, or we'd need one or more official 'promoters' who could judge the voting on its merits... and if someone's doing that, then why not undertake the review anyway? Voting would also, in my view, de-emphasise what I believe is GA's strongest suit - the idea that a GA review is a collaborative, personal, educational process. There is certainly a need for some kind of oversight, but I think throwing more than, say, two reviewers into the mix would be counterproductive. EyeSerenetalk 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit) Sorry, OhanaUnited. We got edit-conflicted; your post wasn't there when I clicked 'save'. I'm not trying to argue against something you've already withdrawn :P EyeSerenetalk 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's ok, no one likes edit conflict. If we restrict votes to regular reviewers, then there's no opportunity for newcomers to participate. We need a merit system (or some sort). So can we all brainstorm and tell everyone your thoughts? (I already presented mines, now it's your turn) OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But we can use some threshold like the 1,500 characters imposed by DYK. If the article can't make it to DYK, chances are it won't meet GA criteria #3 OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with any length requirement. GA was made explicitly for very short, high quality articles. The criteria is about breadth, not length. It's very important to retain this aspect of GA if it is to be a decent counterpart to FA in the future. VanTucky Vote in my weird poll! 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  1500 characters is really short. It's more like the length for a start-class article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohana, an article with less than 1500 characters will probably fail our broad criteria. If it doesn't, there should be nothing arbitrary stopping it from being a GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we want to add more "bean counting" items to the GA criteria. This seems like it will only attract more simple "bean counters" to the GA reviewer ranks; part of the GA review process is being able to actually read the article and judge whether it's well written or not, without necessarily looking at the purely subject and easy-to-find criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: To clarify my previous comment, the "current system" means "one nominator and one reviewer". I do support the idea of conducting GA reviews on subpages, thus making them easier to keep track of. A major concern, however, would be GA reviews conducted before subpages for GA reviews are introduced. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we need to set up a small group of editors to come up with ideas, and I will propose this below. Geometry guy 00:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements in GA process: suggestion to improve transparency 

message: Since we're going to put them into a sub-page format, it would be a waste not to use the new page to its potential. We need a process to stop the "I feel like this is a good article so I am promoting it" feeling and catch all poorly written articles before they got promoted. Inside each of these GA-nomination sub-page, there should be a vote system. This is my proposal (adapting from a combination of other languages' GAN system):
* Articles must have at least 1,500 words (to restrict any articles that won't even meet DYK criteria)
* Each nomination lasts for 1 week.
** During this period, the nomination must gather 5 net support vote. Each oppose vote cancels one support vote.
** Those who oppose should comment on their reasons, and relate them to the good article criteria. 
** If the concerns are not addressed within the time period, the nomination is considered "not promoted". (This is to reduce the number of articles in "on hold" status for an extended amount of time)
*** Reviewers are reminded to be less rigorous towards MoS, but proper grammar and spelling is a must.
We can decide or change the #'s below later, but please comment if you agree with this system in principle. And if you have anything else to add, remove, or modify, feel free to voice your opinions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop trying to make GAN a mini-version of the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. In my opinion, the current system is fine. What we need to improve is the quality of reviewers. Better reviewers mean better reviews. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with any of that I'm afraid. IMO Hildanknight is quite right, GAN ought not to try to be an FA-lite. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: We'd need five reviewers, at least, to promote an article to GA. I presume these reviewers should furnish more extensive feedback than I like it, preferably of the quality solicited by item three of the review process guideline. In light of that, then I believe this proposed new process would cause most nominations to fail for lack of participation. I think the dragon that this proposed change hopes to slay is that of the 'drive-by reviewer' who does little more than checking off ; five editors presumably furnish enough redundant cross-checking so that flimsy reviews are canceled out. I don't think we have enough reviewers to make this process work. To my mind, the basis to most criticism levied at the Good article project stems not from a defect in process, but in a shortage of editors who know how to conduct the process effectively. To that end, we should look to process improvements that enable editors to make more effective use of their review time, or help new reviewers understand what constitutes quality reviews. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head Gosgood. GA needs to look at ways to improve the quality of its reviewers, not its process. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the rest of this is a good beginning, but I would like to see how the separate page thing works and let it run awhile before trying anything like this. I also think the "net five" may be a bit more than we can handle right now. Wrad (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One high quality review is much better and more widely appreciated than five brief comments. What we need to do is enhance both the accountability and the fun of reviewing good articles, so that reviewers will know that they need to produce a good review, and also they really want to produce a good review. Ensuring every review is permanently linked is a step towards the accountability issue. We also need help for reviewers when nominators get argumentative or discouraged, and that often means helping the nominator as much as the reviewer. GAR is a reasonable recipe for the first problem, but perhaps not ideal for the second. I've had recent experiences helping out at Group (mathematics), where a detailed second opinion generated some enthusiasm to improve the article, and at White Mountain art, where a nominator needed encouragement to work with a reviewer. Both were a lot of fun. Both also originated with posts at WT:GAN, but this forum is not always very nominator-friendly, so I wonder if there is any way we can encourage nominators to seek help when they have problems with the review process before resorting to GAR? Geometry guy 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest way might be to insist on template messages for concluding reviews, which will have all the appropriate links present. I know a lot of us give links to GAR etc anyway, but there's perhaps more we could include (eg WP:GAN/M). Other than that, we could perhaps publicise a list of experienced reviewers willing to give second opinions and oversight, mediate disputes, help out with the noms process etc (again, WP:GAN/M might make a good starting point). EyeSerenetalk 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Permanent linking is something that's got to be addressed. I'd pretty much given up on the GA process after the green dot debate, but my faith in it is slowly returning. Let's not give GA's detractors an easy shot, by saying they can't find the review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to echo something else that Geometry Guy said. The most rewarding reviews are where the nominator and reviewer work together to get the article through GA. I fear that sense of collaboration may be diluted by this proposal to move GA towards FA-lite. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, scrap my proposal. But we need someone to actually make a guideline on the new format, instead of just supporting the idea but not contributing to the actual process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it may be possible to implement the above proposal with only a superficial resemblance to FA (in criteria if not process), but I do have concerns about introducing voting. We would probably need to either restrict votes to regular GA reviewers who know the criteria, to avoid WP:ILIKEIT votes getting articles through, or we'd need one or more official 'promoters' who could judge the voting on its merits... and if someone's doing that, then why not undertake the review anyway? Voting would also, in my view, de-emphasise what I believe is GA's strongest suit - the idea that a GA review is a collaborative, personal, educational process. There is certainly a need for some kind of oversight, but I think throwing more than, say, two reviewers into the mix would be counterproductive. EyeSerenetalk 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit) Sorry, OhanaUnited. We got edit-conflicted; your post wasn't there when I clicked 'save'. I'm not trying to argue against something you've already withdrawn :P EyeSerenetalk 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's ok, no one likes edit conflict. If we restrict votes to regular reviewers, then there's no opportunity for newcomers to participate. We need a merit system (or some sort). So can we all brainstorm and tell everyone your thoughts? (I already presented mines, now it's your turn) OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But we can use some threshold like the 1,500 characters imposed by DYK. If the article can't make it to DYK, chances are it won't meet GA criteria #3 OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with any length requirement. GA was made explicitly for very short, high quality articles. The criteria is about breadth, not length. It's very important to retain this aspect of GA if it is to be a decent counterpart to FA in the future. VanTucky Vote in my weird poll! 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  1500 characters is really short. It's more like the length for a start-class article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohana, an article with less than 1500 characters will probably fail our broad criteria. If it doesn't, there should be nothing arbitrary stopping it from being a GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we want to add more "bean counting" items to the GA criteria. This seems like it will only attract more simple "bean counters" to the GA reviewer ranks; part of the GA review process is being able to actually read the article and judge whether it's well written or not, without necessarily looking at the purely subject and easy-to-find criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: To clarify my previous comment, the "current system" means "one nominator and one reviewer". I do support the idea of conducting GA reviews on subpages, thus making them easier to keep track of. A major concern, however, would be GA reviews conducted before subpages for GA reviews are introduced. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we need to set up a small group of editors to come up with ideas, and I will propose this below. Geometry guy 00:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New GA Process

