Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Archive 1

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


 * I've done a few now and again but I really like to analyze them and give real advice whenever I look at them, so I don't often have much time to do more than 1 whenever I have the time :/. Homestarmy 13:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Topics
You guys must be off your fucking rockers if you think that highlighting an article about a religious topic was a good idea. You really need to stay away from highly touchy subjects like religion and war. It'll just promote dickweeds vandalising them. 65.95.241.86 20:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's already plenty of vandals against Jesus, a couple more can't hurt at the speed we revert, besides, I think the collaboration like died or something, I don't think anybody showed up and it's one day past due :/. Homestarmy 21:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Icon
Are we putting good article on the articles now? I noticed it on a few article such as Piet Mondrian. Tarret 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed it on Volcano, and I don't like this idea at all. I'm fine with stars for featured articles, but good articles are too often poorly cited. Volcano is a huge article, but it has just two books listed at the bottom, only one of which is a general reference, and it's been hanging around since the article was one page long four years ago. There are no inline cites at all. Where, then, did that slew of information come from? We don't know; that's why it isn't featured, and why it doesn't get a star. (Yet.)
 * Browsing through Good articles, I see a huge range in editorial quality, and that's great! But there are too many embarrassing articles to put bright shiny badges on them all. Given that, we shouldn't put badges on any of them; just get them to featured quality first. Melchoir 08:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just removed the language "Add good article to the article, which places a tiny support symbol at the top right corner" from Good articles/Nominations. Melchoir 08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote we keep the icon. I liked having the icon as it was a quick indicator that a given article had passed at least somewhat of a review.  Instead of removing it, what do you think about requiring a peer review before GA nomination?  That way, the process would go:


 * peer review → GA nomination → FA nomination


 * So, when an article hit the FA nomination board, reviewers could quickly check for the GA icon at the top and know that it had been through both the peer review and GA processes. I won't add it back, though, until we reach a consensus.  Thanks! Air.dance 01:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea... but do you think it'll be a popular idea to add formality to the GA process? Melchoir 02:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so, as it would serve to trim down the FA nomination list greatly from those articles that aren't anywhere near ready, i.e. lack reference sections, full of fancruft, dicey image copyrights, etc. It would also direct more writers to the peer review project, which would only serve to help refine the articles.  So, in summary, an article could go to peer review, where it could get asisstance with cleanup of the most glaring errors; then move on to GA, where some finer standards similar to those of FA are set; and then finally on to FA nom where the stringent requirements must be met.  What do you think? Air.dance 02:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Is this a job for ye olde Village Pump, then? Melchoir 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes. We'll give it a bit to see if anyone else chimes in, and then one of us can take it to the Pump. Air.dance 04:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I, too, strongly oppose having the icon in articles. It's narcistic and adds another self-reference. &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose any references to "good article" (e.g. icon) on main article space. should remain talkpage only. Zzzzz 09:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the icon. Good articles are now becoming more heavily reviewed for references and their level of quality has increased. I think in general, the icon is ok. PS, volcano should be nominated for delisting. Gflores Talk 09:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the icon to be on the main article space. I thought it was a good idea when I found out about it. No one really looks at the talk page unless they have issues with the article. &mdash;RJN 09:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also support the icon - it promotes the project and encourages contributors. It also allows readers to quickly identify when they are reading (or about to read) a good article. The argument that all articles should be "good" doesn't really hold water with me, since most articles are not. Cedars 10:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support the icon - it gives recognition to the hard work of Wikipedia editors and encourages them to continue on to FA status. It also helps those who use Wiki as a resource or reference to identify articles that have some good standing, as well as aiding FA reviewers, as it shows the article has at least passed one review and should be free of glaring errors.  Even if we do not keep the icon in its current standing, Melchoir and I have hashed out an alternate idea above. Air.dance 10:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

i see that some genius has added it to hundreds of articles. it will need a bot to go through and remove them all now. nice going. Zzzzz 09:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Remain civil, please. The icon is on all of those pages because it was SOP before this discussion began.  It may or may not need to be removed depending on the outcome here. Air.dance 09:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * whats SOP? is GA a wikipolicy now? otherwise what expln is there for putting as star on the mainpage? it should be an instant template-delete, not merely a "template for deletion". who decided to put it on all the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)


