Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3

message: * User:Deckiller/Good Article criteria
* Any objections? — Deckiller 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have problems with changing the stability criteria, typically, just one person is looking at an article in a review, and might not notice that the article they just finished reading 5 minutes ago now has two more paragraphs, one which was re-written, 8 new references, and a new picture, as could easily happen while an article is being radically refactored. I also definently don't like 1 a with "there are no spelling errors", that seems a bit severe, does the criteria say that now, because I never remember that being in there. While of course an editor could fix those errors without being a major contributor, its not spelled out that someone could (or even should) fix that themselves. Homestarmy 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Implemented those changes, and I agree about the spelling thing; it should be implied that spelling is important, but a few typos shouldn't result in a fail. — Deckiller 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think once people who care alot about how inline referencing should be considered with GA's read this, they may have quite a bit more to say, but now the only thing I can think of to request is that if this refactoring of the criteria is implemented, that perhaps it might be a good idea to make a note on the GAC page recommending that articles which are unstable due to good faith editing should best be put on hold temporarily, instead of just failed. Homestarmy 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Added a sentence with that recommendation. I agree that all articles should use inline citations, but I was attempting to stay true with the original as much as possible. — Deckiller 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Like many large decisions of the GA system, people don't seem to notice these pages much or the discussions, and it has often created confusion. I think there needs to be a more...in your face kind of notification about this, I mean, it does shorten most of the phrasing signifigantly. Homestarmy 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a little side note saying that lists and disambiguation pages can't qualify as good articles to avoid any confusion? --Nehrams2020 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that might be a good idea. I'll add that under the appropriate criterion. — Deckiller 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps an introduction paragraph outlining this before the criteria listing? — Deckiller 00:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just something to differentiate the two.  For now, we have minimal requirements, but no ceiling.  I think we should have both. Wrad 00:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. — Deckiller 01:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We shouldn't fail articles that are obviously of featured quality; instead, we should redirect the user to the appropriate system and use the lead of the criteria as a disclaimer, which I have attempted to do. — Deckiller 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, maybe add a short list in parentheses of the major differences. Wrad 01:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might not be necessary, since a wikilink is provided to the featured article criteria. — Deckiller 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about discouraging really high quality articles and trying to have them just become FA's instead, so far, the ability to become a GA reviewer isn't very prohibitive, but if a reviewer has to keep FA criteria in mind and the many, many MoS considerations that often annihilate otherwise extremely good FACs, (and often are almost compleatly invisible on the reader's end I think) I think that will make things very inconsistant across the board, as some people who may have very high FA standards may not redirect any articles, while those who aren't so well acquainted with the nuances of FA status may redirect far too many. Why not just have the line say "The good article criteria is meant to ensure that an article is of at least decent quality, thought a good article is not always at the same level of quality as a featured article"? I just don't think its a good idea to just alienate any top-quality articles from being reviewed.....Homestarmy 01:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded the lead to reflect such a compromise. However, one of the major issues people have with GA is that the criteria is too close to FA criteria, so I believe the first sentence should still stand as it is. — Deckiller 01:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with the first sentence, it makes sense in a way, after all, an implicit criteria to become an FA is that it should pass an FAC first, and since GA status is removed when an FA status is granted, an article with GA status literally hasn't really reached FA status in a way. Homestarmy 01:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't like this change, there are probably countless stubs out there that represent the absolute maximum amount of representable sourcing there is on a notable subject, yet simply could never become GA's, probably because they could not have a lead without having more than one section of content. If the point trying to be made is that all articles which meet Notability standards should theoretically be able to meet a certain degree of quality, I don't know if GA class is that degree. Plus, it just seems off-topic to be talking about the AfDability of articles that cross our path....  Homestarmy 01:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criterion 2 states that an article cannot be a disambiguation page or a stub. I also removed that AfD reference earlier; it was more of a rant by me :) — Deckiller 01:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does? I don't see that in there, but i've always understood the Lead part to rule out most stubs anyway, and a Disambiguation page isn't really an article anyway. Homestarmy 01:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I meant criterion 3. But I see what you're saying; although there are criterion ruling out stubs, it shouldn't be necessary to mention that in the lead. Then again, most non-stub articles that pass inclusion policies can reach this level becuase of the way the criteria is drawn up. — Deckiller 01:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is mentioned so that newer editors can avoid confusion by seeing it clearly stated "no lists, disambiguation pages, or stubs" for their benefit. It would be obvious for older reviewers but newer editors and readers should know now so that they don't have similar questions as we've had down the road. --Nehrams2020 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've never seen delisted FA's automatically regain GA status, and because its not easily recorded which FA's were once GA's, trying to automatically relist delisted FA's which were once GA's might be problematic....And on the stub thing, I think there may be a very few stubs out there which are only labelled as such because the topic could theoretically have much more depth to it, but there's no more verifiable information that Wikipedia should use, yet such stubs do often have leads, despite being very short. (With like 2 or 3 sections) Homestarmy 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there's nothing explicitly citing WP:LEAD as a guideline necessary for GA status anymore, in the lead part, could that be added in? Like, "it contains a succinct lead section which complies with the MoS Lead guideline...." Homestarmy 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and on the Manual of Style ruling, this was the topic of a large rant I made awhile ago, the wording there makes it sound as if an article has to be compliant with all of the MoS, a standard which, quite frankly, may be even higher than FA status, the MoS is so huge, I don't see how reviewers could possibly get everything, I think the old wording was better where it was just something that basically meant that there wern't large amounts of non-compliance with the MoS, and that the MoS guidelines specifically named are the basically mandatory ones to follow. Homestarmy 00:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead part is already mentioned (1b), and I implemented the other change. — Deckiller 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the guideline is wikilinked, but all it says is that it should have a lead, it doesn't say anything about the lead actually being compliant with the wikilinked guideline. Homestarmy 01:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consolidated 1b and 1c so that emphasis is on complying with those guidelines. — Deckiller 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's about all the things I could think of to talk about then. I'm sort of concerned that nobody else besides Wrad and Nehrams decided to participate in a discussion as important as this, I mean, do people not have GA related talk pages on their watchlists? :/ Homestarmy 01:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what you or somebody else said before that GA's get skipped over a lot because there is a lot of emphasis on FA's.  Not too many are shooting for GA status as much as the coveted FA. Wrad 02:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What happened to the NPOV criteria? I consider it among the most important and cannot support any version that does not mention this. IvoShandor 07:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah its been merged. Seems to me this is underemphasizing it, though I like what I see now, mostly. IvoShandor 07:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessarily an underemphasis, because it would still be a violation of the criteria. — Deckiller 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand that it is there, but previously it was much more pronounced, in that it had its own number. Any thoughts besides me and Deckiller? Not that our thoughts suck or anything. : ) IvoShandor 06:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My two cents: I like the revised criteria and would be happy to see them replace the existing set.  Mike Christie (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about that, if just one or two sources are really unreliable, several sections of text in an article could be a total falsehood. I think its fine as it is. I don't know many GA nominees that often use unreliable resources sometimes yet ought to be called "good" anyway, I think weakening the criteria here isn't actually going to make the list contain many more articles that are actually useful to present to the public. Homestarmy 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really talking about unreliable sources, I'm talking about those that are on the fence (for example, someone "failing" an article because they don't like one of the sources, even if it's obviously true and not an exceptional claim). — Deckiller 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather stick to a requirement that all sources are reliable, rather than inserting any ambiguous, wishy washy language or guideline concerning them. Quadzilla99 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone fails an article solely because of one reference on one unimportant thing, I think that's a very specious decision, and I haven't known anyone who fails based on such an extremely high standard since, well, more than a year ago :/. Homestarmy 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, basically reviewers will have to continue to use common sense, I don't think that is or will be too much of a problem regarding innocuous information. Quadzilla99 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really like the idea of getting into relations concerning the Wikiproject ratings, because those ratings are so much more nebulous than GA and FA. "Cut above the rest" also seems a bit informal, and its always seemed to me the main realm of annoyance with the GA system in this area is FA criteria compared to GA criteria, not GA compared to B :/. Homestarmy 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but it seems people deseprate to axe GA will exploit this, saying "well why not just use B-class?". — Deckiller 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because B-class articles are often not really worthy of any special recognition :/. Besides, the movement to axe GA I think really lost its chance months ago, back when people would keep radically altering the criteria, and reviews were often spotty or worthless. Homestarmy 00:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be nitpicking here but it says:"it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." I understand it was put this way to condense the previous wording, it could make it seem as though it only follows those sections of the MoS, how about "it complies with all of the manual of style guidelines including those for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." Or you could just say all MoS guidelines. Quadzilla99 01:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you worded it that way for some reasons I don't get, if you could explain please do. Quadzilla99 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am to blame for making that criteria more specific in this regard. Awhile ago, there was a bit of an argument about ways to make the GA criteria less stringent, because many editors saw it as much too close to FA class criteria. I gave my part by recommending that the MoS requirement only call for certain important MoS guidelines to be followed instead of the entire MoS, primarily on the grounds that the MoS is extremely hard to keep aware of compleatly anyway, and that almost universally, every single GA review which dealt with MoS mistakes dealt primarily with the MoS articles linked now in the criteria, and nothing else. Somebody later changed it to "generally complies with the MoS, but specifically...." or something like that.  Homestarmy 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit the MoS is an imposing beast, I guess I would just have to look over the MoS (if I have time) to see that no important guidelines are left out before I say I oppose the current wording or don't like it. I'm a little on the fence concerning this as I've stated I think lack of submissions and reviewers are holding down GA numbers more than overly strict guidelines, but the MoS is daunting. Quadzilla99 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one I missed in my opinion was WP:SELF, but when I tried getting it added into the list later, I was shot down :(. Though, most articles i've seen with self-references do tend to have other GA-breaking problems, however, I can remember at least one article up for review where the most major fault I found was heavy violation of WP:SELF, only to realize after making the comment that I forgot to list it in the MoS criteria, that was a bit of a dilemna for me, especially because the violations really did make the article look terrible. Homestarmy 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked. — Deckiller 02:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed reworking of the criteria 

message: I guess that's the key thing we need to clarify: GAs should strive to use reliable sources, but this concept is much less strict at this level. Perhaps we need to say that "most sources are reliable", so that there isn't a lengthy debate of the references when one or two are on the fence (like FAC). Naturally, an article needs multiple reliable sources to exist, but for the GA level and below, not all sources have to be of maximum reliability (or, at least, reliable for the topic at hand; what's reliable for a final fantasy article will not be for a historical article). — Deckiller 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about that, if just one or two sources are really unreliable, several sections of text in an article could be a total falsehood. I think its fine as it is. I don't know many GA nominees that often use unreliable resources sometimes yet ought to be called "good" anyway, I think weakening the criteria here isn't actually going to make the list contain many more articles that are actually useful to present to the public. Homestarmy 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really talking about unreliable sources, I'm talking about those that are on the fence (for example, someone "failing" an article because they don't like one of the sources, even if it's obviously true and not an exceptional claim). — Deckiller 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather stick to a requirement that all sources are reliable, rather than inserting any ambiguous, wishy washy language or guideline concerning them. Quadzilla99 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone fails an article solely because of one reference on one unimportant thing, I think that's a very specious decision, and I haven't known anyone who fails based on such an extremely high standard since, well, more than a year ago :/. Homestarmy 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, basically reviewers will have to continue to use common sense, I don't think that is or will be too much of a problem regarding innocuous information. Quadzilla99 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It often boils down to reliability of sources

message: Are we clear to incorporate the revisions? I believe everything has been addressed, especially mentioning the difference between B-Class, GA, and FA. Anything else is beyond what should be included on the criteria page. — Deckiller 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like the idea of getting into relations concerning the Wikiproject ratings, because those ratings are so much more nebulous than GA and FA. "Cut above the rest" also seems a bit informal, and its always seemed to me the main realm of annoyance with the GA system in this area is FA criteria compared to GA criteria, not GA compared to B :/. Homestarmy 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but it seems people deseprate to axe GA will exploit this, saying "well why not just use B-class?". — Deckiller 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because B-class articles are often not really worthy of any special recognition :/. Besides, the movement to axe GA I think really lost its chance months ago, back when people would keep radically altering the criteria, and reviews were often spotty or worthless. Homestarmy 00:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be nitpicking here but it says:"it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." I understand it was put this way to condense the previous wording, it could make it seem as though it only follows those sections of the MoS, how about "it complies with all of the manual of style guidelines including those for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." Or you could just say all MoS guidelines. Quadzilla99 01:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you worded it that way for some reasons I don't get, if you could explain please do. Quadzilla99 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am to blame for making that criteria more specific in this regard. Awhile ago, there was a bit of an argument about ways to make the GA criteria less stringent, because many editors saw it as much too close to FA class criteria. I gave my part by recommending that the MoS requirement only call for certain important MoS guidelines to be followed instead of the entire MoS, primarily on the grounds that the MoS is extremely hard to keep aware of compleatly anyway, and that almost universally, every single GA review which dealt with MoS mistakes dealt primarily with the MoS articles linked now in the criteria, and nothing else. Somebody later changed it to "generally complies with the MoS, but specifically...." or something like that.  Homestarmy 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit the MoS is an imposing beast, I guess I would just have to look over the MoS (if I have time) to see that no important guidelines are left out before I say I oppose the current wording or don't like it. I'm a little on the fence concerning this as I've stated I think lack of submissions and reviewers are holding down GA numbers more than overly strict guidelines, but the MoS is daunting. Quadzilla99 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one I missed in my opinion was WP:SELF, but when I tried getting it added into the list later, I was shot down :(. Though, most articles i've seen with self-references do tend to have other GA-breaking problems, however, I can remember at least one article up for review where the most major fault I found was heavy violation of WP:SELF, only to realize after making the comment that I forgot to list it in the MoS criteria, that was a bit of a dilemna for me, especially because the violations really did make the article look terrible. Homestarmy 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked. — Deckiller 02:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All set?

