Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

New GA userbox

I found it a shame that the FAs got their own userboxes but not the GAs, so I whipped one up.

{{User Good Articles}} Enjoy :) --SeizureDog 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the count auto-updates anyway...

...can there be a big <!-- DO NOT EDIT: bot updated --> around the number of good articles code, or will the perl script break? —Rob (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not just put a message on the good article nominations page under the "What to do if the nomination passes" section. Right now it says to update the number of articles at the top of the page. You might want to change that before anything else.--SomeStranger (t|c) 22:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Does the bot also updates the mini-counters??? And does it also finds the GA articles we assessed and granted GA status for us and categorize it for us or not (I might be dreaming.)? Lincher 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've always assumed that it never broke anything because its been running fine so far I guess and I for one have been updating the count by hand whenever I add something.... Homestarmy 00:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi all,
The script GAAuto updates everything including the main article count, the section article count and the recently added articles list. This is why in the promotion instructions it is left as an option for the user as to whether they update the main article count or recently added lists. The script also removes articles that are no longer good articles and adds articles that are good articles but have not been added to the list. There is no harm in users updating the main article count or recently added list which is why I feel there is no need for a "do not edit" message. Though the script will add promoted but unlisted articles to the list, this means I have to categorize them (which sometimes means reading them) so it is best that users list articles themselves when they promote them.
Cedars 08:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Project vs Category

I Suggest that maybe its time GA grew from being just a project with just a list(though well created) to a complete category with sub categories. These should also highlight article that have since gone on to be Featured articles. Initially I suggest that the categories mirror the current headings that as GA progress in numbers they can be broken into individual categories. ie.

  • category Good Articles
    • category GA -- Arts, Architecture & Archaeology
      • category GA -- Archaeology
      • category GA -- Architecture
      • category GA -- Art
      • category GA -- Biographys of Artists
      • category GA -- Museums and Galleries
    • category GA -- Awards and Decorations
      • category GA -- Orders of Chivalry
      • category GA -- Military Decorations
    • category GA -- Biology

...etc

  • category GA now Featured Articles

with most of these groups categories already exist ie architecture, within that category there would be a category that specifically highlights the GA within this group. This provides exposure for GA's as well as incentive for editors to get their articles accepted into these categories. Gnangarra 04:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

GA star/status

Please take a look at the page Wikipedia:Good article establishment and give your opinion if possible. There is an idea of star that was brought up by me, please give your commentaries and/or objections. Lincher 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ga List Redesign

I propose that we one again redesgin the GA list this time to match or look simlar to the Version 0.5 list. I put a possible draft copy here Wikipedia:Good articles/redesign. This will help make the list look more organized and it will hopefully shrink some of the larger categories. Tarret 17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me either way since it is a bot that is reorganizing everything and I just add my promoted articles. What I would like to see changed is maybe the categories for the nomination page, it looks kind of stacked and packed. Lincher 19:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the version presented at Wikipedia:Good articles/redesign: it's unbalanced and inconsistent, with a few large sections and bunch of smaller ones, even though it'd be pretty easy to either further merge or further separate them.
For example, "Arts", "Language and literature", "Philosophy and religion", and "Everyday life" could easily be merged into a single "Culture" section, "Mathematics", "Engineering/applied sciences/technology", and "Natural science" into a single "Science/technology" section, and I see no reason to consider "War/military" and "Royalty/nobility/heraldy" areas of History rather than Society considering that we place "Politics/government" and "Awards/Decorations" under Society. Also, the list isn't alphabetized, many of the images are redundantly repeated, some of the section names (like the ridiculously vague "Religion and beliefs" and the redundant "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences") need improvement, and the problems at the individual subsection level are especially glaring, with inconsistencies and inefficient or ambiguous titles abounding (e.g., why have sections like "Biographies of biologists and medical scientists" rather than simply "Biologists and medical scientists"?)—though, of course, some of the latter problems exist in the good articles listing as well.
Note that I have recently revamped the Version 0.5 list, basically more thoroughly and consistently implementing the "supercategory" idea to the extent that there are now only four overarching domains (Culture, Society, Geography & History, and Science & Technology). I'd suggest that we go for either one or the other, to avoid inconsistency: either keep the list largely as-is, fully alphabetized (which I'm not yet convinced would be a bad idea: in some ways, it's simpler), or implement a version similar to the new one at Version 0.5, with more efficient use of over-sections. -Silence 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Release Version 0.5