 * SOP or Standing operating procedure. Cedars 10:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but I'll clarify what I was trying to say -- before this discussion arose, inclusion of the icon was a part of the instructions for passing an article to GA status. Therefore, people passing the articles included the icon on the pages.  That's why you're seeing it on many pages that hold GA status. Air.dance 10:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * thats the problem, it *wasnt* "sop" until a few days ago, when someone decided to add it to the procedure without any consultation. where is this "long discussion" about introducing it? did it receive widespread community support? i like GA when it exists on talk pages, but bringing it to main article pages is a whole new kettle of fish. ps. (RJN, Cedar) talk page spam to try to "vote-rig" a vote for deletion shows there is an agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
 * I agree that whoever introduced the icon should have asked for a general consensus first, and you have every right to contest its use. However, you also were wrong in putting the template up for deletion without waiting for a consensus here.  You've basically defaced all of the pages that include the icon for at least seven days, which is how long it usually takes for a deletion nomination to be closed.  Two wrongs don't make a right -- you should have voiced your objections here, much like Melchoir did in the beginning, and waited before nominating.  As for RJN and Cedar, they have a right to alert the people involved in this project to the proposed deletion of the template -- most people don't have templates on their watchlists, and therefore wouldn't get to have their say without someone giving them a heads up. Air.dance 10:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose another self-reference in article space. Eugene van der Pijll 11:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per my reasoning at Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March_25. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 14:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. i'm really wondering about the reasoning of the small number of individuals who unilaterally implemented this. i have a strong suspicion they wanted a "pat on the back" for their starwars and videogame fancruft articles, which they couldnt get from WP:FAC, so decided to create their own, with lower standards. WP:GA is fine as a talkpage tool, but to give an unwitting wikipedia reader the impression that any random article, marked as "good" on the article page by 2 collaborating starwars-loving schoolboys, has been given the wikipedia stamp of approval is misleading, dishonest and hurts wikipedia's reputation. Niz 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, you know, it could have just been a group of people (who admittedly jumped the gun) wanting to recognize the efforts of others and assist in upping the quality of articles. What on earth ever happened to assuming good faith? Air.dance 15:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * i am assuming bad faith because, as you admit yourself, this highly contentious change has been implemented unilaterally without any discussion. now, instead of simply undoing the change, proposing it for discussion and waiting (the good faith approach); you attempt to "game the system" by forcing a vote for deletion and vote-rigging. these kinds of policy changes (especially when the core policy itself (GA) is not even policy) require consensus before implementation. and, as User:RJN has proved with a recent edit to What is a good article, it seems you are playing with wikipolicy as you see fit, reverting changes to policy you don't like but forcing votes on others that you do. ok? Zzzzz 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? No one has "rigged" anything!  And what in god's name do you mean I forced it to deletion?  YOU were the one who nominated the template for deletion!  I was absolutely content with trying to find a consensus on THIS page.  Either stop the ad hominem personal attacks and accusations or we can let an admin handle it, which is just going to result in one or both of us being banned.  Now knock it off. Air.dance 01:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I supported the Featured star because that is a long established process on Wikipedia, which highlights the absolute best of Wikipedia content. I'm not against having a Good articles system in the background, in order to identify articles that could be worked up to FA status, but to readers it is confusing and of little use. the wub "?!"  15:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Some supporters use the argument that it's unobtrusive, 'just like the FA-star'. However, the whole point is that GA is not 'just like' FA. FA's are exceptional and it might just be a good thing to identify them as such to the reader. 'Good articles' however simply are up to our own standards (WP:MOS, WP:V, WP:CITE). It is rather strange to tell the reader that he is reading an article that's up to our own minimal standards. Besides, as their number increases, the number of self-references increases and that's bad style for an encyclopedia. &mdash; mark &#9998; 17:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose &mdash; Considering it only takes two editors to mark an article as "Good" (one editor for articles under the old process), having an icon on the article page itself is a bit much. Considering that the FA star on article pages was a point of much debate and contention, I can't believe that this has been implemented without consensus. I agree with Zzzzz that the template should be removed for the time being and only replaced if consensus to use it is achieved.  Pagra shtak  18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, goddammit, no! I oppose all of these CSS hacks. They violate No self references. They are pointless. And, quite frankly, if George W. Bush can be marked as a good article, I question the value of the good article designation. Raul654 18:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It more or less is valueless as it stands...it's not as if the standards of FAC are that tough -- basically, they demand that an article be demonstrably accurate, NPOV, clearly written and comprehensive. I can't imagine calling an encyclopedia article that fails one of those basic requirements "good," and yet that is what this project purports to do. What would be more helpful than a good article label is a tag saying what is wrong with the article that it does not meet these standards. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a good idea. At the very least, this discussion should have been publicised more widely before going ahead. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Agree with The Wub and others.--HereToHelp 18:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I 'oppose the idea so long as the process is as it currently stands. I would support it if we had a review process closer to the FA process, which I would personally support... but there isn't consensus for that at this moment, so... no. Fieari 20:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The selection and quality of "good articles" is too haphazard to run around slapping ugly green marks on them.  Dragons flight 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose It looks like this could have some value for potential featured articles and for that matter an entire rating system could be created. The policy and standards for nominating articles for 'good articles' are currently unclear and I think this addition need debate in a wider forum (most people who show up on this talk page probably either are working on the project or noticed the template on the page and disagree with it--not the most unbiased group for discussing it). Antonrojo 14:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Tasks
I did a huge sweep of the GA list and removed around 20 entries for missing references. I only removed articles that had no semblence of sources -- no footnotes, no ref section, nothing. I was cautious and left a few that looked as if the external links sec was meant to serve as references. I've gotten through quite a bit of the list, but could use some help if anyone has time. The following categories all need a references sweep: War and military, Transport, Sport and games (except video games, already got 'em), Royalty etc, Religion and beliefs, Politics and gov, Physics and astro, Philosophy, Music by nation, people, etc and Instruments (already got the rest of that cat), Mathematics, Lit, Law, Language and ling, History, Geology etc, Landforms and Parks etc. If someone could also check the article totals for each category, that would be great. Thanks! Air.dance 08:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done! It would be helpful to have a more systematic way of doing this, though. In fact there are several things that it is relatively easy to "sweep" for: referencing, appropriately-tagged images (a lot of the FAs are cringeworthy in this regard, I've seen blatant copyvios down as self-PD etc), stability (check the talk page to see if there is a dispute going on), and quality of writing. A sweeping system based on sub-section headings on WP:GA should be relatively easy to set up. A further issue is what to do about problems that are discovered. Should there be immediate delisting? Or would it be less disruptive to leave a message on the talk page, giving (say) 7 days' grace before delisting? TheGrappler 14:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about that. If we do the seven-day rule, then we'd have to do a second sweep (by hand or bot or whatever) to enforce that rule.  What about delisting and having a second section for renominations?  Say, a section for original noms and then another for renoms?  Then we'd know to go through the renoms quickly and check for resolution of the issues while original noms would need the full review.  Or is that too complicated, you think? Air.dance 01:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't think there's a need for instruction-creep here - a renom is the same as a nom, fundamentally. In the nom description, people often include the fact it's a renom, which is probably a practice to be encouraged but not by additional instructions! (We can encourage people to do it by making sure if we make a renom, we write the fact that it's a renom - other people will often do the same without the need for yet another instruction :-)) Also, beware of the fact that articles can get worse as well as better - the fact that a bit that previously needed attention has got fixed doesn't mean that everything else has at least stayed the same! Basically we want to make the process for GAs (including nominations, listings, delistings) as easy and simple as possible. On the flip side, the WikiProject behind it could probably do with more structure. What would be on Good Articles:Open Tasks? I guess a list of outstanding nominations (those over 7 days? those over 5 days? I don't like the idea of a 7 day auto-promotion rule myself... just because nobody felt competent to review something doesn't mean it's AOK!) An approximate running total for the noms list. A list of outstanding, unresolved disputes. A list of sweeps not done for a while e.g. image-tag sweeps not done for such and such a section since such and such a time, or article counts only correct as of such and such a date... I'll have a think about it and see if I can come up with something usable TheGrappler 14:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent work on doing so many reviews, Air.dance! I intend to keep an eye on the phys and astro category as I feel qualified to assess articles there, and we could possibly think about getting one or two people to oversee each section, regularly sweeping listings to see if they still match the criteria.  I think there should be no great problem with just removing articles that don't meet the criteria - if problems are listed on the talk page it's no guarantee they'll be fixed, and it would surely be very easy for a reviewer to forget to go back and check.  The nomination process is dead easy so renominating should never be a big deal.  Worldtraveller 20:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The good article tag on main article space
the previous discussion has become fractured and confusing so i will try to assume good faith (despite users like User:RJN currently behaving in an unacceptable manner), and bring some clarity to the issue, and suggest a satisfactory "middle ground".