message: Why is an essay (in the notes section) linked to from the criteria page? Isn't the policy covered by linking to WP:CITE? Quadzilla99 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE is a guideline, not policy; and (despite the dedicated few) in-line citations aren't in any policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CITE is a guideline as you said, the essay is not. I'm saying the essay should be removed. I just came here in case someone could explain to me why I shouldn't remove it. Quadzilla99 05:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay linked from WP:WIAGA 

message: The requirement on length is pretty vague: "For articles longer than about 25 kB, rigorous reviewing of the Wikipedia peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is often more appropriate than the process here."
"Often" needs to be clarified.  Especially in light of recent disputes on the GA nominee page for the 2007 Texas Longhorn nomination.  Is it yes or no?  'Often,' I think, causes more problems than it solves.
: The entire page is receiving a major overhaul (see the topic two sections above this one for details and the discussion); that part in particular is getting axed as of right now. — Deckiller 04:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Should :Template:FGAN be inserted into :Template:GA nominee?  Would this speed up the reviewing process?  The current backlog seems rather large.  I would like to contribute anything I can to speed up the process, but I have limited reviewing skills.Kmarinas86 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I agree that the point about in-line citations should be changed since as it stands now an article could be failed the GA review by one editor and pass by another all because of a lack of citations.  The standard should be modified to require citations or to more explicitly state that they are not necessary, since saying they are "highly desirable" for "contentious issues" leaves far too much room; anything can be a contentious issue to an editor doing a GA review who knows nothing about the subject.  
Let me make two comments against the in-line citation: First, while CTSWynken noted above, citations are scholarly, but Wikipedia articles are hardly written or edited by subject matter experts.  Second, most encyclopedias that I know of don't have inline citations in their articles though will often have a reference section at the conclusion.
Perhaps a better suggestion than saying that in-line citations are required or highly desirable under vague circumstnaces would be to drop the citation language and instead insist on a hearty references section.  This would keep the distinction between GA and FA as well as having the requirement that an author at least present a way for editors and readers who are so inclined to follow up on the information.  How does that sound to everybody?
jackturner3 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to change that part; I personally don't mind. — Deckiller 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another comment on citations 

message: I have proposed a WikiProject award, the Good Article Badge. Though it is a project award it is meant to be handed out to anyone for great contributions to GAs or GAC or GAR etc. See the proposal at : Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#WikiProject_Good_articles, voice your opinion and discuss there. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA award 

message: Looking at the criteria for a Good Article, I noticed that there is no requirement that the subject be notable in any sense.  For example, I could write nice biography of Bob Aspromonte that meant all the critiria, but would never address why Bob Aspromonte should have a page in an encyclopedia.  Is there a notability requirement for articles?  If there is, should that be noted in the criteria for good articles?  
SmaleDuffin 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the FA criteria, it is already assumed that the topic is notable enough. — Deckiller 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question About Notability 

message: I've been following this debate, and I thought I recalled seeing somewhere that GA was (among other things) for articles that were too short for FA.  Has that criterion been removed?  Is it in place still either at FA or GA? I looked on WP:GAC and WP:WIAGA and couldn't see it, but I'm sure it was there at one time.  Did the recent revision remove it?  Mike Christie (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was somewhat mentioned before the revisions; it suggested that articles longer than 25KB be nominated for FAC instead. However, GA has turned into sort of a "midpoint" in quality between bad articles and featured articles, which is why that part was removed. Also, the FA comprehensiveness standard is more strict than the GA's "broad" point, which means shorter articles in general have a much easier time meeting the GA criteria. — Deckiller 19:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We talked about it several times, I don't remember exactly when the idea of short articles specifically was removed from the actual pages in question, but if it isn't there now, then it probably was removed as a result of one of our discusssions. Homestarmy 19:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great -- it sounds like the "midpoint" view of GA is a pretty sensible approach.  I think there might be a few more things to do to bring all the project pages in line with that, though; for example I believe the FA pages give a list of "how to write an FA" somewhere that specifies PR but omits a GA step.  Anyway, that answers my question; thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a mandatory midpoint though, its just that generally, a GA will be in a kind of midpoint between non-FA and FA. Homestarmy 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: I've been following this discussion at GA talk, and the idea came up of merging the footnote on 2b with the main text.  Here's a possible draft.
:(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles.  For articles longer than about a screenful of text, unambiguous citation should be done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced. Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to that guideline, which does not require inline citations.
The footnote would be reduced to: "It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable."
I have removed "It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting".  If we re-add it I suggest we make it absolute: "The article must have . . ." since I think subjectivity is undesirable given that GA reviews are done by one person. Mike Christie (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, and it should help those who supposedly dislike 2b becuase of its "bias" against science writing. The main problem lies in incompetent reviewers who think this is mini FA, when in reality it's just a minimum standard. But a lot people — even reviewers — never read the criteria, it seems. — Deckiller 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't some monitors with higher resolution change the length of what a single page is though? Also, i'm not so sure on that logical deduction thing, in my experience, what's logical and what isn't is often quite a heated matter of debate in many articles that have controversial implications. Also, I don't think this is reading WP:SCG correctly, the last time I looked at it, it was very clear in stating that inline citations are indeed necessary, but only maybe 2 or 3 citations at the top of each section, since many references for Science and Math related areas are so general in nature, and it seemed overboard to many people to keep citing the same things over and over in every section. Homestarmy 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For monitors, let's set the standard at 1024x768 if we have to, but I'd rather try to avoid making it quite that specific.  On logical deductions, seems like that's something that should in principle be settled on the talk page, not by GA.  On citations, I was specifically thinking of this section. Mike Christie (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a general range of kilobytes of prose would be a better idea rather than the actual size of the article on screen, pictures might also make articles much longer than just the text. Some logical deduction type things can also spill over into textual accuracy things, for example, in Jesus-myth hypothesis, many editors would think it a very logical deduction that because there aren't thousands upon thousands of recorded statements by people in ancient times referring to Jesus, that therefore He couldn't possibly exist, yet editors more in tune with knowladge of historical scholarship often say that the burden of proof for somethings existance historically is much, much lower than the standards of people who support the idea that Jesus didn't exist, indeed, very few figures of history in that time period have as much recognition from various contemporary sources as Jesus did. In this situation, its so-called logical deductions vs. mainstream historical scholarship, and if GA reviewers can't even address situations like these where logical deductions conflict more important concerns, or where logical deductions for one side of an issue contradict logical deductions of another side, I think very ugly things will happen. Homestarmy 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on the size; I'll try a few articles and come up with a suggested prose size minimum.  For the logical deductions, I take your point.  Would your concerns be met if that sentence was prefaced by a note restricting the scope to that of WP:SCG? Mike Christie (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some parts of Science related articles, especially ones related to Creationism and Evolution, often have parts of them that would become very POV if the logical deductions of either side of the issue were to be inserted into the articles. What exactly are these logical deductives supposed to be used for, i've seen people suggest it before, but i've never really understood just what sort of thing articles are supposed to be allowed to logically deduce, besides mathematical deductions. Homestarmy 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a pretty small fraction of the articles that would cause trouble, and in these cases wouldn't the clause about controversial statements come into play?  I agree one can imagine people trying to use this rule incorrectly, but that's true of any rule.  For an example deduction, take Scalar-vector-tensor decomposition, which includes the statement "Since the graviton is massless, the two polarizations are orthogonal to the direction of propagation, just like the photon."  That's a deduction that is not mathematical.  I'm not suggesting this particular one is sufficiently straightforward to not require referencing, just as an example deduction of the kind that might be covered. (My own physics background is too far in the past for me to actually assess the statement beyond its form.) Mike Christie (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the consistent style of footnoting, do we want to leave that out? Admittedly I added that, but I find that rather important as sloppy sections with several different styles are unprofessional and should be avoided. As in here. If everyone thinks so that's fine but, I hate to pass an article cited like that. Quadzilla99 05:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify Mike, i'm not really opposed to the idea that some logical deductions need not be referenced, its just that the concept of which types of logical deductions can go without referencing I think really needs to have a clear definition that doesn't let people do things like "Well, logically, I know the reference for this fact is out here somewhere, so I deduce that I don't need to reference this statement", and because I don't quite get exactly what kinds of deductions you have in mind, I don't know how to put the definition into words :/. Homestarmy 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revision of 2b 

message: The shortening of the criteria makes it more difficult to judge articles according to those standards. This is because they are no longer described and important points are not, thus, emphasized. For example, the last time I looked  it was easy to skim the list and fail articles quickly without having to read the entire style manual to make sure the article complies. At the least we should point out the most relevant sections of the style manual without describing them. Hyacinth 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, it does name the six MoS guidelines that a GA should comply with currently... Homestarmy 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. If anything, it emphasizes the six guidelines more than before. — Deckiller 17:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening of criteria 

message: The main reason for the failure of I Not Stupid's two GA nominations was choppy prose. However, the "well written" criteria only demands that "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". When the first GA nomination was failed by ExplorerCDT on 26 December 2006, the article looked like this. The article looked like this when the second nomination was failed by NSR77 on 23 June 2007 (the nomination was premature - I originally intended to nominate it on 8 July - and placed in the "Television" section by mistake).
I understand that the GA criteria were considerably different when ExplorerCDT failed the first nomination. Furthermore, three editors (Wisekwai, Bishonen and I) agreed that several of NSR77's reasons for failing the second nomination were invalid. For example, he commented that the images did not have fair-use rationales, when they did, and requested that spoiler tags be added to the Plot section, despite recent discussion which led to a consensus that such spoiler tags were redundant in Plot sections. 
Although I believe that the article already met the current "well written" criteria at the time of the first failed nomination (only failing because the criteria were different then), as the primary contributor to the article, my judgement will obviously be clouded. Hence, I would like a GA reviewer to tell me whether the article when the first nomination failed, the version when the second nomination failed and the current version of the article meet the current criteria of clear prose and correct grammar.
If even the current version of the article does not meet the "well written" criteria, how far is it from meeting said criteria? Bear in mind that I'm 15 and my English is at a near-native standard (practically everyone here uses Singlish). Despite having a good grasp of spelling and grammar, I lack the native speaker's natural feel of the language that is required to write prose which flows well. I needed the assistance of two copy-editors who are native English speakers (Haemo and E@L) to bring the prose to its current standard. If you demand prose that is "of a professional standard" (FA criteria), or something way beyond what I am capable of, I will abandon my efforts to get I Not Stupid to GA status, and leave Wikipedia.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have observed that when it comes to prose, good article reviewers often judge articles by very different standards.  Also, just like the use of American English, British English, and Australian English in articles, reviewers should treat Acrolect Singlish similarly.  The reviewers should not be biased against legitimate forms of English.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 14:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Prose quality should not be measured by measuring the number of words/characters per sentence without reading the prose itself. I hope that GA reviewers will adhere to the GA criteria for prose when reviewing I Not Stupid. Could several experienced GA reviewers evaluate the current prose quality? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Identifying good prose involves a subjective process if there isn't a prescriptive method of identifying it like there is when checking grammar and mechanics.  I would prefer that the "prose" criteria be defined by what its opposite is.  One must indentify the aspect of bad prose, choppy prose, strange tense, and so forth.  But choppy prose may be an artifact of one's ability to read, and so may the appearance of strange or unfamiliar tense.  Good diction may be a more realistic for "good" articles while good prose may be a more appropriate requirement for an A-class article.  What may sound good to an American may sound weird to a Brit.  Keep in mind that the criteria of good prose has an idiosyncratic component to it, though it cannot be entirely characterized as such.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 04:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By leaving the criteria subjective like it is, eventually, a happy medium should theoretically be reached in reviews, where even if someone who grades at the far ends of what good prose is pass or fail articles in a manner someone doesn't improve of, multiple GA reviewers can pass or fail the article accordingly in a GA/R, so that good prose would be entirely up to the the community, which of course, is exemplified in the name of the system anyway, "Good Articles", I mean, "good article quality" is pretty subjective. Of course, I suppose two increadibly divisive camps could form over prose quality and grind the system to a screeching halt by having all the GA/R's be no consensus, but if that's going to happen, I don't think there's much that could stop it. Anyway, I think most people who get involved with GA reviewing are already pretty good with English skills, I mean, they had to read all the instructions before becoming a reviewer, right? I don't think the problems that have been happening with this one article really warrant major changes to the focus of the "good prose" part of WIAGA. Homestarmy 04:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homestarmy, you are assuming that all unfair reviews will be taken to GA/R. I don't think this is the case. Besides the possibility of two divisive camps forming, I am also concerned that GA may detroriate to a stage whereby whether my GA nominations meet the "well-written criteria" will depend on who reviews the article, instead of what the criteria actually say. I apologise if I'm excessively displaying the typical Singaporean trait of expecting others (in this case, the reviewers) to "Just Follow Law" (in this case, the "law" refers to the GA criteria). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you take a moment to look at the Singlish article, you will appreciate the fact that the sentences tend to be short, just as they are expected when the writers are Singaporean.  Complex sentences do not appear as often.  Are you willing to damn all Singaporean articles as a result of their consistently short prose sentences?  Short prose isn't bad prose if you can set you mind to a time when you didn't have expect English of a college-level of complexity.  Acrolect Singlish is a legitimate form of English typified by short prose, just like how British English is a legitimate form of English, typified by verbose, and oh-so-eloquent prose.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why short prose would be bad prose necessarily, but this particular article's troubles over whether the prose is bad or not in addition to being short sound like they should be handled just with this article, not by editing the GA criteria, which would affect every article, not just this one. Homestarmy 04:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Well-writtten" is already clearly defined as "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". I don't think the GA criteria need to change, as long as reviewers adhere to it. My intention in starting this thread is to get the Big Question answered: Does I Not Stupid meet the current "well-written" GA criteria? Furthermore, knowing how high the standards are set will help me should I try to get another article to GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How good must the prose be? 

