Wikipedia talk:Good article usage

There are 108 articles in the current survey.

Initial Survey links (18 Natural sciences, 1 Mathematics)
Responses: #1-2, 4-8, 10-12, 18.
 * , Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season
 * , Talk:Atmosphere of Venus
 * , Talk:Beringia
 * , Talk:Cyclone Jokwe
 * , Talk:Cygnus X-1
 * , Talk:Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Alabama
 * , Talk:Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Mississippi
 * , Talk:Fleiss' kappa
 * , Talk:Formation and evolution of the Solar System
 * , Talk:Geyser
 * , Talk:Henoch-Schönlein purpura
 * , Talk:History of aspirin
 * , Talk:Hurricane Lili
 * , Talk:Mid-October 2007 tornado outbreak
 * , Talk:Noble gas
 * , Talk:Ornatifilum
 * , Talk:Surface weather observation
 * , Talk:Tropical Storm Fay (2002)
 * , Talk:Wrought iron

Surveys added Apr 20
General WP:GAN headings are: Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, Natural sciences and Miscellaneous.

Culture and society
Responses: #2.
 * 1)   Ursasapien (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  -  Rob  (  talk  ) 15:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Efe (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Education

 * 1)   Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Economics and business
Responses: #2, 4.
 * 1)  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Kgrr (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  SeanMack (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Lawikitejana (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Law
Responses: #5.
 * 1)  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 06:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Politics and government
Responses: #1, 3, 5, 13.
 * 1)  Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Jannisri (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)   скоморохъ  20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Kaypoh (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  Teh Rote (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8)  MrPrada (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  Sethant (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10)   Jerrch  02:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12)  Van Tucky  20:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13)  Happyme22 (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14)  Valenciano (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Geography
Responses: #3.
 * 1)  Peripitus (Talk) 03:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Editorofthewiki 01:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Milonica (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) --Milonica (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  Savidan 03:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Places
Responses: #5.
 * 1)  JKeene (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Kaypoh (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Chrisfortier (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  TreveXtalk 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  TreveXtalk 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

World history
Responses: #2, 4, 5, 9.
 * 1)  Celtus (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --Kaypoh (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Ealdgyth - Talk 03:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Michel Doortmont (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  qp10qp (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  Ealdgyth - Talk 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8)  Ealdgyth - Talk 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  Wily D  22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

War and military
Responses: #5, 8, 13.
 * 1)   Wizardman  19:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN [[User talk:WBOSITG|tell me a joke...
 * 3)  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Kaypoh (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)   serious revamping since its previous nomination in June 2007 Cam (Chat) 18:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  --Kaypoh (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  --Kaypoh (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8)  Tourskin (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  Kumioko (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10)  Denis Tarasov (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  --Kaypoh (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12)  Outdawg (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13)  EasyPeasy21 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14)  Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 07:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15)   Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  23:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 16)  --Kaypoh (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Computing
Responses: #1
 * 1) soum talk 05:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) soum talk 05:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Engineering

 * 1)  BJ Talk 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 18:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Noodle snacks (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Transport
Responses: #4, 5.
 * 1)  Mitch 32contribs  20:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Kaypoh (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Dbm11085 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)   ErgoSum88 (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk ) 21:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  Mitch 32contribs  20:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  Mitch 32</b><sup style="color:red;">contribs  13:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mathematics
Responses: #1.
 * 1)  Jakob.scholbach (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Biology and medicine
Responses: #1.
 * 1)  ; WikiProject Equine; Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  CrazyChemGuy (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  79.68.227.117 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Meteorology and atmospheric sciences
Responses: #2, 6.
 * 1)  ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical  <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  (self-nom) Thegreatdr (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  (self-nom) Thegreatdr (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  (self-nom) Thegreatdr (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical  <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  00:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  --Kaypoh (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
Responses: #1-2.
 * 1)  T i a m u t talk 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Article has gone through dramatic changes since its last GA review. Chaldean (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Starting things off...
As I've written and re-written this comment I've realised I'm not as sure as I thought about the right answer here. I guess part of the problem lies in the categorisation system, because the "A" class is largely redundant and/or ignored.

In favour of insisting that GAs are written in accordance with the MoS are at least two points:
 * It is perhaps the only time that anyone will take the effort to meticulously check the articles for the smaller points, which has the positive effect of making it easier and more pleasant to read for all readers
 * It familiarises editors with the MoS so they think about little things in their day to day editing. (For instance I'm careful to add an &nbsp: between numbers and units as a result of passing GAs, something that would never have occurred to me otherwise).

