Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Symbol support vote.svg
This WikiProject Good articles subpage is to provide a forum for discussion of reforms to the GA process. Recently, a number of issues and concerns have been raised in various other places, and it is felt important to reappraise the current format and process for GA nominations and reviews, and to put forward a proposal for changes to or consolidation of the current process.

General discussion of these issues should take place on the project's talk page. Firm proposals can then be added to this page.

This discussion is open to anyone interested in the GA project. If you wish to be involved in this working party, then add your name to the section below.
Shortcut:


Reform goals and process[edit]

Concerns and proposals have been raised about the following issues:

  • Encouraging new reviewers to join the project
  • Encouraging good, detailed reviews by reviewers
  • Ensuring a level of consistency across the reviews
  • Ensuring those that pass GA noms are of a good standard
  • Ensuring transparency, so that it is easy to see how, when and why an article passed (or not)
  • Simplifying the nomination and notification processes, perhaps by automated bot, or categorisation.

The following links to old discussions may also be relevant:

The main bar to awarding "green dots" appeared to be a lack of confidence in the GA process
  • (add others as appropriate)
  • plus others indicated through section headings

Next steps

Various aspects of the process need to be discussed, before conclusions can safely be reached. In order to keep the various aspects in some order, the discussion has been broken into various sub-topics.

  • Encouraging new reviewers: how to encourage contributions, enhance accessibility to the project and provide support to reviewers.
  • GA criteria: considering if the GA criteria is appropriate, or needs to be altered, expanded or clarified to show standard required, or if subject guidelines need writing
  • Review process: how to structure the review process, to ensure consistency between passes, and a high standard of reviews. Might involve discussion of open reviews, second opinions, validation, pass and fail processes and so forth.
  • Transparency (incl- subpages): how to make sure people know what went on during reviews. This has been addressed by the introduction of subpages, but some of the nuts and bolts still need working out.
  • Automation and simplification: how to make the process simple to use, for nominators and reviewers. May involve bots, categories and so forth. Difficult to address until decisions have been made about other issues.
  • (add others as appropriate)

Working party[edit]

This working party is not a cabal, but merely a group of editors interested in GA, and who wish to improve the current processes. It is not a closed group. Those involved in these discussions include:

Encouraging new reviewers[edit]

Encouraging contributions, enhancing accessibility to the project and providing support to reviewers

GA criteria[edit]

Considering if the GA criteria is appropriate, or needs to be altered, expanded or clarified to show standard required, or if subject guidelines need writing

Review process[edit]

Structuring the review process, to ensure consistency between passes, and a high standard of reviews. Might involve discussion of open reviews, second opinions, validation, pass and fail processes and so forth.

Transparency (incl- subpages)[edit]

Making sure people know what went on during reviews. This has been addressed by the introduction of subpages, but some of the nuts and bolts still need working out.

Automation and simplification[edit]

Making the process simple to use, for nominators and reviewers. May involve bots, categories and so forth. Difficult to address until decisions have been made about other issues