message: A month-long backlog elimination drive has started. There are several awards to be won. For details please go to Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC backlog elimination drive 

message: I found this essay Wikipedia:When to cite in connection to FA, but it could be of some assistance in GA nominations too.  Can I have some opinions on whether to link this in the criteria, please?  (The essay When to cite may help you to determine what needs citation.) -Malkinann 00:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the criteria mention the essay [[Wikipedia:When to cite]]? 

message: Footnote 2 says: "Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations." What does this mean? I've never seen a two-page article. I'm confused. Do we just mean a "short article"? If so, how short? Wrad 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has bothered me too in the past. I guess it means something like "one page when printed out on standard (A4/US letter) paper in a standard font size (10-12pt)". However, I would favour defining "short articles" by an approximate maximum length in kilobytes (e.g. 10-15Kb). However the word "can" is crucial here: the criterion that the article really needs to meet is WP:V. Geometry guy 22:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote confusion 

message: The introductory material for Wikipedia does not make it very clear about in-line citations. Any editor following the instructions at the Community portal could create an article without them entirely in good faith. Here is an example of an instruction page without in-line citations: Wikipedia:Annotated article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-line citations redux 

message: The GA criteria state, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation". Why don't GAs have to comply with all sections of the style guide? Style issues are quite easy to spot and fix, so why can't they be fixed at GA leval rather than FA? Epbr123 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think probably because the style guide is enormous, because the line has to be drawn somewhere and because the current consensus says that is where it's at. If Style issues are quite easy to spot and fix maybe we can set up a task force to work through the GA list and do it. What ya think? --Joopercoopers 13:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason you can't comment on style points not mentioned in WIAGA. The point is, though, that articles don't need to comply with the whole of MOS to Pass GA. If they comply with everything mentioned above and have no other serious flaws, then you can pass them, leaving a note behind to improve aspect x. Ling.Nut 13:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I have raised this is that there only seems to be one or two reviewers who check for style issues at FACs. When those reviewers are inactive, FACs pass while still having style problems. It would help out FAC if more style issues were fixed at GAC. An advantage GAC has over FAC is that GAC reviewers check for a whole range of issues, whereas each FAC reviewer only checks the issues that are of interest to them. FAC therefore can't be relied on to fix these simply style issues. Epbr123 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that changing the GA criteria to fix a systemic problem with FAC is a good idea - Fix FAC. --Joopercoopers 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A flaw in FAC? Someone get the camera! First of all, as FAC participants strongly point out at every given opportunity, GA isn't meant to be a stepping stone to FA. If it's broke, we ain't got time to fix it. We already have a task force cleaning up GAs. If there are FA noms falling through the cracks, we don't need another GA task force to improve articles that may not even go to FAC. Create a task force to clean up the FAs and improve FAC. LARA♥LOVE 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I point out that many of the problems you found with GAs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force/GAC backlog elimination drive#GA reviews with concerns, such as date linking, dashes and ref format, are not currently part of the GA criteria. Epbr123 18:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah there you go Epbr they're already on it. Lara can you post a link to the cleanup task force for him? By the way is you signature supposed to only display a heart? - I'm sure a few days ago I could see words either side of it. --Joopercoopers 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another note on this I have is that these five parts of the MoS seem to be the ones that popped up the most on GA/R back when, indeed, the criteria did say an article should comply with the MoS as a whole. (Though I don't think many people really looked for that, it would of been far too tedious) Nothing else ever really seems to stick out very often outside of these particular MoS guidelines, WP:SELF occasionally comes up, but leaving that out isn't a crime I suppose, generally, bad SELFish writing (Hehe, get it, SELFish....) often comes together with other writing problems. Besides, excluding list incorporation, the MoS things listed in our criteria are basically the most major of all, a bad lead makes the entire article look bad, poor layout is just plain ugly, jargon means most readers probably won't have any idea what Wikipedia is saying in some cases, words to avoid also makes articles look bad, and writing in-universe is not in keeping with the tone of an encyclopedia. Homestarmy 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: My sig has issues. Hopefully it's fixed now. Okay, so about the task force, that'd be WP:GAPQ. As far as my nit-pickings on GA reviews, date wikification is for user preferences. That should be done in any article, regardless of aspirations for GA or FA. Ref formatting is part of the GA criteria, just no body bothers to read note 2. As far as dashes, I suppose I should try to get that into the criteria considering it's a simple fix and makes an article look so much better. LARA♥LOVE 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style 

message: I've been ambivalent about GA/FA in the recent past, but I've come to accept that some kind of review process is necessary to maintain and improve the quality of the encyclopedia.
I'd be happy to help with reviewing articles where I can, but I'm a bit worried that I might be the only reviewer making the pass/fail decision, even though I might be talking bollox; it's pretty easy to post a Support or Oppose for an FAC, but a bit more challenging to take sole responsibility for a GAC. Is there a support group for new, tentative GA reviewers? :) --Malleus Fatuarum 00:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to train more GA reviewers. With more GA reviewers, the backlog will go down faster. --Kaypoh 03:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In lieu of any such mentoring task force, I decided to be bold. I've done a GA review of Serpentine (lake). I'd very much appreciate any feedback – good or bad – from experienced GA reviewers on my first effort, either here or on my talk page. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like your review covers most of the article, and clearly lays out problematic areas, if someone tries to GA/R this article if it is rejected in its current state, I would expect pile-on sentiment not to list it, partly because your review is so detailed, and partly because, well, it obviously isn't a GA right now :D. Homestarmy 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for potential GA reviewers 

message: Any thoughts on this proposal?  I'd like to improve the criteria based on everyone's comments.  A lack of responses tella me either everyone agrees or no one cares anymore (either way I'm inclined to just go ahead and change the criteria myself unless there's any thoughts otherwise). Drewcifer 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Published opinion" is a bit vague to me. What exactly is published opinion in this context? Wrad 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article says "This sucks" then that better come from a published source, since it's an opinion rather than fact.  And saying "published" means that you can't post unpublished (ie non-notable, non-reliable, etc) opinion.  I guess that's what I meant. Drewcifer 20:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any thoughts? 

message: First the criteria says "It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic." Then it says "A lack of images does not disqualify the article from GA status." Do you think it's confusing? Why not just say "If the article has images, then they must meet whatever criteria (such as fair use rationales)". --Kaypoh 03:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a question, not a statement, really. It's asking is a lack of images okay for this particular article. Articles on existing architecture, for example, should have images. Other articles, like ancient history articles, may not have an available relevant images. Therefore, it would be acceptable to pass the article without images. That's my interpretation of that criteria. Lara♥Love 04:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We may want to mention WP:IUP in these guidelines.  A bio of a living person may not have any true fair-use images that can be used, for example.  Maybe it could be written as "It contains images, when possible and within reason, and within Wikipedia's image use policy, to illustrate the topic."  (The "within reason" clause reflects the recent push to avoiding using lots of non-free images, as per User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation)  But yes, as to the original question, I don't read it as a conflict, just that one begs a question. --Masem 06:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I can't agree with that assertion about Fair Use Masem, some people may be in prison, a security lockdown, or a location where it would not only be difficult to get a picture, but might be illegal as well. (Since you might have to violate security procedures to get near them, or kill a large number of security people to snap a photo) However, as to the original question, I don't think the criteria as it stands is very confusing at all. Homestarmy 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording I suggested means "If the article has images, they must meet these criteria, but if the article has no images, no need to bother about the criteria". Because not every article can have images, and not everybody understands the million rules about fair use and free use. So whether the article needs images or not depends on what it is about? --Kaypoh 04:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria is supposed to mean that if there are images, they must obey the criteria. There's a note at the bottom about that. Homestarmy 14:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Should the images part be changed to include all types of media. Of course we don't want to pass articles that contain copyvio media that isn't an images (sound caption, song samples etc). T Rex | talk 05:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certainly. And in both aspects. Not only should copyvio be checked, but also appropriate use of sound samples should be pushed. In the WP:Wagner internal assessment drive, I am commenting on the absence of musical illustrations of some operas as a weakness in several articles. By GA, I would expect at least some sound samples to be provided. And for identifying a rock band, or song a sound file is more appropriate than a picture. However, many albums with iconic covers such as Dark Side of the Moon, or Sergeant Pepper should have pictures as well as sound samples; Similarly, Gorillaz ought to have pictures of a cartoon character and sound samples. Articles on birds with characteristic songs (cuckoo, nightingale, etc.), should again have sound samples or, at the least, links to samples.--Peter cohen 08:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a sound change to me (pun intended). I always just dealt with these as being inappropriate by WP policy, period. But including it in the criteria would alert potential nominators of GAs to address this before nomination, hopefully. LaraLove 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no! Not every article can have useful images and sounds, and few editors understand the million rules about fair use and free use. Keep GA simple and not like FA! --Kaypoh 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mood on WP these days is that it is better not to have images (and sounds, etc.) than to have images without clear copyright status and fair use rationales. I think the GA criteria should reflect this. Also, as an aside, the current image criteria do not match . I think they should be harmonized. Geometry guy 20:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps editors should just be strongly encouraged by reviewers to include such media. Of course it won't always be available, but reviewers can at least encourage it in each of their reviews as a way to increase quality. I think a simple suggestion could go a long way. Wrad 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Kaypoh you misunderstood me, I don't mean for their to be some kind of media on every page, I mean that all types of media should comply to copyright law and this should be reflected in the criteria. T Rex | talk 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. See what I suggest below. :) --Kaypoh 07:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The image question has now cropped up several times on this page. The current wording is not as clear as it could be, and there are concerns that the requirements should not be too demanding. I also believe there is some consensus that whether an article has images or not is less important than whether the images are tagged with copyright status and fair use rationales where necessary. This would certainly be in keeping with an increasing trend to nominate untagged images for deletion, and to prefer articles without images to ones with images whose copyright status is unknown.
I suggest that minor modifications to the current criteria would clarify these issues.
# It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.[1] In this respect:
#:(a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and
#:(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[2]
: 1. Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
: 2. The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if appropriate images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are readily available, then they should be used.
Geometry guy 10:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that the last sentence be revised to include "appropriate images, sound clips or similar with acceptable..." I cannot see how an article on Beethoven's Fifth Symphony for example can be good without the opening V for victory rhythm being included. And there are plenty ex-copyright recordings available.--Peter cohen 12:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've turned the criteria around, and split the footnotes. This is now implicit in the first footnote, but I've added a parenthetical reminder. Will that do? Geometry guy 12:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It will, thanks.--Peter cohen 13:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lovely work. As usual, G'guy. Lara❤Love 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, never fail a GA because it doesn't have a image or sound or whatever. No matter what it is about. --Kaypoh 10:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but disagree. Wikipedia is a multi-media project and should reflect this in its assessments. An article on the Mona Lisa without a picture of it, one on Beethoven without a sounds sample of his work, and one on the cuckoo without either cannot be complete enough to be GA. Obviously in some cases, there will be copyright and fair ue issues which may prevent a picture being available, but in many cases there ought to be one.--Peter cohen 10:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. Where images/sound clips are available and appropriate, they need to be included. What would the Statue of Liberty, Great Wall of China, Sphinx, Eiffel Tower, Louvre, Saddam Hussein, Elvis Presley, or The Beatles be without images? Lara❤Love 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *What would they be? What about broad in their coverage, but not comprehensive? Which all that GAs are required to be, isn't it? --Malleus Fatuarum 11:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA is not FA. Stop making GA like FA. --Kaypoh 09:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about the rest of you, but I define "readily available" as being in commons or on Wikipedia already :/. Uploading pictures requires some long, tough reading of policy to get all the tags right and figure out which ones your supposed to use, and I don't even know how to do it compleatly myself.... Sounds seem even more challenging, I don't even know how all that .ogg stuff works, are you supposed to be converting sound files before uploading? Yeesh. Homestarmy 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image proposal 

