Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Quality versions

message: What is the standard going to be.  Featured article is an unreasonable standard.  Even a "Start class" article could well merit a quality version, and most "B class" articles will deserve them.  Frankly, any article that doesn't have a degree of incompleteness that amounts to either being a stub or being an NPOV problem in coverage probably can qualify, so long as it is reasonably sourced.  GRBerry 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, FA standards are largely superficial. Good sourcing and basic completeness should be the focus here. Voice-of-All 02:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "certain standard" 

message: Reading Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions I don't think that "For logged-in users the option to display the current (default) or quality version of the article would be a user preference." should be part of this proposal. I don't think that flaggedRevs can do this. Can someone clarrify?  Adam McCormick 19:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it can't. Though the hooks in the core seem usable by the extension if such a thing were to be added. Voice-of-All 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarrification 

message: See here.--Eloquence* 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dead link as of today. Wjhonson (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial demo set up 

message: Page needs a nutshell.  Let's start working on it. Wjhonson (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some big changes that should be reverted then maybe discussed ;). I did this because it seems en:wiki is more interested in Sighted Versions... but I think this one is "the real deal"! Perhaps, I'm just hurrying too much, and clearly we should start with sighted version, where quality flags are only used by OTRS and other emergencies.  --Merzul (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nutshell

message: Won't this will further increase the workload of crats? Can't this right be given by admins as well? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is configurable, and therefore a matter for discussion. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: But it's better to discuss it now rather than after it's implemented. Less conflicts and issues would occur this way. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only crats can dish this out? 

message: This is a wonderful idea, but I would like to point out a few things.
*Wikipedia has two aspects to it: the ongoing processing of articles, and the Projects of completing articles databases in their areas of knowledge - yes, one day in the dim future Wikipedia Projects will be obsolete because all its articles will be completed to as far a completeness
*The process as it works currently creates enormous friction due to the high number of articles that are either complete rejects from the start (and flagged for deletion), or worse, are stubs,and require substantial editing by more regular Wikipedia editors, preventing them from participating on GA/FA articles. I'm not sure what the percentage are across Wikipedia, but it seems to me that about 80% of new articles are below desired Start status on creation. 
*With this in mind, it seems to me that the QA process needs to start "at the gate" as it were. Its fine for anyone and everyone to create articles on any conceivable subject, but I would like to suggest that no article can be added to Wikipedia without some basic components such as: At least one source, At least the defining article subject introductory statement referenced, the appropriate Project tag in the Talk, and at least one category. The Category:Uncategorised needs to be eliminated because it has just become a dump for articles and it serves no purpose as a category other then to tell the reader that Wikipedia has no idea where the article belongs in the greater scope of human knowledge.
*It would be good if if QA was coordinated with the Categorisation people.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  QA process