As i see it, 3 separate issues are being mixed up here: (a) the "good article" process and its standards, (b) the existence of the template, and (c) the addition of that template to hundreds of main article pages.
 * (a) is not up for discussion here.
 * (b) only is an issue if its inserted into hundreds of main article pages, and
 * (c) is the current contentious point.

The contention is that '''the template was added to hundreds of main article pages without prior discussion or consensus. this is not an attack on you, your articles, or the good articles process. it is simply about following wikipolicy where big changes to policy are concerned. wikipolicy was not followed here.'''

so here is my proposal to solve the problem:


 * 1) the policy process to add the goodarticle template to the main article page is removed FOR NOW.
 * 2) a bot is used to remove the goodarticle tags from all main article pages FOR NOW.
 * 3) a new discussion is created, FOLLOWING POLICY, to find if there is consensus to introduce the template on the main article space. the discussion is publicized on village pump policy page, featured article talk, template talk, good article talk, and anywhere else such discussions normally take place.
 * 4) a few weeks are given for the dust to settle.
 * 5) if there is consensus to add the template to main article pages, it is added to the GA policy and a bot runs to add it to all the main article pages.
 * 6) if there is consensus against it, the template is deleted.

is this ok for everyone? we basically revert the "gun-jumping" on the main article pages, but keep the template until the outcome of the discussion (3) is known. i will request a bot to do step 2 in a day or 2. Zzzzz 16:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this sounds good...Flying Canuck 18:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


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


 * I also agree with the above. The people who say that this list is full of unreferenced articles thats why anyone can remove these articles. This is also why we have the wikiproject good articles. Also so articles don't accecdentally end up on the list I would prefer the Peer review → GA nomination → FA nomination process proposed above. Not only would it clear up the nominations page but it would also make it easier for the featured article candidacy reviewers as it would tell them that it has been reviewed at least twice. Tarret 22:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that reviewing an article is about the same difficulty regardless of how many times its been read before -- either way, you have to read the article and examine any potential problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Seems like a fine suggestion to me, I mean, it's just a little dot that im not even sure was ever in the GA policy in the first place.... Homestarmy 15:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the 6 points proposed by User:Zzzzz however I disagree with Peer review → GA nomination → FA nomination. This would add unneccesary bureaucracy to the FA process. Joelito 19:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


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


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

I was directed here from the White Stripes page. This HAD been tagged as a Good Article, but in my opinion it was NOT. As a new editor, I had no idea what the GA process was (if any), so I didn't have the confidence to remove the tag myself. But it's good that it has been removed, in my opinion, the article is barely decent, but has some NPOV problems, basically reading as marketting material for the band. So, I suspect that a lot of the other GA tags were rightly removed as well. JonathanNil 22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

re ravedave and jonathannil, those articles are *still* good articles (see talk page of the articles, they are still tagged). just a cosmetic change to remove the unnecessary extra tag on the main article page has been done. Zzzzz 07:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment A few days ago I added the template to some 'good articles'. I saw them on one place and thought they were to be placed on every 'good article'. This was partly out of ingnorance, I didn't know about the controversy of adding the template. Personnally I would keep the template but I have no strong feelings if the consensus would be to delete them. --Donar Reiskoffer 06:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Question to supporters of the GA icon in article namespace
I have great trouble understanding the point of the GA tag in main space. Is it that we want to tell our readers that the article they just consulted is indeed "worth a read"? Do we want to note that the article "may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic" (WP:WIAGA)? Now why would an encyclopedia need to tell its reader such things? Shouldn't that be the standard case? And if for some reason it isn't (i.e. if there are many articles that are 'worse' than our 'good articles'), shouldn't we be doing something about that instead of patting ourselves on the back by means of a pointless self-reference that is useless to the reader? Please, let's remember that we aren't writing the encyclopedia for ourselves, as editors. I believe some 80% of the page views come from readers, not editors (not sure where I read that, correct me if I'm wrong). This tag is utterly useless to them; confusing even. As I said elsewhere, I don't think WP:GA is without merit, but I do think this tag in the article namespace is a very bad idea. &mdash; mark &#9998; 12:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got a counter-question, why is it some people seem to place such a high amount of importance on "clutter in the article namespace"? What does a tiny dot "clutter" anything with that makes it so important to write big long dissertations on why it should be deleted? Homestarmy 21:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are people who like to keep the article namespace as free from clutter as possible. But as a 'counter-question' to my question above that is totally beside the point. My argument doesn't have anything to do with 'clutter'. &mdash; mark &#9998; 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, I just thought i'd ask. I mean really, it's one little dot, and it's taking up what seems to be all the attention of this wikiproject :/. Homestarmy 13:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If we followed that line of reasoning I'm sure there would be a lot more 'little dots' in our articles. Looking at the arguments used over at the TfD ("I like to know if an article has been deemed 'good'", "it promotes the good article project", "I think it's easy to identify good articles this way"), I think it's clear that too few editors realize that we are not writing the encyclopedia for ourselves. Other keep-voters (the ones that think it is a good idea to let the reader know that they are, in fact, 'reading a good article') I'd like to refer to my question above. I really think it's a serious issue. &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All I know is I voted weak keep, I mean, I just plain don't care very much, so what if it gets deleted, if we want it again we can just remake it really quickly :/. and if I am not mistaken, you have chosen the path of ze Slippery Slope fallacy? :D Homestarmy 14:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)