Good Articles are eligible for nomination for Release Version 0.5. Maurreen 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We know and try to assess the most article in order to help people at the V0.5. Lincher 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Failure & Delisting

I feel one thing when people go to dispute for reinstatement of GA or if they whine that their article meets the criteria because and only because it makes me feel like they don't want to get their article better and they have disputes about little thingies though if they'd work more on their article it would probably be FA instead of GA. I was wondering why we bother with GA disputes. The editors should go through a whole re-nomination instead so that the articles would stay on the GAN page for a week or so and then re-assessed and if it is up to par now, it will pass and if not, then they should work on the article more. This is why I'm wondering if the Dispute page is really necessary? Lincher 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think people have been getting a little crazy on Good Articles lately. Reviewers are so strict, there's hardly any point to it. There are 1010 Featured Articles, and only 1160 Good Articles. The ratio should be a lot higher, but it can't grow because a lot of people are trying to apply FA standards to what is basically intended to be an informal recognition process.
The whole point of GA is that it's much easier; as the intro says, FAs account for less than one tenth of one percent of Wikipedia's articles, and GA is supposed to encompass a significantly higher percentage. Over the last few months, the GA project has become much too strict. The new standards, the more formal process, and the quickness with which reviewers fail and delist articles, don't seem fair to me. We're making nominators jump through so many hoops that they might as well skip GA entirely. If we keep this up, GA will soon be obsolete. Kafziel 16:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Another issue is that most of the discussions take place on the dispute page then they just stop with no outcomes being provided. Also concerns are being raise only on the dispute page and not being conveyed to the editors of the article via its talk page where they can be rectified. I like the dispute page, problems a side I see it as necessary for identifing issues with GA processses and criteria. Gnangarra 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
After hearing these thoughts, I will try to place my standard a bit lower though that means that the process will be faster. I, thus, need your opinion on this subject. I use the GA process as a Peer Review for the articles in the way that commented articles already have a way to follow to reach FA and by that mean, it will be a progression of articles.
The second subject should be assessed by a better discussion or by a poll in order to decide for disputes. Lincher 17:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I do think some articles would benefit from an actual Peer Review before being listed here. That's the most informal process there is, and changes made after Peer Review can make the GA review go by much faster. There shouldn't be a backlog this big on Good Article Nominations; it should be a matter of minutes to determine whether an article meets the requirements or not. I check that the content is valid and cites any required references, make sure the photos are licensed, go over format/spelling/grammar, and see that the article is reasonably stable. More specific issues, like in-line references, lists, "brilliant prose", and complete comprehensiveness, I save for FAC review. When I feel like being really picky, I just head over there. :)
Most of the time, even when I pass an article, I'll make notes on the talk page about any changes I think should be made before trying to get it featured. Giving an article GA status is a mutch better incentive to editors than failing it is. It gives them pride in their work and the desire to improve it even further, instead of making them feel defensive and disappointed. Kafziel 18:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Music noticeboard

Please link to music-related Good Article candidates at the new Music Noticeboard. The Noticeboard also details current music-related Featured Article nominees and articles undergoing Peer Review. It also contains centralized music-related discussion. Λυδαcιτγ 01:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing GA logo

This is an official proposal to change the logo of the GA articles to a green star which was kindly provided by joturner.
The star is pictured below:

Image:Green-star.png

Before I bother him again and ask if the other versions of the star can be created (the ones of pieces of the star etc...) I want to make sure that there is some sort of consensus about a logo change.--SomeStranger(t) 03:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I like the star, I do. But I have a concern that it is very similar to the FA star - so the two would be easily confused when it is just a tiny little one on top of the article (if that is happening that is). Especially by colour blind people. I'm not myself, but there are surprisingly many people around who wouldn't distinguish some changes in shades even when they look obvious to others. The stars on top of the articles are displayed as 14px wide: . So I don't know, maybe a lighter shade of green?--Konstable 04:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment I also like the star, but I prefer the green circle. Even in light green, the star would be less easily differentiable from the FA star. But even besides this issue, I think the plus sign is ideal for representing something good, while the star is best for something excellent. Λυδαcιτγ 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the colour green is unusual for a star; I see the reasoning given that the plus sign is green, (as is a traffic light saying go), but to extend the colour to a star may confuse people later on. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the current plus sign in a circle to the star, keep the star for FA only, maybe a compromise of using 7 or 9 point star instead of the FA 5 point design. Gnangarra 06:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
disreguard previous statement the green star is fine Gnangarra 06:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. The star at 50px , looks like a sickly version of the FA star. Nifboy 06:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose While I like the intention behind the idea, I must say that this would make it a little difficult to distinguish between Good Articles and Featured Articles, especially when the star is scaled down. The plus sign is currently good enough. I think we need to find other ways to promote Good Articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I did not give this nearly enough context, so let me try this again. This proposal is in response to the discussion which was occuring over at Wikipedia talk:Good article establishment. Lincher first proposed that the logo be changed, as s/he thought that the green plus sign circle thing was ugly not seen in a good light. A reasonable amount of people agreed and joturner was kind enough to create 6 colored stars for our viewing (now shown below this giant block of text so that there is more choice). Personally, I think that changing the logo would be a good idea. The currently logo (personally, I think it looks kind of ugly) is used on other wikis and often times on this wiki as a "support" vote icon. If you head over to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser you will see that a plethora of small circles with icons in them are used as mundane markers for various notices and alerts. (You even see our logo) My hope is that in the upcoming months good articles can be established as more than just another peer review session, instead becoming an integral part of the Wikipedia article developement process. A new star logo symbolizes a new beginning, and in many ways the new found importance of GA (and once again, I think it looks better). If it is the color we have chosen that bothers you, look below at the six stars and see if another color would suit you better. Alternatively, we might lighten the green color to have more of a contrast to the featured article star.

Here are the images at full size
And here are the images at 14px (the size for stars in the top right hand corner).

--SomeStranger(t) 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I am opposed to the current logo as well. For the same reason - that it's pretty generic. I have seen it used all over the place. I think it's better to have a logo similar to FA rather than to a simple approval vote.--Konstable 12:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone also suggested the below image, used on the Swedish Wikipedia's equivalent of good articles (apparently called readable articles):
Image:Lasvard.png
I like these too. However, I seem to like them better than the current featured article star, which would not be good. After all, the featured articles are supposed to be the most appealing. joturner 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Why does it have to be the exact same star as for FA? In my opinion, if we ARE going to use a star we should use an entirely differently rendered version. Just changing the color seems too lazy IMO. --SeizureDog 07:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
We are trying to have a gradation/levels of quality of articles so to achieve it we need to be somewhat of a downgraded FA article and that is the reason behind the choice of the star. Lincher 12:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, but why use THAT star? Why not just have a simplier version of a star or something? It'll still be in the same theme of things. --SeizureDog 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
How about using one of the incomplete stars from the Featured stars series?--Nilfanion (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, hadn't thought of that. Bring on more ideas/pictures and we might find a good compromise for the logo. Lincher 15:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Those stars lead to the impression that the article is incomplete and/or something is wrong with it, which is not the case with articles that are just too short. --SeizureDog 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
How about instead making this one worse, we make the FA one better? The FA star looks like bronze to me - would it be possible to make a scalable gold star? Then we could use the FA one for good articles - or a silver one. Kind of an Olympic medal color scheme. Λυδαcιτγ 23:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
From my browser (Opera 8.01) and my computer using a good video card, the orange star looks more gold to me than the gold-wannabe one that is already in use. The blue one really seem to appeal more to perfection than the others, I don't know why. Lincher 01:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

GA va FA

If an article is a GA, then becomes an FA, does that mean it gets delisted from the GA list and its GA tag removed from its talk page? Someone removed the Eagle Scout article from the list and I was wondering if that was why. Rlevse 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's what's meant to happen. FA is a higher level than GA.--Konstable 02:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Persistent violation of GA veto rules