message: How about renaming this page to Wikipedia:Good article criteria, to follow Featured naming conventions (ex. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria)?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could do. This page is mostly linked via the shortcut WP:WIAGA anyway. Geometry guy 09:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also would support such a move.--SeizureDog 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As would I. Drewcifer 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename this page 

message: Should good articles have an infobox (where one is relevant)? Snowman 20:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that should be decided on a case by case basis and not added to the criteria for GA. Wrad 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly there are some obvious cases: if I try to GA a movie or television show article without an infobox, that should be called out.  However, I agree, unless its really obvious that the infobox should exist knowing the culture of such articles, the lack of an infobox shouldn't fail the article, though the GA reviewer can certainly ask if one is appropriate.. --MASEM 20:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably a better way of saying it. Wrad 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not certain that answers the question. OK, so the GA reviewer either knows that an infobox is appropriate, or has asked and been told that it is. What next? Insist on the infobox or let the article through without it? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I meant to say that in the case of the non-obvious infobox, the GA reviewer can suggest as part of the review if there should be an infobox as for further consideration, but should not fail it lacking one.  Given that, assuming the rest of the article is good from a GA standpoint, adding an info should be trivial. --MASEM 20:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then if it's trivial it ought to be added, no big deal. Would I fail an article if the only problem was the lack of an infobox? No, I would't, so it probably ought not to be added to the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox 

message: An editor just promoted WrestleMania III to GA status despite my objections. The reason I object is because two of the images come straight from YouTube, which is a copyright violation since the copyright owner of the video (WWE) does not and never has allowed YouTube to host any of their material. To me, that pretty much means the images should be deleted. Is this reason enough for me to go through the de-listing process for the article? I want it to be a GA (and eventually a FA), but do not feel it is a GA right now. TJ Spyke 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The right thing to do (and I believe this has now been done) is to remove any images which are not free or fair use. Images are not required for GA if they are not available (under free or fair use), so this alone is not a reason to delist. If you feel the article does not meet the criteria for other reasons, then you can initiate the delisting process. Any disagreements can be resolved at GAR. Geometry guy 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article with YouTube images 

message: I think this is awkward, but the article "WP:What is a featured article?" redirects to "WP:Featured article criteria", but "WP:Good article criteria" redirects to "WP:What is a good article?". Could we please just choose one, stick with it and move the pages accordingly? I believe both pages should be named "WP:Good article criteria" and "WP:Featured article criteria". — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been raised before. No one objected to such a page move, but nothing happened! This time, I'll move the page unless anyone objects. Geometry guy 10:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Geometry guy 13:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so much! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 08:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good and featured articles named opposite of each other 

message: Criteria 1b reads, "[the article] complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation."  This sounds like it does not include the Manual of Style main page, but only the six subpages listed.  Is this intentional or should 1b be worded slightly differently? --jwandersTalk 07:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually not sure; I believe consensus was to only include those six. — Deckiller 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of criteria 

message: There seems to be some issues relating to the interpretation of the stability clause of WIAGA.  Specifically, this GAR discussion:  seems to show that there are differing opinions on what makes an article stable.  Perhaps we need to assess where consensus lies on this. I have outlined some of what I perceive as the major interpretations below.  Perhaps we can come to a consensus on one of these.  Feel free to make any comments on these or propose your own interpretations as you see fit.  Also, these views are not mutually exclusive.  There is no reason to NOT support multiple interpretations.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think other editors have missed your point. If an article is unstable from day-to-day, then it cannot be reviewed meaningfully. The guidelines already state that. There is no point in reviewing an article which will change significantly over the week or two in which a review takes place. However, that is different from predicting an article is about to become unstable without evidence. If the article is about a well-established individual rather than an unfolding current event, then most of its content is stable. This is the point where there seems to be some consensus, and I think it is a reasonable consensus. Geometry guy 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. When the article is already the subject of a currently unfolding event, such as an election, then it doesn't matter if other parts of the article are stable. It's about the part that isn't. There's no gray area here, an article either is or is not the subject of a current event. If it is then it should be failed until that event is over. VanTucky 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I partly agree, but I place the emphasis is on the word "subject". In this case the article may be affected by a current event, as all articles can be, but the subject of the article is not an evolving event, it is a biography of a person. Geometry guy 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a further point of information, not only is Hillary Rodham Clinton is a GA, but Barack Obama is an FA. Geometry guy 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't misunderstand at all.  The article is not titled "Mike Gravel's 2008 Presidential campaign" which WOULD be inherently unstable.  Its is titled "Mike Gravel" and THAT is the major difference.  The level of new information likely for a politician running for office is akin to an Athlete competing during the season; and yet it is unreasonable to quickfail all articles on athletes currently competing under the guise of "He's got more games to play very soon, and the article will likely change, so it is unstable".  If it is not significantly changing, it is not unstable.  If it may change, wait to see what the changes are.  A lot of really good changes does not make an article unstable.  It makes it still a really good article.  All change is not instability, and potential change is not always instability.  In a few cases it may be, but in most cases its called "reality".  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with it as it stands. VanTucky 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like we've reached a nice consensus. I'd like to add a phrase such as "with a definite time-frame" somewhere, because there are articles about incomplete events which will never be complete, but should still be eligible for GA. To give a slightly silly example: Evolution is ongoing! Geometry guy 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well???? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I rephrased the new criterion to match the style of the existing criteria and added the time frame condition.  While we're working on QFC, would anyone care to address this? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here you go (it's been reworded slightly since this edit).  It's the entirety of the fifth WP:QFC. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability 

message: Stability means that an article shows no potential for change or growth.  Any article where new information may be added in the future is potentially unstable, and thus unfit for GA status under the stability guidelines.
====Support====
#
====Oppose====
# This interpretation seems far too restrictive.  All wikipedia articles are expected to evolve, and this interpretation seems to stifle change.  We want good articles to continue to change. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation 1

message: # This interpretation seems far too restrictive.  All wikipedia articles are expected to evolve, and this interpretation seems to stifle change.  We want good articles to continue to change. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Stability means that an article is unlikely to show major changes in the near future.  While no one can predict future developements, if new information is likely to arise in the near future (say next 2-3 months) then it cannot be stable.
====Support====
# Believe it or not, I think I'm closer to this view (even though it was written by someone who opposes it).  It depends what you mean by "major changes", of course. I don't think "new information is likely to arise" is a sufficient disqualifier, but "the article is going to have to be mostly or completely rewritten" should be a disqualifier. For a specific example of that, imagine trying to nominate United States presidential election, 2008 for Good article any time before 2009! That article clearly isn't stable, in the sense that even if there aren't any debates about it, its most important parts will have to be completely rewritten as the next year progresses. Marking it as any kind of quality is futile, as it will clearly be completely different in a few months. This is opposed to an article about a lower tier presidential candidate, the article about whom probably won't be affected that much. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation 2

message: # Believe it or not, I think I'm closer to this view (even though it was written by someone who opposes it).  It depends what you mean by "major changes", of course. I don't think "new information is likely to arise" is a sufficient disqualifier, but "the article is going to have to be mostly or completely rewritten" should be a disqualifier. For a specific example of that, imagine trying to nominate United States presidential election, 2008 for Good article any time before 2009! That article clearly isn't stable, in the sense that even if there aren't any debates about it, its most important parts will have to be completely rewritten as the next year progresses. Marking it as any kind of quality is futile, as it will clearly be completely different in a few months. This is opposed to an article about a lower tier presidential candidate, the article about whom probably won't be affected that much. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # This is only slightly less restrictive than #1, and there is no reason to assume that an article will become unstable if new information is added.  There is no reason to think that achieving GA status is the closing of an article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Stability means only that the article is free from edit warring, and is not the subject of a content dispute.
====Support====
# The information in an article is covered by the "broadness" criterion, not stability.  If an article is up to date, and relatively complete, then broadness is met, even if the article shows potential to change in the future.  Stability should ONLY apply to a situation where two or more editors disagree in good faith over the content of an article (vandalism and obvious POV pushing exempted).  There is no reason to assume that new additions to an article, once time passes and new information comes to light, will NOT be up to GA standards.  If they are not, the article can be delisted or brought up to GAR, but as long as editors agree on the content of an article, it is stable.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation 3

message: # The information in an article is covered by the "broadness" criterion, not stability.  If an article is up to date, and relatively complete, then broadness is met, even if the article shows potential to change in the future.  Stability should ONLY apply to a situation where two or more editors disagree in good faith over the content of an article (vandalism and obvious POV pushing exempted).  There is no reason to assume that new additions to an article, once time passes and new information comes to light, will NOT be up to GA standards.  If they are not, the article can be delisted or brought up to GAR, but as long as editors agree on the content of an article, it is stable.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: If an article is the subject of a currently unfolding event, then it is unstable. Events expected or predicted to occur have no bearing on the current stability of a GA candidate, and are not a quick-fail criteria.
====Support====
# This has always been my interpretation of the stability clause. VanTucky 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation 4

message: # This has always been my interpretation of the stability clause. VanTucky 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #If the article IS the unfolding event, then yes.  For example, the 2007-08 NBA season would be ineligible for GA status, but not because it is unstable, it fails broadness.  The full season is not complete, so it is impossible for the article to be complete.  On the contrary, the National Basketball Association, which is the SUBJECT of an unfolding event (its current season is incomplete, and thus, is an unfolding event), could be a GA and reasonably meet both the broadness and stability requirements.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I think it is quite important to have a discussion section for this debate, so I've added one. My own view is that it is sometimes helpful to exclude articles from GA because they are inherently unstable, but this needs to be done with care, and we need to be clear why we are doing it. The obvious example is films which have not yet been released. The point about such articles is that the majority of the content of the article has not yet been written, so it is a bit pointless to judge whether it is a GA or not. This discussion was sparked by presidential candidates. In that case, if the candidate has a well-developed article, and the presidential issue is being absorbed into the article as current events unfold, then I see no objection to listing the article as GA. On the other hand, there is a case to made for likely candidates without well-developed articles that the article will change substantially. My own view, expressed by my joke Good articles precrime department, is that we should judge articles how they are, not by how we think they will change. However, I acknowledge that in some cases it makes sense to exclude articles from GA if there is likely to be a substantial change or addition to their content in the immediate future. Geometry guy 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think other editors have missed your point. If an article is unstable from day-to-day, then it cannot be reviewed meaningfully. The guidelines already state that. There is no point in reviewing an article which will change significantly over the week or two in which a review takes place. However, that is different from predicting an article is about to become unstable without evidence. If the article is about a well-established individual rather than an unfolding current event, then most of its content is stable. This is the point where there seems to be some consensus, and I think it is a reasonable consensus. Geometry guy 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. When the article is already the subject of a currently unfolding event, such as an election, then it doesn't matter if other parts of the article are stable. It's about the part that isn't. There's no gray area here, an article either is or is not the subject of a current event. If it is then it should be failed until that event is over. VanTucky 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I partly agree, but I place the emphasis is on the word "subject". In this case the article may be affected by a current event, as all articles can be, but the subject of the article is not an evolving event, it is a biography of a person. Geometry guy 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a further point of information, not only is Hillary Rodham Clinton is a GA, but Barack Obama is an FA. Geometry guy 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't misunderstand at all.  The article is not titled "Mike Gravel's 2008 Presidential campaign" which WOULD be inherently unstable.  Its is titled "Mike Gravel" and THAT is the major difference.  The level of new information likely for a politician running for office is akin to an Athlete competing during the season; and yet it is unreasonable to quickfail all articles on athletes currently competing under the guise of "He's got more games to play very soon, and the article will likely change, so it is unstable".  If it is not significantly changing, it is not unstable.  If it may change, wait to see what the changes are.  A lot of really good changes does not make an article unstable.  It makes it still a really good article.  All change is not instability, and potential change is not always instability.  In a few cases it may be, but in most cases its called "reality".  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Per discussion with VanTucky above, the quickfail criteria has been changed to indicate that articles specifically about incomplete events may be quickfailed.  Articles about subjects related to incomplete events (such as participants) should be given their due full review, and not assumed to be either instable or non-broad for that specific reason.  Given that change, is there still a need to consider changes to the stability and/or broadness criteria at WIAGA, or is the matter closed?  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with it as it stands. VanTucky 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like we've reached a nice consensus. I'd like to add a phrase such as "with a definite time-frame" somewhere, because there are articles about incomplete events which will never be complete, but should still be eligible for GA. To give a slightly silly example: Evolution is ongoing! Geometry guy 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well???? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I rephrased the new criterion to match the style of the existing criteria and added the time frame condition.  While we're working on QFC, would anyone care to address this? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here you go (it's been reworded slightly since this edit).  It's the entirety of the fifth WP:QFC. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential resolution of issue

message: Per a discussion at WP:GAC, I've revised the stability clause to: It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
Is this acceptable? VanTucky 00:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. I agree. I would even go so far as to add an AfD debate. On FA, a couple of articles were under going AfD at the exact same time as FAC. The article were kept and became FA.  Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, looks good. EyeSerenetalk 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, though I would immediately fail any article on both GAC and AFD as that indicates it is part of a content dispute, unless the AFD is unquestionably frivolous and disruptive. (I immediately delisted the Denial of Soviet Occupation article, because of the OR, NPOV, and AFD tags). Will (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability revision 

