Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-18/WikiProject report


 * Ankit Maity states that "No article ever gets FA status without crossing the GA threshold", but I quite often take articles directly to FAC, as do others I know. GA isn't a step to anything, and it's quite often a waste of time. Eric   Corbett  21:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume that what is meant is that any FA must be definition meet and exceed the GA criteria (rather than that an FAC must already be a GA). Ben   Mac  Dui  11:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Editing Wikipedia, playing golf and other voluntary activities are often considered to be a "waste of time" by others not so motivated. I am not sure why GAN needs to be singled out for such criticism. It generally takes less time, wasted or otherwise, than the nit-picking that sometimes goes on at FAC. Let's try and encourage one another to produce a higher quality of article, however achieved.  Ben   Mac  Dui  11:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I'm saying it's a waste of both reviewers' and nominators' time if an article already meets the FA criteria. Eric   Corbett  12:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I can't disagree with that, assuming the nom intends to take it to FA anyway and isn't interested in the Four award. Ben   Mac  Dui  15:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Leaving the award, tell me how many articles get across to FA without crossing GA. The current no. of GAs is 18640 approx. The current no. of FAs is 4201 approx. Now, tell me how many of these FAs have not crossed GA threshold. I bet it's less than 300. Now, divide the no. of articles which are a FA without being a GA by total no. of FAs and multiply it with 100. It's a mere 7.1%. And with this percentage you are trying to argue that I said, "No article ever gets FA status without crossing the GA threshold". And it's not a waste of time. People are working so hard for articles to meet GA standards, for e.g. Spinningspark, Dr. Blofeld, Mediran, etc. And you call it a "waste of time". Reaching GA class, I believe is the most important and happiest milestone earned by an user. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 06:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't counted how many FAs never went through GAN, and obviously neither have you, but off the top of my head I can think of Sunbeam Tiger, Green children of Woolpit, Gropecunt Lane, Halifax Gibbet and The Man in the Moone. Eric   Corbett  13:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

And believe me, that isn't enough to put you point across. And you are right that even I can't count them. But tell me is it more than 200? Obviously, no. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 12:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing that's obvious is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Eric   Corbett  12:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry but I fail in my task of making you understand some sensible knowledge related to GAs. I am very sorry. There's no use telling you anything. Just cut the crap. You are the one who starts this damn topic and you try attracting attention to yourself and at the end you are just blabbering. And believe me, I love your "Flattery (of a kind)" section. It's so you. You may tell that I am retreating and believe me I actually am (from an imprudent fool). I won't respond any more to this fruitless idiotic discussion. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 15:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What's also been overlooked is that when a GA is promoted to FA it loses its GA status. It would have been good if someone who actually understood the GA project and its history had been included in the interviewees. Eric   Corbett  21:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My colleagues and I responded to the questions asked. The minor point that FA's lose their GA status isn't germane.  Furthermore, I have yet to see a GA nom that meets FA standards.  Most of the articles nominated for review need tightening and correction, so passing the GA threshold is a significant emotional event. In conclusion, your off-the-mark comments sound odd coming from someone who purports to believe the GA WikiProject is "potentially one of the best initiatives in Wikipedia".  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it's germaine, as it impacts on the number of GAs. And of course you don't see GA noms that meet FA standards, because they're not nominated at GAN, they go straight to FAC. I don't see why that's so difficult to understand. Also, don't ignore that word "potentially". Eric   Corbett  16:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems you all are quite into a heated conversation. But I am a bit late. Still let me explain. It doesn't lose it's GA status. The FA you are talking about is nothing but the fruit of the GA review. When it passed GA status, you improved it to the GA standard. So, what you are trying to say is GA class becomes FA class. But tell me, the improvements from the review. Do you remove those and then work separately to make it an FA? Obviously, no. They are the foundation for your FA. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 06:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If an article loses its FA status at FAR it does not revert back to GA, assuming that it was a GA before being promoted. Eric   Corbett  13:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems you didn't understand. What I was saying is if the article was a GA before being a FA then the article is a fruit of the GA review. I have written nothing about a FA losing its status or something. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 12:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's you who doesn't understand. Eric   Corbett  12:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry but I fail in my task of making you understand some sensible knowledge related to GAs. I am very sorry. There's no use telling you anything. Just cut the crap. You are the one who starts this damn topic and you try attracting attention to yourself and at the end you are just blabbering. And believe me, I love your "Flattery (of a kind)" section. It's so you. You may tell that I am retreating and believe me I actually am (from an imprudent fool). I won't respond any more to this fruitless idiotic discussion. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 15:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the comments posted here and from looking at the fate of some of the prolific contributors to this project (one of which was blocked as a sockpuppeteer after more than 75,000 edits) it appears like a very contentious area. Too bad -- this appeared like an interesting wikiproject to participate in at first glance. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I commend the GA project and the excellent job its reviewers do to improve the standard of Wikipedia articles—well done and thank you all for your work. However (there's always one, isn't there?), I sometimes find myself feeling annoyed that occasionally, articles listed as having attained GA standard—which sometimes show up at the Guild of Copy Editors—clearly haven't. I've seen it several times when we're asked to copy-edit; I trawl through the text—noting the GA template at the top—then I find poor grammar, poor compliance with words to watch (particularly WP:SAY), inaccurately-quoted material from sources and other faux pas. Often I'll read the GA review and see that the article has been waved through with nary a quibble from the reviewer. IMO, reviewers that do this waving through are cheating the editors they're supposed to be helping and they're cheating WP readers. There's probably not much you can do to stop this kind of (probably very infrequent) behaviour, but you and the wider WP community should know that it occurs. After all, both our products are in the same game; improving the encyclopaedia.  Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * interesting. I thought that this problem affected only articles "below grade" where after an initial assessment is conducted the articles are not reviewed again for years and years. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)