message: Could someone please give María del Luján Telpuk a home (and update the topic parameter on the talk page if needed); I've got no idea where to put it. Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Theatre, film and drama -> Actors, models, performers and celebrities? It's tenuous, I know, but I can't see it fitting anywhere else. EyeSerenetalk 11:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is an article on a cultural phenomenon and should be listed with other such phenomena. Geometry guy 00:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did as G-guy suggested (and I was contemplating that); thanks. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense I suppose, although personally I wouldn't have thought of looking there if I had this article in mind. There's nothing at present that categorises 'personalities' (ie '15 minutes of fame'-type people), but I hesitate to suggest yet more subdivisions ;) EyeSerenetalk 07:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can never have enough subsections. I propose a María del Luján Telpuk subsection for these special cases. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Seconded then. I like the way it rolls off the tongue. EyeSerenetalk 08:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No idea where to add this... 

message: I have trouble finding articles and even sections on this page.  Could we do some sort of "show" table contents that gives more detail, or are people navigating this page in a way I don't know about that works well?  We've got stuff like Arts and History but it's hard to tell what you'll find under those sections, and you find a bunch of sections when you may want only one.  Is there a better way beyond massive scrolling? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I've discovered. A ToC would be a big help, to be honest. EyeSerenetalk 11:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how the page would benefit from a TOC, but that could be because I know the page like the back of my hand by now. It isn't terribly long, so with a little bit of scrolling, anything should be fairly easy to find. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I experimented with the ToC, and it's way too long for the page, IMO. It could be useful if you don't know your way around the page, however, so it might be a good change to consider. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't fit well, you're right. Maybe a more detailed links section at the top would be better? EyeSerenetalk 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a better way to naviaget this list? 

message: I just passed Towson United Methodist Church. I was originally going to place it under Philosophy and religion, but there really isn't a place for it. Should I place it under architecture? Nikki311 01:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that seems like the logical place to me. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do I put this? 

message: Because GA nominations are now on a subpage, there's no way to access it after the bot archives it. I was able to fix the temporary Failed GA template, but when the bot archives it there's no way to go to it again. Can this be fixed? Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 00:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted the changes to the failed GA template. I don't think that's going to solve the problem, since you're fixing the 'GA1'; GA reviews may not always be GA1; they might be GA2, GA3, depending on which GA review they are. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This should now be fixed: there is a page parameter in FailedGA and other templates to indicate the subpage number. Geometry guy 01:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA subpage