message: A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA symbol on article page 

message: I see that there's a bit of a backlog at WP:GAN, and I'd like to help out with that if I can.  However, I also want to make sure that I'm reviewing them well.  I feel quite comfortable with my ability to evaluate all of the criteria except broadness.  Would somebody be able to point me to a relatively short article that nevertheless passes the broadness criterion?  If at all possible, would somebody be able to direct me to a longer article that still didn't meet the broadness criterion?  I want to make sure I have a better feel for things before I dive in and maybe make the wrong call on a lot of nominations.  Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on SI's talk page. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A trio of relatively short articles that made GA are Vinkensport, Billy (pygmy hippo), and Herdwick. I also just nominated Buckeye (chicken) which is short. It's important to remember that length and broadness are not directly analogous concepts. An article can be short in length and broad in coverage. VanTucky 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to both of you.  I've completed my first review here.  Feedback on it would be more than welcome. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadness 

message: Please see Votes on changing the assessment scale, and cast your vote.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to assessment scale 

message: I've made a template  to make it easier for editors to quote the current criteria (apart from the footnotes). For example  produces
: 
and  produces
: .
This should be useful when producing checklists in GA reviews. I've demonstrated it by producing  which provides a table for a GA review in the style pioneered by Gosgood. (Many thanks to Gosgood here.)
The data this template uses (i.e., the current criteria) can be found on the subpage WP:Good article criteria/GAC. Now it occurs to me that a simple way to ensure these criteria and this page stay in sync would be to quote them on this page by transcluding them from the subpage. I checked that this works with an earlier version here.
The downside is that those of us who maintain the stability, neutrality and good style :-) of the criteria would also have to watchlist WP:Good article criteria/GAC, but I personally find the idea to separate form (how the criteria are displayed) and content (what they say) quite appealing. Comments? Geometry guy 16:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That will come in handy! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've edited the criteria to use the subpage. Comments still welcome. Geometry guy 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I figured it out; we have to make a dummy edit to this page after we edit the subpage with the criteria. — Deckiller 05:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An alternative approach is to purge the server cache. Geometry guy 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting the criteria, perhaps even on this page 

message: In a recent GA review the reviewer said books in "Further reading" should have ISBNs. It wasn't a problem in the particular case, but I don't think ISBN is useful "Further reading" as it will be different for different countries and times, e.g.:
*Many books are published by different publishers or subsidiaries of a publishing group, e.g. the US and UK versions of Gould's  Wonderful Life.
*Different ISBNs for hardback and paperback.
*Some books go down the "food chain", e.g. Dover re-publishes a lot of chess books, e.g. Fine's The World′s Great Chess Games.
The best way for readers to get hold of a book is to Google, which will lead them to vendors.
To be honest I even doubt ISBN's values in citations, e.g . I'm Brit, so all my cites are from the UK edition (hardback) of  Gould's Wonderful Life. -- Philcha (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ISBNs are not, nor have they ever been, a GA requirement. By all means add them where they are helpful. Geometry guy 11:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not at all sure if they are helpful in an encyclopaedia.  In a library, yes. --KenKt (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN in "Further reading" 

message: The GA criteria used to have a footnote that said "It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable". This footnote was removed by Dinosaur puppy as part of "some bold changes". Perhaps the footnote should be readded to the criteria? GA was created for short articles on topics where references are scarce and article writers may have to turn to sources with borderline reliability. For example, when I helped counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by writing a GA on the Singaporean movie I Not Stupid, I used several sources with borderline reliability (such as IMDB) for uncontroversial but elusive information. Of course, there must be some exceptions; including sources with borderline reliability in biographies of living persons would be asking for trouble. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be more comfortable if you asked this question at WP:RSN.  Those guys are world-class experts on subtle questions of how far we can bend before we break regarding iffy sources. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that WP:RSN is the appropriate venue for the question that's being asked. "This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles [or by implication project guidelines]. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject." The question is addressing tha GA guidelines, not the reliability of any one source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving it a shot at WT:RS. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Since my question focuses on the GA criteria (whether it should allow some sources with borderline reliability), I think it belongs here. Dank55 and Malleus Fatuorum (and others reading this discussion), do you think that the GA criteria should allow a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm going to have to say that depends on what you mean by "borderline". Certainly I think that some sources which may be questioned at FAC could be acceptable for a GA candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, it's better to establish whether a borderline source is reliable or not, rather than to decide whether borderline sources are acceptable. Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy, so the Good article criteria doesn't have the authority to permit occassional dubious sources. Epbr123 (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is more subtle than than that I believe. I think we can probably safely assume that "borderline" means that there is at least some doubt as to the reliability of the source, not that it is necessarily unreliable. My general rule of thumb for GA is to look not just at the source, but the significance of the information the source is cited in support of. I'd be perfectly happy for borderline sources to support relatively unimportant details, but not important facts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All good and relevant answers, I think (in the sense that RSN is the place to go for info on what's reliable rather than FAC).  I expect WT:RS will give us good stuff, too; this question of "I know it's not reliable as defined by Wikipedia, but it's not that bad, either" is a perennial question. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I was suggesting above, I think it's a mistake to think of every source as either reliable or unreliable. Reliable for what information, in what context, is the real question. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that it's sometimes wrong to label a particular source as either reliable or unreliable, as it depends on the context. But it is possible to decide whether a source is reliable for a specific context, eg. IMDB is considered reliable for filmography info but unreliable for biographical info. Epbr123 (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB was certainly one of the sources I was thinking of. Or, perhaps, closer to Hildanknight's heart, are all national newspapers equally reliable? Is The Singapore Times as reliable as The Times, for instance? Arguably, for Singapore-related material The Singapore Times may be more reliable, but less so for UK or international news. The question in my mind therefore isn't so much should a footnote be added back to the GA criteria stating that a small number of "borderline" sources are acceptable, but what "borderline" precisely means in the context of this discussion. If it's interpreted as meaning unreliable, then no, the GA criteria certainly ought not to be changed to allow that. If it means of undetermined, dubious, or variable reliability, then perhaps. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: To clarify my first point, if a source's reliability for a given context is undetermined or dubious, it is preferable for attempts to be made to establish whether the source is reliable, rather than for a GA reviewer to just be allowed to turn a blind eye to borderline sources. For example, if a reviewer doesn't know if IMDB is reliable in a certain context, they should try to find out, probably at WP:RSN, rather than ignore it. Epbr123 (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on your definition of "borderline". If the information sourced is not significant, then what's the point in an investigation into the reliability of the source? Your use of the term "blind eye" is also revealing I think. Adopting a pragmatic and realistic approach to reliable sources at GA is not at all the same thing as turning a blind eye. For fear of opening old wounds I will make no further comment on this topic, which I have now unwatched. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources with borderline reliability 

message: I was being bold and added sound as an item not eligible for being a GA, unless someone opposes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds 

message: From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Good Articles and WP Guidelines:  I would like to add this as a criteria:
* 7.  Complies with content policies and guidelines unless there is a clear reason to ignore a particular policy or guideline.  Unless they are self-evident, the reasons to ignore a content guideline or policy must be spelled out on the article talk page.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no case for doing this. Policies and guidelines apply to all articles. They surely inform the interpretation of the GA criteria, but there is no reason to make them part of the GA criteria. The Village Pump thread was started because of a single case. It is almost never a good idea to change guidelines based on a single case. Geometry guy 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably make life more difficult at GAN and GAR without significantly improving articles to add this to the criteria. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are not under our jurisdiction. If an article violates any official policy (such as WP:BLP), they should be reported to appropriate noticeboard (in this example, the correct venue would be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard) OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed criteria 7:  Comply with content policies and guidelines 

message: Hi, I just came across DeviantArt, and noticed that (1) it is sourced almost entirely with sources from deviantart.com and (2) it is classed as GA. Is this appropriate? It doesn't seem so. If not, where should I suggest a GAReview? Aleta Sing 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of this particular article, I am surprised it was promoted. I would supper putting it up for review. There's problems that go beyond the primary source issue (a GA can't use primary sources that often) Wizardman 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've created a community reassessment page at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/DeviantArt/1. Aleta Sing 17:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so a combination of primary and secondary sources should be used — certainly not primary only. — Deckiller 22:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA = sourced with primary sources??? 

message: Let me just express my personal belief that the criticism and controversies sections that pervade Wikipedia (especially biographies) are unencyclopedic. Try reading Britannica, Encarta, or World Book sometime. They never have criticism and controversies sections. Only Wikipedia does. Why? I believe they exist in Wikipedia because they attract editors who either (a) love scandal, or (b) have an agenda (often political) they want to push in an encyclopedia. Quite often, criticism and controversies sections take up a disproportionate portion of an article. I propose minimal or non-existent criticism and controversies sections as a criteria for good article status. By having minimal or non-existent criticism and controversies sections as a criteria, it would allow such sections to exist in those rare articles where they are truly warranted, but would give editors a strong incentive to remove frivolous criticism. Note that this proposal goes beyond just having WP:RS and WP:NPOV as criteria. Frivolous criticism and controversies are often backed up by reliable sources. That's because frivolity and reliability are entirely different concepts. NPOV, meanwhile, is often used as an excuse to add a criticism and controversy section. The existence of the section then entices editors to expand it, in order to fill in any missing criticism and controversies. Discouraging, but not banning, these sections are a great way to trim the fat. --JHP (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: criticism and controversies sections 

message: We're working on wikipedia-spotlight on Marco Polo but we don't have many reliable source on the web. We have however access to the 1947 edition of Venetian adventurer By Henry Hersch Hart which describes Marco's life in a very scientific and scholarly level. It has also received a good review and is cited by many other books. The problem is that the book was written in 1947 and I was wondering if that would pose a problem when nominating the article for GA or FA, thank you.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For a subject like that, I wouldn't think so.  The question is essentially how much scholarship on a given subject has advanced in the intervening years.  If you were using a 1947 book to write an article on, say, homosexuality, you'd probably be in some trouble.  But without knowing much about Marco Polo, my initial reaction is that it shouldn't be a problem there. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using an old book as a reference 

message: GAC2b currently says:
:it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons
I think that this would be better expressed as a list, and with slightly different wording:
:it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for:
:* direct quotations,
:* statistics,
:* published opinion,
:* counter-intuitive or controversial statements whose factual accuracy is likely to be challenged, and 
:* contentious material relating to living persons
The point behind making this a list is to emphasize that WP:V -- and therefore WP:GA -- does not actually require an "ideal" level of sourcing, and certainly not a one-to-one ratio between inline sources and sentences.  We have five specific kinds of statements that require citations, and everything else is technically optional.
The point behind the change in the wording is to emphasize that  is about factual accuracy, not "let's make editors find sources to support that the Earth is basically round, despite the fact that it's not required by any policy" WP:OVERTAGGING.  Additionally, it seems kind of stupid to specifically name the need for sources to support a claim that the reviewer believes is false.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "... whose factual accuracy is likely to be challenged". Sloppy. What other kind of accuracy is there? Non-factual accuracy? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's the "I'm challenging this unsourced statement because I'm being WP:POINTy or want to disrupt work on the article" kind of challenge.  Although you should assume good faith initially, bad faith does happen, and GA shouldn't hinge on resolving challenges of agreed-to-be-accurate facts that were done merely for the sake of "forcing" someone to add a ref, or to push the mainstream POV out of an article.  Accidental idiocy also happens:  Last month, someone actually fact-tagged a statement that said that people that cannot pass a practical driver's license test cannot legally drive.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: It is not a good idea to modify long-standing guidelines in the heat of the moment. WP:SCG is already in footnote 2 to 2b, and that is where it is needed. It isn't primarily a MoS issue, but a verifiability issue. Geometry guy 20:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is often ensuring that there is no original research. However, editors can stage citations in such a way that the result is OR. Only by actually checking the sources can this be discovered.  —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Part of the problem here is that some reviewers have not heard of WP:SCG, so presumably they have not noticed it in its footnote. I support giving it more visibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree 100% with this statement. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The only problem I see with "science articles in general", and this also applies to maths articles, is the citation requirement. It does appear to me that too many reviewers demand citations on a pound-for-pound basis, without looking at whether the material actually needs to be cited. My favourite example (can't find the link right now) was a request for citation that "most human beings have five fingers". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You bring up that example every time this issue comes up. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that invalidate my point in some way? Or does it just make me boring? To be clear, I have a science degree myself, and the issue I see here is the distinction between what is accepted as being almost axiomatic to those working in, or familiar with, the field, and mysteriously unexplained to those who aren't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If after all these years you can only come up with the same example over and over (and no link).   —Mattisse (Talk) 02:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, it is a particularly appealing example. On a different note, thanks very much for your feedback on the character GAN I'd posted about, Malleus. I did notice it, and genuinely appreciated your improvements and views. I'm still catching up with wikitasks, so hadn't quite replied yet. So, merci. –Whitehorse1 02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO in science articles we should not interpret "obvious" any differently from in other subjects - i.e. "obvious" should mean "... to non-specialist readers". I'd accept "most human beings have five fingers" without a citation, but e.g. I'd expect citations for most of the deductions in Exponential growth. Reducing the citation requirement for science topics assumes that the editor adding / changing  the unsourced content has got it right, has correctly judged what is common knowledge in the field and is not POV-pushing. If we relax the citation requirements for science, we'll get an increase in errors (to be publicised in Nature), WP:FRINGE "science" and POV-pushing. I understand that finding citations for "basics" can be harder than finding them for advanced concepts, because the journals take basics for granted so Google is not so helpful in finding refs for basics. But there's a simple solution - get a couple of 101-level textbooks from a library. --Philcha (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to 2b 