Certain disruptive editors have serially reverted my veto of the JP Cartoons article from GA, as per GA delisting rules. I have reached my revert limit on the article attempting to defend the removal, but I do not accept their actions and intend to remove the article again once I am able to do so (assuming my objections to the article's GA listing aren't rectified in the meantime, of course). — JEREMY 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What was the point of all of this reinstatement talk? Netscott 16:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
GA veto rules may sadly state that one editor may have veto power, but they say nothing about the community having to necessarily respect and endorse those veto decisions, a good reason for the dispute page to exist. Homestarmy 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
JEREMY, keep in mind that the spirit of the 3RR is much more important than the letter to many people on Wikipedia. I think the real culprit here is the current GA process. Perhaps: allow anyone to add a GA, allow anyone to remove it, but once it has been removed once, it should have to go through a more thorough process for all future additions and removals. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Need to move away from Veto power

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but is Wikipedia not based upon the concept of consensus? What is the point of having a unilateral "veto power" that is so completely out of step with that concept? Netscott 16:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The real reason behind this is, I think, so that articles that do not meet GA or don't reflect the WP guidelines or policies at one very moment it should be delisted. Altough, if some disagreement occurs on that subject it can be addressed in the Disputes page. Lincher 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That happened, and the consensus was that the article should be reinstated which it was whereupon a single editor User:Jeremygbyrne again immediately delisted it citing single editor "veto power". The dispute page does not seem sufficient in such a case. Netscott 18:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but you are talking nonsense. 1. The disagreement has not been addressed at all. 2. Jeremy is not the only editor who opposes the good article status. 3. Why do you think is the JP article the only article in WP, where the majority wants to overrule the minority by changing the GA rules? Raphael1 19:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Raphael1, do you think User:Joturner is a "bad" muslim for agreeing that Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy merits standing as a "Good article"? Netscott 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
How should I know? Besides I strongly reject every dualism (good and bad judgement). There are more options than just black and white. Unfortunately computers only know about 0 or 1. Raphael1 20:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I only ask you because of your tendency to "adopt" Muslim editors as Turkish editor User:Azate succintly explained here. I think Azate said it best when he described how in editing matters and deciscion making matters you're "seconding them unconditionally for a while because you feel that they are 'persecuted' as a matter of principle". Why not "adopt" User:Joturner's view on this one? Netscott 20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't "adopt" anyones view. Sometimes editors happen to share my view on certain issues. Azate and you seem to have a vivid fantasy. Raphael1 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't you mean you happen to share their views? Heh.. come on.. admit it. Netscott 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
How about "we happen to share the same view"? Raphael1 00:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Now why would User:Azate have made such an accurate portrayal of your involvement on Wikipedia relative to Muslim editors? He's had no axe to grind with you. Seriously, he put that so correctly it was as though he was a psychologist in the preciscion of his analysis. Netscott 00:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about Azates motives to portray his guesswork. Anyway a professional psychologist would never conduct a remote analysis based on Wikipedia diffs. Raphael1 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think what really ended up being the problem was that although Natalya got through to letting us all speak on the issue, because many editors left when Anjoe and Jeremy kind of started discussing everything with just each other, we never actually got to a real vote on whether or not we should change the policy. We don't need a unanimous vote, just consensus, and of course a replacement sort of thing to put in the veto power things place because after all, articles do often need to be delisted. Homestarmy 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The real question is how much process should be added to the GA nominations. Part of their appeal is that there is so little red tape. As I suggested above, we should keep the initial "anyone can add/anyone can remove" and then have a process for all further additions and removals. However, for articles that are controversial its questionable whether editors should be wasting time fighting over the continuous removal and addition of the GA badge and just focus on the FA process where they won't have to worry about trolls removing the badge. Basically, I'm saying that the GA badge might not be for articles that are on controversial topics. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There goes most religious and political articles if that's enforced.... Homestarmy 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
But surely that's reasonable, if they're contentious. Why is it necessary that an article is given a little gold star? Isn't it preferable that there be fewer stars and more wikilove? — JEREMY 06:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vetopower is ok if an article is listed as a good article by a single user. However, using veto power after discussion betweeen various editors on the merits has taken place is an abuse of vetopower (aka, it is possible to highjack an article by using your vetopower). This is very much against the basic pollicy of consensus, and I think that should be amended. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with this view which is why I support you call for modification of the GA guidelines below. Netscott 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)