Against it:
 * It discourages people from submitting articles with good content, but poor style, with the aim of "earning recognition" by achieving a good article status.

If we want to encourage people to add content, but don't really care about style, then perhaps we could remove the requirements of the MoS from the GA process. If we want Wikipedia to look professional and be easy to read, we should keep the MoS requirements in place.

I suspect the rest of any discussion here will be dominated between two irreconcilable groups: one with the first viewpoint, one with the second.

Perhaps a way to reconcile the two would be to make more distinction between "GA" and "A" class. Perhaps GA could be for articles with good content, and A could represent those that are complete and well edited. This would encourage people to add content (to make things GA), but not to forget about the article once it reached this stage (which, remember, is defined as being "good enough", not "good"): the incentive to tidy and expand the article to push for an achievable and well defined "A" class would be available.

I suspect that the argument there is that the "A" class is reserved for articles that will never make FA for one reason or another, but in my humble opinion, one never really notices A class articles, nor does anyone think "Hmm, let's put some time into making such and such a GA into a A".

There's my two cents, for whatever it's worth. I look forward to seeing how this discussion evolves!

Verisimilus  T  18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's important that we not give any impression of what the right survey answers are, or it will bias the survey results (not that you did, but I'm hoping the conversation doesn't evolve into a set of right and wrong answers before the survey is complete). And, in fact, I don't know what the right perspective is.  I know that some articles in Wikipedia should look in many ways like other online encyclopedias, because that gives us a certain dignity, and it will appeal to academics, journalists and professionals who are used to reading professionally-copyedited material.  We need to appeal to them.  I also know that, if we only allow editors on Wikipedia who write like professional copyeditors, we're in deep trouble :)  We wouldn't even have enough editors to keep up with the vandalism.  So, the best thing is just to acknowledge that different editors will have different styles, abilities, and goals, and their writing will not always conform to well-known style guides, and let's just survey them, see what they're doing, and see what works. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding A-class, see Martin's recent statement that they are important to some wikiprojects here: Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Verisimilus if I thought WP:MOS had any save the most tangential relationship with professional copyediting, but it does not: most of it is some editor's prejudices, having little warrant in English usage. When it does relate to English, it represents one of the national varieties of English, to the exclusion of others. (And when, by chance, it represents something accurately, it is not consulted; I have seen reviewers insist and object to the serial comma, although MOS actually says, correctly, that either is good English.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I probably don't want to respond til May 1 when the survey is over. But discussion on any of these points is welcome. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Contentment
31 out of 31 respondents (Julian answered 5 times, others only answered once) at the WP:GAU survey either indicated that they wanted more feedback on the article in question, or indicated in some way that they were happy with the process as a whole. I don't want to make too much of that, but it does at least answer one question. There are people who claim that the style guidelines and article reviewers are terrible and get little respect, and I was happy to see no evidence of that from this random survey. (rewritten and transferred from project page) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Not especially. Beejaypii (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)" (Blackburn article)
 * "No, not really. Happyme22 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)" (George Bush article)
 * Difficult to understand how those responses can be interpreted as wanting more feedback on writing, wouldn't you agree? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that it's one or the other. Of the people who didn't say they wanted more feedback on the article in question, you can either easily see from their responses that they're happy with the process in general, or else you can tell from looking at their userpages (the 90 GA symbols on TonyTheTiger's page, for instance), or else they have clarified on their talk pages: - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What I really meant was that I'm pretty confident when it comes to things like grammar, vocabulary, paragraph structure and general writing style. These are aspects of Wikipedia editing which I feel I don't really need much help with. On the other hand, I find the kinds of recommendations made by Jza84 as part of the GA review for the Blackburn article very useful. Beejaypii (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, the GA process is fine. I wish it could be sped up a little, but I don't have any thoughts as to how. Sorry if I've done something incorrectly (I'm just not familiar with the GAU process). Happyme22
 * Sure, why not? The only reason I answered the way I did was that the survey so far preceded any feedback, yet it seemed to ask my opinion of the feedback I received. :) Lawikitejana (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

April
There have been billions of Aprils! Please don't leave out the year. Unfree (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)