message: While the two-sentence GAR story is unfolding, let's fix that problem quickly by adding Wikipedia:SCG to 1(b). It only targets Mathematics, Physics, Molecular and cellular biology and Chemistry articles, which arguably requires a higher degree of precision yet without going over the edge on references. (P.S. For those who're lost, read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Mathematics GA status) OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a good idea to modify long-standing guidelines in the heat of the moment. WP:SCG is already in footnote 2 to 2b, and that is where it is needed. It isn't primarily a MoS issue, but a verifiability issue. Geometry guy 20:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is often ensuring that there is no original research. However, editors can stage citations in such a way that the result is OR. Only by actually checking the sources can this be discovered.  —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Part of the problem here is that some reviewers have not heard of WP:SCG, so presumably they have not noticed it in its footnote. I support giving it more visibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Agree 100% with this statement. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The only problem I see with "science articles in general", and this also applies to maths articles, is the citation requirement. It does appear to me that too many reviewers demand citations on a pound-for-pound basis, without looking at whether the material actually needs to be cited. My favourite example (can't find the link right now) was a request for citation that "most human beings have five fingers". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You bring up that example every time this issue comes up. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that invalidate my point in some way? Or does it just make me boring? To be clear, I have a science degree myself, and the issue I see here is the distinction between what is accepted as being almost axiomatic to those working in, or familiar with, the field, and mysteriously unexplained to those who aren't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If after all these years you can only come up with the same example over and over (and no link).   —Mattisse (Talk) 02:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, it is a particularly appealing example. On a different note, thanks very much for your feedback on the character GAN I'd posted about, Malleus. I did notice it, and genuinely appreciated your improvements and views. I'm still catching up with wikitasks, so hadn't quite replied yet. So, merci. –Whitehorse1 02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO in science articles we should not interpret "obvious" any differently from in other subjects - i.e. "obvious" should mean "... to non-specialist readers". I'd accept "most human beings have five fingers" without a citation, but e.g. I'd expect citations for most of the deductions in Exponential growth. Reducing the citation requirement for science topics assumes that the editor adding / changing  the unsourced content has got it right, has correctly judged what is common knowledge in the field and is not POV-pushing. If we relax the citation requirements for science, we'll get an increase in errors (to be publicised in Nature), WP:FRINGE "science" and POV-pushing. I understand that finding citations for "basics" can be harder than finding them for advanced concepts, because the journals take basics for granted so Google is not so helpful in finding refs for basics. But there's a simple solution - get a couple of 101-level textbooks from a library. --Philcha (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More proposed changes

message: It turns out that the citation requirements for FAC are exactly the same as for GA. Just whatever it takes to satisfy WP:V. So that should be good enough for GA also. Plus, medical articles should follow Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) in addition to Scientific citation guidelines. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V is open to interpretation, especially when it comes to inline citations (what does "challenged or likely to be challenged" mean in practice? Should a frivolous or ill-informed challenge count and what is a "likely" challenge?). GA2 attempts to capture the bare minimum acceptable (but still strict and non-negotiable) interpretation of verifiability. WP:MEDRS isn't explicitly part of the GA criteria, although it no doubt contains good advice. However, the message in criterion 2 has been strong and stable for nearly 2 years, and I'm happy with it. I'd like all the criteria to be similarly compelling. Geometry guy 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify what "stuck WP:MEDRS under GAN" involved? Thanks. Geometry guy 23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Mattisse, FAC requires every citation to be written out in full, in a perfectly consistent format, down the the last bit of punctuation -- literally:  the warning at WP:CITE about not mixing  with  is entirely due a difference of a single period between the two templates, and the number of FACs that were failed over it.  WP:V does not require such perfection of form.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I am going to bow out of this whole discussion. I have struck out my views. I don't have any more to say on any GA matter.  —Mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate discussion on MEDRS/V issues

message: Criterion 2b includes "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for ... contentious material relating to living persons". I suggest that per WP:BLP the qualification "contentious" be removed and this criterion should apply to any material relating to living persons. WP:BLP does not require inline citations, but it does require that all biographical material about a living person be verifiable. The only distinction that WP:BLP makes for contentious material is "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Comments? --Uncia (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that any and all biographical material require in-line citation. That will quickly lead to annoying over-citation. Majoreditor (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would imply that every sentence in a BLP should be cited. I don't support that. Geometry guy 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations for living persons: contentious material, or all material? (Criterion 2b) 

message: Does the availability of sources have an effect on how an article is being evaluated with regard to GA status? For example, if a section of an article cannot be improved because there are no additional reliable sources, would the article still possibly be a GA even if there is some content "missing"?  Cs32en  12:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on how significant the missing content is. GAs are not required to be comprehensive, simply to adequately cover the main topics of their subject. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My basic question is however: Does GA mean "good work, given the circumstances" or does it not take into account these circumstance, implying that some articles (where few reliable information is available) will very likely never become GAs? In many such cases, it is not easy to say how significant the missing content is, precisely because reliable sources on such content do not exist.  Cs32en  13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling is that an egregious gap may well prevent an article meeting criterion 3a. Sometimes one solution can be for the article itself to state that information is scant in a particular area (though that statement should of course come from a reliable source too). Another solution can be to narrow the focus of the article, avoiding the problem. As Malleus says, it depends on the article. EyeSerenetalk 16:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreeing with Moni. I'd go even further and say that if there really are few reliable sources then I'd be questioning whether there ought to be an article at all, not whether it could ever be a GA. If there are few reliable sources for one aspect of a topic, then the scope of the article would have to be carefully defined to exclude what can't be known. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the details, but, speaking generally, if the article covers all of the territory that the reliable sources do, then it is "complete", even if you are left wishing that human knowledge were more advanced than it is.  For example:  The cause of a particular cancer may be entirely unknown.  An article about that cancer is not permanently incomplete (until -- or if -- they figure out the cause).  Articles are never incomplete simply because information that a reader would hope (or even expect) to discover there is not yet known.  "Contains all the information that can be verified by a reliable source" really is the definition of completeness as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you consider it complete if it did not mention "causes" or made  vagues statements regarding "causes" with no attribution?  —Mattisse (Talk) 01:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I (as a reviewer) were aware that no information about "causes" were known, I would consider the article complete despite an absence of a statement like "The cause is unknown."  I have no objection to including such a lack-of-information statement, but I would not consider it necessary -- unless the absence of an identified cause were a big deal in the reliable sources.  (Think AIDS, before they isolated HIV.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that completeness does depend on the current state of knowledge - no-one would expect to find the cure for cancer here, but they should expect a sourced treatment of the current state of research in the field. If (hypothetically) we are dealing with a medical article, and it lacked some (or maybe even one, if it's important) of the sections that WP:MOSMED suggests, I'd want to know why. It's ultimately the reader we're trying to serve, so I think we need to consider how they'd react to an obvious gap. If a section is missing, is it because no information exists? Or is the author's research insufficient? If the former, why is there no information? The last question would certainly cause me to look again at the article as a whole - as Mal points out it may be an indication of notability or OR issues; the subject could be too recent for sufficient reliable sources to exist. EyeSerenetalk 09:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, "treatment" is a better example of what I was getting at.  —Mattisse (Talk) 12:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does availability of sources affect GA criteria? 

message: After the absolute farce that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who campfire trailer, there should be a notability clause added to the criteria similar to one for FAs. It's a no-brainer, actually: GAs are supposed to pass all of our policies and guidelines, including notability. Sceptre (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: WP:CAPTIONS and WP:IMAGES, both of which are linked from WP:WIAGA, mention alt texts; WP:CAPTIONS expressly asks for them. Is there currently a clear consensus to what extent the presence and condition of alt texts form part of the GA criteria? --JN466 00:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Improvements to articles of any kind are always encouraged, but alt texts are not required by the GA criteria. Geometry guy 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Aargh, no! I don't even think alt text ought to be part of the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, --JN466 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt texts part of WP:WIAGA? 

message: A proposal to promote this essay is underway.174.3.113.245 (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  wp:quote 

message: I don't really find anything in the ga criteria about that specifically. Thx.- Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The GA criteria do not address directly the issue of personality rights, so it is not a GA issue per se. However, you can ask whether images are appropriate to the content. For instance, if the role of the image is simply to identify the subject, is it the best free image available to do so? Or is such identification important within the context of the article? Advice from Commons about personality rights may also be helpful. Geometry guy 22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See also WP:IUP#Privacy_rights for the English Wikipedia's rules.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are images marked with a "Personality rights warning" acceptable in a Good Article? 

message: I'm looking at a potential GA candidate at the moment, and mulling over the sourcing. Currently, it's almost entirely drawn from a single source - it's a respectably scholarly secondary source, and it's scrupulously footnoted, so the reliability isn't an issue, but it doesn't feel quite right that something could go to GA without multiple sources; it's something I'd certainly pick up on myself when reviewing. On the other hand, it's not in the criteria. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 17:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong in principle with a GA being primarily based on a single reliable secondary source. However if other sources are available on the topic then the article could easily fail for lack of broadness or neutral point of view, as the single source may approach the topic from a particular perspective. If instead other sources are not available then the "secondary" nature of the source falls into question; this is not automatically a problem for obscure topics. A good reviewer will be alert to all of these issues and I think that is reflected in your own uneasiness concerning the article you have in mind. Geometry guy 23:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-sourcing? 

message: In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#On_citing_every_sentence I make a claim that modern day GAs require that all sentences (barring obvious case) require an inline citation. Some editors disagree. Perhaps some GA reviewers would like to chip in there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See criterion 2b. Such intense/prescriptive inline citation is not even required at FA level. Geometry guy 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good articles and inline citations 

message: At present, the age of an article is not an explicit criteria although it is an implicit stability criteria.  As you know it takes time to allow a number of interested editors to discover an article and to vet it.  I just reviewed an article that was nominated less than a day and a half after it was created.  I don't even know if the new page patrol has finished reviewing it before it became a GA nominee.  The article also had a merger proposal tag on it.  This should be grounds for a quick fail, if it is not expressly so already.  Accordingly, I propose to amend criteria 5 to read:
5. Stable:
(a) it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]
(b) it has been created at least 60 days prior to its nomination, and
(c) it is not the subject of a pending merger or renaming request.
I welcome the guidance and thoughts of others. By way of reference to some examples, please see La Stazione and Netball at the Olympics. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Racepacket, I would feel more comfortable about this if you had disclosed that you have been heavily involved in a contentious collection of GA nominations relating to this, and that you were the editor who added the merge proposal you mentioned above. I think it would be best to save substantial proposals like this one until some time when you are less embedded in related content disputes. -Pete (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I add that (c) seems ill-advised to me.  We don't want to let a strongly opposed merge (or split) proposal, or a trivial re-naming ("Alice Jones (doctor)" to "Alice Jones (physician)"), to interfere with GA work.  Establishing such a rule basically means that any thoughtless or bad-faith editor can sabotage a nomination at will, merely by proposing a merger or renaming.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that (b) runs counter to experience with articles. We have had articles pass FAC without 60 days' existence. Good content is good content regardless of purported age; the converse is also true where bad content will be bad content regardless of age. Imzadi 1979 →  04:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to amend Stability criteria 

message: Proposals and variations:
*1: the addition of 2(d): It contains no copyright violations.
*2: amending criteria 1 (a): "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;"
*3: Add "not plagiarized" (or something similar) to 1(a);
*4: Move 6(b) to 1(c) "it is illustrated, if possible, by images relevant to the topic with suitable captions";
*5: Incorporate 6(a) into a new criterion that a good article is "Free reusable content, without copyright violations..."
*6: "Free reusable content, text and images (where used) without copyright violations..."
Plagiarism is covered under copyvio. I'm comfy with current image criteria - though if looking for rewording: "if illustrated, the images are relevant to the topic, with suitable captions". Mmm. Having a footnote to include other media is awkward, so a reword of 6(a) would be useful:
*7: Ammend 6. Uses appropriate media:
::::::(a) if illustrated, the images are relevant to the topic, with suitable captions;
::::::(b) media (video, images, sound clips, etc) is tagged with appropriate copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
I am in favour of 2 and 7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Plagiarism is entirely separate from copyvio.  You can plagiarize a public domain text; you cannot violate its (non-existent) copyright.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At this moment, I think #2 is my favorite.  It seems like the smallest change that will get the job done.  I'm also open to leaving all of the existing criteria as they are, and adding a separate #7:  "It contains no copyright violations".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I could accept 2 and 7; however, although "and the spelling and grammar are correct" clause is long-standing, I'd like to see a footnote to WP:Engvar since the consistent use of British/American spellings such as e.g. colour/color, etc, are not grounds for rejection. Pyrotec (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Number 2 seems like the best option. It clearly gets around any problems with copying free content as well as covering images and text in one go. 1 and 3 are too specific as, if any small copyvio or plagiarism was missed, it could be problematic. 4 is a little unnecessary as being well written is not really anything to do with image inclusion. 5, 6 and 7 are all also to do with images and I think they would be best left in a criterion of their own. Nicely put SilkTork. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: Folks,
I recently initiated a good article reassessment of the song article Wait Your Turn, and I would hope it would interest editors who watch/participate in this talk page. 
The dispute basically comes down to how GA criterion #3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic") and its note ("This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.") square with a mistake to avoid ("Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources").
The article offers almost no information about the song's writing, recording or composition, which I think we can agree are the "main aspects" of the subject (the one other GAR participant genuinely interested in discussion agrees with me here), and the main editor and his friends are arguing that the criterion can be overlooked because the information is not available. I don't see how the criteria can reasonably be read to allow for that – the note says not every major fact must be included, but addressing the main aspects must require the presence of at least some major facts. Lax interpretation has plagued recent pop music GAs, principally because there is a clique of editors who routinely review each other's GANs. At GAR, the main editor of the article engaged in votestacking and quickly built up false consensus, then managed to persuade an administrator to abbreviate the GAR process because of the consensus. Apparently ~36 hours remain for others to participate before the administrator takes action. So I am asking you, so that there can be discussion from knowledgeable, disinterested editors, please chime in here. Thanks for your consideration. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a comment on the GAR. While I personally like to have recording details, such information is not always available, even for famous songs, so readers don't expect it. In this case the article already carries quite a lot of information and appears to satisfy the needs of most readers. I have added a sentence copied over from the album article which gives a recording date span. Others may have different opinions, but I think the article is OK, and I wouldn't push for a delist. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. I don't completely agree, but it's refreshing to read a thoughtful response as opposed to the indignation I'm seeing at GAR. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants needed at GAR 

message: Two related issues, which affect GAs as much as FAs
I recently opposed a FAC on the grounds that included non-English place- and company-names, that weren't marked up with .
This touches on the wider issue on checking that GA/fA candidate articles uses the proper mark-up in other cases, such as quotations, lists and headings, rather than kludges.
If there is general agreement that such things should be checked, I'd be willing to help draft guidelines (or a checklist), based on existing MoS criteria, and suggest that we add a new GA criterion 1(c), to the effect that "Markup: is consistent, accessible and semantically meaningful".
Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one, but you probably wouldn't like it, so I'll keep it to myself. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too keen on adding yet another criterion for what I view to be a minor issue. Majoreditor (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The GA criteria focus on the basics. This is not one of them. Geometry guy 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This could be dealt with by adding accessibility to the list of MoS requirements in 1b. Or by making accessibility a policy... —WFC—  22:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-English content; robust markup 

message: Is there anything in the criteria for reviewing articles that rely heavily on quotes. I can think of a few song articles that almost consist entirely of quotes (see Fading (song) for a recent example}. Another example are sections in relatively controversial articles such as the motivation section of Seattle Jewish Federation shooting (I ended up failing it as the nominator retired}, which consisted of just three large quotes. Is this reason enough alone to fail such articles? AIRcorn (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote heavy nominations 

message: Please offer your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#GAs_with_five_or_more_intro_paragraphs. Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: When do we allow more than four paragraphs in the lead section? 

message: 1. Images. Why are they ALL supposed to be right justified? I can understand that images which appear at the beginning of a section which are left justified will make the layout awkward. But for an image that is placed somewhere in the middle of a section, sometimes it adds a lot of visual balance to have it on the left. Otherwise, as I read these articles with lots of only-right-justified images my head starts titling rightward. Also, is this a WP:MOS issue or one that is actually relevant to GA?
2. Footnotes. Ones which add a little bit of extra information to standard article text. Of course they should be sourced. But does the inline citation for them - in a GA class article - go into the footnote itself or does it go at the end of the sentence which the footnote is referencing? In many cases, it'd be the same inline citation inserted twice. Thoughts?
 Volunteer Marek  02:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused. Where in the GA criteria do you see that all images must be right-aligned? Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. In WP:MOS it does say "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement." I'm not exactly clear on if this means that images which are placed at the beginning of sections should be right justified (which makes sense to me) or ALL images should be right justified. Volunteer Marek  03:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: GAs aren't required to conform to all of the MoS, unlike FAs. Deploy common sense and see what works best. If you want clarification on the MoS, then best to raise that issue on its talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think anyone will fail a GAN simply because an image is not right-justified. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: MOS is saying that the default position, if it is not specified, is the rightmost edge of the screen. WP:LAYOUT discusses left and right images, warning that mobile devices with web browsers do not necessarily put images where they have been coded. MOS:Images discusses a popular option in which "multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". The whole section MOS:Images#Forced left justification exists because left justification is allowed rather than prohibited. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I always put the inline citation in the footnote and most articles I have seen with them do the same. You don't need to insert it twice. If it is in the footnote it doesn't need to be in the article body. I don't really see it as an issue for passing a GA, as long as it's there and is reasonably obvious what information it cites. AIRcorn (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. It's like "mainbody text sentence.[1-sentence reference][a-footnoote indication]" and "footnote section, footnote a.[2-footnote reference]". I hope this is clear. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 05:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Re question 1 - I thought that the MOS main page was not part of the GA criteria?  The footnote says "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles."  Re question 2 - you can see how to nest a reference within a footnote at Help:Footnotes. --Malkinann (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two question 

message: I'm consistently getting reviewers complaining about references that are allowable under WP:SPS and/or WP:SELFPUB in my GA candidates.  For example, in my current nomination, an actor's height is sourced to his own web page(!), and multiple comments on actors are sourced to the blog of the books' author and series executive producer.  They're not "reliable sources", but they are sufficient to meet WP:V, and the best sources for those particular facts.
Would anyone object to a footnote clarifying that such sources, used properly, can exist within a GA? Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue I have is not that these sources are being used, but that an entire section (the production) does not have a single reliable source in it. For reference the current review is Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/GA1. AIRcorn (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't unique to the current review; it's been raised in other reviews, by other reviewers, and you've been more gracious than most.  I think there's a disconnect that should be remedied, to provide more consistent guidance in such cases, so that nominators who are using the best available sourcing won't have to rely on varying interpretations of WP:WIAGA. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Aircorn, I'm not sure I understand the complaint.  Is it your opinion that sources defined by WP:SPS as being reliable are somehow not reliable?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We are working through them, trying to come to an agreement about if/how to use them and with what attribution. For example should an interview conducted by a fan site be attributed in text to the fan site? It is now attributed. I am not even sure where fan-sites sit in regards to WP:SPS? AIRcorn (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference this was discussed at the reliable source noticeboard here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published material 

message: Under the Good Article Criteria, do all images need to have WP:ALT text?
This review is provided for reference: (6b) Talk:500 euro note/GA1 – Plarem (User talk contribs) 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, alt text is not a requirement for a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture question 

message: Under the Good Article Criteria, do all images need to have WP:ALT text?
This review is provided for reference: (6b) Talk:500 euro note/GA1 – Plarem (User talk contribs) 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, alt text is not a requirement for a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture question 

message: Under the Good Article Criteria, do all images need to have WP:ALT text?
This review is provided for reference: (6b) Talk:500 euro note/GA1 – Plarem (User talk contribs) 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, alt text is not a requirement for a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture question 

message: The article Kings Island has recently been reviewed as fail status because of multiple lists. Why is it that an article should fail because of this? see below for response by reviewer.--Nickvet419 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Comment without prejudice: Neither the GA criteria nor WP:EMBED require that articles should not contain lists. What is needed is thought, balance, and compromise.) Geometry guy 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, did I make the wrong decision on Kings Island? It had a fair amount of prose, but many many lists (13, I think) plus several timelines and other listy things. Should the editor be encouraged to renominate? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the article's current form. The issue is not just the many formatted tables, but the bullet point attitude (e.g. on notable people. slogans) that pervades the article. Such formatting sometimes adds value to an article, making it easier to digest, but overuse, as in this case, is a clear reason to fail. Geometry guy 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one that nominated Kings Island for GA review. I feel everything in the article is right for an amusement park article. It contains all the information to know the park and nothing more. The only think I would get rid of is the notable people. --Astros4477 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made a valuable contribution. I hope you have also learned a little about what the GA criteria mean. Geometry guy 01:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple lists fail? 

message: Hi! If a page has been nominated for GA status, but fails, may it later be improved and again nominated for GA status?  Let me know!  Thank you. Mjscheer (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, you can nominate it immediately (there's no time barrier), or fix it up and nominate it.  MathewTownsend (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA eligibility if page has previously failed 

message: Not sure if I'm posting this in the right place, but I find it hard to believe that the article on David Irving meets WP:NPOV by any stretch, much less qualify as a "Good Article".  I tried putting the not-NPOV tag on it, but it was quickly removed.
I am not going to bother providing a list of things that make it clearly not NPOV.  I think it will be obvious to any objective, fair-minded person who has read the article.  I can also see from the article's Talk Page history that I am not the first person to point out the bias and gotten nowhere.  
Listing this here so whatever powers that be can take a look at the page and decide for themselves whether they think it meets Wikipedias WP:NPOV stance, especially to qualify as  "Good Article". Emeraldflames (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no "powers that be". To ask for a community reassessment of the GA status, you may list it at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. However, not bothering to provide reasons why it is clearly not NPOV won't get you anywhere. maclean (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Status of David Irving 

message: I have recently notice some very short (less than 2k of prose/3-4 short paragraphs) good articles.  I understand that broad in coverage, doesn't mean comprehensive (as per footnote), but if such a short article can truly be a GA it seems the criteria has no meaning whatsoever.  In my own reviews, I have always expected every major aspect of the subject to at least get a couple paragraphs of coverage.  Am I way off base here, or should I consider asked for the offending articles to be re-reviewed? --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Got an example or two for us to consider? Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Delaware Route 17 specifically motivated the Q, but I've seen several others.  Kinda makes me feel silly for saying Alapalooza was on the short side for a GA in a recent review (not too short, though, as I passed it). --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Length isn't really an issue, it is more whether the article provides appropriate coverage based on the sources available. This varies a lot with the type of article. Articles with a narrow focus, like a short road or a song, may not have much information available on them so could be very short. A broad article, like on a country or a genre of music, will have more information that can be used to write the article. I have questioned the notability of some of these short road articles (see Talk:M-147 (Michigan highway)#Notability), but that is really a separate issue to whether they meet the Good Article criteria. For a really short article that was nominated see McDoolan (baseball). Common sense prevailed, but I am not sure it necessarily failed any of the criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely, there is a point when there simply is not enough information on a subject for it to meet GA. WP:Reviewing good articles says "Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria."  To me, broad means broad - it doesn't mean if  very little is written in RS about this subject it gets a free pass. Am I wrong? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am actually glad to see that. I was always under the impression that broad relied on what sources were available and it has been the way I have seen a few go at WP:GAR. It does seem to cast doubt on some of those very short articles passing. AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Articles containing at least five long paragraphs (excluding lead section) about a Singaporean disability organisation and celebrity blogger are supposedly not broad, while articles containing three short paragraphs (excluding lead section) about American roads are supposedly broad? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

text: A straw-poll of Delaware Route articles indicates many are cookie-cutter affairs with an identical set of references, to 7 or 8 maps and 1 PDF, at least five of which are arguably from the same primary source. All GAs. e.g. Delaware Route 42, Delaware Route 286, Delaware Route 17. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bringing the statement here will give it more weight and hopefully make it more visible. I was up into a little while ago under the impression that every article should have the potentially be a Good and another experienced reviewer mentioned the same thing at the reassessment. The competition thing was only encouraged due to the recent backlog drive, and is something I have been against for a while now. Do you have an idea on how to reword the Broadness criteria to remove the passing (and keeping) of "quasi stub" good articles without affecting the legitimate short articles? I don't think your last point is entirely fair, there are arguable Good articles that are better than Featured ones too. AIRcorn (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

text: As a comment, what I would argue with the Delaware Route 17 article is that it fails notability guidelines - much less GA.  Most the sources appear to be from the Delaware DOT or related, and regardless all are primary.  Heck, this would even fail the third-party test from WP:V.  If an article is truly notable, the coverage it gains from sources will likely meet the GA "broadness" factor due to the rigors of having independent secondary sources.  --MASEM (t) 14:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, this point has been brought up by several editors during the review, but all must have thought that it would survive the very lax implementation of the notability criteria on the English Wiki, hence nobody actually nominated it. Since I want this issue to progress, I will nominate it for AfD, on behalf of all those who suggested it fails WP:N. But, if it will survive the AfD, please come back and help find a solution for articles like this. --ELEKHHT 14:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Interpretations of what's "reasonable" are highly divergent and problematic. In the above example for instance the majority "consensus" has been that is not reasonable to expect to know what's the width of the road the article is about, what speed limit is in force along the road, how many traffic lights are there, what materials is the road made of, neither should one reasonably expect to know the exact date of construction, etc (is a long list I will not repeat here). --ELEKHHT 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Your position is inconsistent; all articles should meet the GNG, nothing to do with the GA criteria. If they don't meet the GNG then they should be deleted. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, all articles are supposed to meet WP:N which says they should should notability through the GNG or meet one of the subject-specific notability guidelines like WP:BIO.  This is usually taken as a minimum requirement to have an article.  But it's also a presumption that the topic is really notable, allowing those that only meet the subject-specific guideline time to grow and find sources to become better.  There is no requirement that articles need to meet the GNG , though that certainly is an ultimate goal. In line with that, we want all articles to be viable candidates for GA, and the sources requires that GA demands are nearly always meet by meeting the GNG and aren't met if the GNG is not met. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are very many articles that could never meet the GA criteria, so that's certainly not any kind of a goal. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If a standard article is going to meet the GNG, then it likely will be able to meet GA requirements. It may take time (which is why there's no deadline) and require a good deal of writing to get the right tone in place, or time to get other sources.  I can't imagine a case where if an article that has passed the GNG cannot be GA material with some elbow grease to get it there. Articles that can't be a GA because they can't get GNG should be merged to larger topics that don't have that same issue.  --MASEM (t) 22:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation I see it is that despite GNG, many minor articles with minimal sources are kept, per majority "consensus" of editors with special interest for the subject. From the moment these articles are kept per consensus is no point debating any longer if they meet the notability criteria. As long Wikipedia is still chasing article numbers as its primary aim, this trend is likely to continue. These articles will stay in a stub or quasi-stub status until new sources are published or additional sources discovered. Some of these articles are being promoted as GA given they have full coverage of available sources. For the DR17 article the same majority "consensus" concluded that full coverage of available sources is equivalent with "broad coverage". The GA criteria page only makes it explicit that stubs cannot be GA, it does not make it explicit that articles only little more than a stub also cannot be GA as they cannot meet the criteria for broad coverage. If the criteria is not changed, we'll continue to have such articles promoted as GA. --ELEKHHT 22:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a well established principle that pretty much any geographical feature represented on a map will meet the GNG criteria, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why this statement appears as an answer to my text, as it does not address the issue I was raising. --ELEKHHT 23:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Actually, the only established geographic features that get "free rides" in notability are population centers that get that leeway, because it is assumed that GNG sources will come about from people living there. People don't live on roads or other geographical features, ergo they don't gain automatic passage. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true either. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

text: That's simply untrue. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, GNG and GAN have little to do with each other. YE  Pacific Hurricane 23:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm trying to say is that I cannot think of a case where an article can meet GAC's "Broad in coverage" requirement and still fail the GNG's need for significant coverage in secondary sources.  I realize they are two different types of sourcing, but in essence you can't have one without the other. If you can show me a case, outside of these road articles, where "broad in coverage" has been met but the GNG hasn't (yet still is notable by a subject-specific guideline), then there's no reason to connect. But I really think that while the issues of notability and handling that should remain separate from GA, the factor of the notability of an article is a necessary part of being a GA when it comes to basic sourcing. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For easy targets you could look at the individual song GA's. They share a lot of similarities with the road articles. The majority are cookie cutter affairs with similar sourcing issues (Billboards, iTunes etc), have clear seemingly non-negotiable notability criteria (charting vs being a state roads) that do not necessarily coincide with WP:GNG and are maintained by an active group of close-knit editors. The only part of a song article where GNG and Broadness have to meet is in the reception sections. However in many cases they simply link to an album review and expand on a one sentence mention of the song. It is very seldom that you will find a source dedicated to just a single song or even anything approaching significant coverage. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen (song) for a similar deletion debate to the current road one and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1 for a similar reassessment. Some television episodes fall into this category as well, although most mainstream ones have whole articles dedicated to them in high profile newspaper/magazines. AIRcorn (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification requested on "broad in coverage" 

message: Hi,
Taylor Swift has 550 citations. Simple statements like this has four citations: "In May 2012, Swift contributed vocals to "Both of Us", a Dr. Luke-produced single from B.o.B's second album Strange Clouds.[267][268][269][270]"!
The article has reached the template limit of the wiki software and can't accept any more. See Template issues on the talk page.  MathewTownsend (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't looked at this, but in general, three or four citations in a row is a red flag to me. --Rschen7754 17:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, articles with more than about 100 sources, no matter the length, are misusing primary sources.  For a BLP, one likely problem is misusing news stories, which are mostly, but not always, primary sources.  See WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more information.  NPOV requires articles to "be based on reliable, published secondary sources", so an over-reliance on primary sources is a GACR failure under criterion 2(c).   WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't seem to be primary sources, although there may be an AP article, then an article in say, the Seattle Times based on the AP article. I haven't checked them all so I don't know. (Who wants to check 550 sources, but it passed GA with those sources.) Mostly it seems to be  the use of every conceivable reliable source mention - even if it just repeats basically the same information. There doesn't seem to be a policy/guideline regarding this sort of thing, but it's ridiculous.  MathewTownsend (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that what you describe sounds excessive, but I wouldn't alter GA criteria to deal with it.  Let the FA crowd pare them down to a more reasonable level if the author wants to go that far. :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there such a thing as too many citations? 

message: Following discussion above I am requesting comment regarding changing the wording of the quickfail criteria from its current version to the version presented at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Alternative version-1. The changes will remove the word quickfail from the criteria and emphasise an "instant fail" (that is a fail without holding). The previous quickfail criteria of cleanup tags and copyright infringements are still presented as reasons to fail an article without further review. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Those points are still there in the alternate version.  It says "If the article is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria ..." and edit warring is listed as criterion #5, etc. --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: New wording of the quickfail criteria 

message: Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC#Add a mandatory copyvio/close paraphrasing check to the GAN process. Adabow (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add to the GA criteria 

message: :"a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article"
I don't understand this. A good article gets promoted to featured article status and makes the front page and somehow is no longer a good article any more and needs to be rereviewed? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: GA is a lower status than FA. If an article is promoted to FA from GA, it is removed from the list of GAs and added to the list of FAs. If an article is delisted as a FA, it does not automatically regain any GA status it might have held before. To regain either GA or FA status once lost, the article would need to be re-reviewed. Imzadi 1979 →  23:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA>FA>? 

message: Shouldn't the shortcut WP:GAC redirect people to this page? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree.  Unless anyone has a good reason why not I would support such a change. meshach (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was done this way to be consistant with other projects. For example WP:FAC redirects to featured article candidates so it is not unreasonable to think that someone might think WP:GAC means Good article candidates. Does not bother me personally and with the new headers it is a bit redundant anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut 

message: As the original proposer of this change, I have some specific ideas about what changes need to be made but I haven't time to draft them yet. I probably should have drafted them as the RFC was coming to a close but I was intending to open a discussion here at that time and wasn't expecting someone else to do it right away. I will probably propose some changes to the wording of the GA review tables in the next day or two. In the meantime, we may need to have a discussion about whether only a spot check should be required or a thorough check - if only a spot check, we may need to define what that means exactly. Gatoclass (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By "thorough check" do you mean every source? If so, why on earth would we do that? FAC doesn't even require that... Spot checks (checking a few sources to make sure there's no obvious copyvio, with an especially close eye on any places where the prose/refs seem hinky) are more than adequate for both FAC and GAN. Obviously there is a scale of checks: new nominators and nominators who have had problems with copyvio before should have their work checked especially closely, but this is just common sense, not something that we need to codify and create instruction creep with. Dana boomer (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well said. A voice of reason at last. Pyrotec (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would also suggest that practicality is considered, something that is quite quick and easy to run on a typical 6 to 10 citations, and expectionally just over 20 citations DYK, based on today's "did you know" may well fall over on a large 200 to 250 citation GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, assuming there is consensus for a spot check only, we might want to add a few words to the guideline per Dana boomer's comment above outlining what a spot check consists of. Gatoclass (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

text:  Also, what is meant tables, we don't have tables, do you mean the (optional) review templates at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates? Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we adequately covered "spot checks" back in the August 2011 update to the quidelines see below. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft proposals pending 

message: ::::: OK. I'll go through this step by step. The guidance is given at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. In it there is a section Assessing the article and providing a review, and Step 1, item 7 states: "The article is free of obvious copyright violations. Reviewers can use several tools, as well as Google searches, to help establish whether material has been plagiarised or cut-and-paste from some of the electronic sources used; but this is not a trivial undertaking. Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained.". That part has not changed very much in the last two years. The clause seems to have added by User:Chaosdruid during a series of edits on 4th August 1911. There was a very long discussion on copyvio checking this talk page in August 2011 and a extensive range of editors took part. (See here). Incidentally, 2011 was probably the last big war of words between DYK and GAN over copyvio checks, lack of them and which system was better. It would be nice it we could avoid a rerun / return match.  Pyrotec (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a matter of interest, what is the written policy of DYK for doing such checks? Pyrotec (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm make the point that I made above yet again. This is "spot testing" and it can only test against what the reviewer "asks" the search engine to look for. If a book (journal, newspaper etc) is only partially digitised on Amazon, Google books, etc, or not all, and someone has copied the material that is not digitised and/or they've copied something that the reviewer has not "asked" the search engine to look for then it's not going to be found. I'll make another point, let us say that there is a strong match between what is in the article and what is on another website (which claims copyright): which came first, it is not unknown for sites to copy from wikipedia and then claim ownership. Obviously, in such a case the article review gets put "on Hold" for the copyvio to be resolved, but it  could result in the article being passed at a later date, on the basis that the material was on wikipedia prior to it appearing on the other site. Pyrotec (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: August 2011 guidelines

message: This keeps coming up, so I've expanded a footnote to directly tell reviewers to stop fussing about whether the citations are perfectly formatted.  Compliance with CITE has never been required.  It just seems in this instance, some reviewers assume that the omission of CITE means that it is one of the requirements.  I kind of assume that this is because it's easier to figure out whether an article looks good rather than whether it is good, but at this point, it may well be one of those urban legends that new reviewers believe because some old reviewer told them that it was required. 
If anyone objects, then of course we could have an RFC to see whether perfectly formatted citations should be added as a criteria.  I'd personally oppose that, but perhaps others like the idea of failing articles because of inconsistent formatting or the failure to include a publisher's name in every citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I ran into this in a review just a week back. It was definitely overdue for clarification. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

text: I also think this change is a useful clarification.  – Quadell (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: I reviewed Pharnavaz I of Iberia, and then found out that the editor who nominated the article, User:Jaqeli, was topic banned from articles that deal with Georgia and Armenia together. I requested an outside opinion from users involved with the topic ban of Jaqeli, and while I waited for that, the Jaqeli edited the article to satisfy the problems that I found during the review process. Because of this editing, Jaqeli has been blocked for two weeks. But Pharnavaz I of Iberia now satisfies the criteria for GA. How should I proceed? May I promote an article for GA even though the editor who nominated it and brought it up to snuff is topic banned?--¿3family6 contribs 13:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination and improvements from a topic banned editor 

message: Yesterday, the "Links" section of WP:LAYOUT was removed on the grounds that it is not a layout issue and is already covered in other MOS pages.  In theory, this means that the linking requirements are no longer part of the GA requirements.  Our choices are either to let linking be dropped from GA requirements, or to add Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking (or part of it) to the GA requirements to maintain the status quo. SpinningSpark 00:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see how you made the leap from snipping a redundant passage of the MOS to dropping a portion of the GA requirements. Prhartcom (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because WP:LINK is not currently in the GA criteria.  Linking issues were only a requirement by virtue of being in WP:LAYOUT (this is criterion 1b we are talking about).  Now they are not in WP:LAYOUT, linking is apparently not a GA requirement any longer.  It's a very simple question, do we wish to continue having linking as a requiremnent?  I think we should, especially as the change has happened by "default" rather than an explicit decision here, but as that would require the criteria to be modified I am asking here first. SpinningSpark 10:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (FYI, the way you brought this up was pretty confusing.) No, now that I understand you, I don't think so. I am only one voice, but re-read the five points mentioned by 1b to see if a linking requirement is there, then take a look at the footnote for criterion 1b. Lest you say that the second of the five points is concerned with linking, I do not agree; it is concerned with visual layout; I don't think the two are related (It did used to have an links section, yes). You may be right, though. You can try to revert the person who cut the links section from the layout page and/or raise this topic and your concern on the Talk page there, and you can wait to see if others voice their thoughts here. It's a pretty big deal to actually add text to the GA criteria. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an issue with the change to WP:LAYOUT and don't particularly want it reverted.  It is the effect of that change on GA that needs discussing.  Your reasoning does not make sense.  I already know that WP:LINK is not listed explicitly.  That's the whole reason I brought it up.  We specify those five guidelines because we think the content should be adhered to, not because there are only five guideline titles that need be considered. I don't see how just maintaining the status quo is going to be a big deal—and that's all it would be, putting back a requirement that had become accidentally removed. SpinningSpark 22:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think that this one of the five is not about content, but is about format. But hopefully others will give their thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking requirement 

message: Critical response to She Has a Name, Good Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.
Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name. 
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion