Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requiring re-assessment every so often[edit]

It is well-known that, due to its systemic bias, the topics that not only have articles about them, but have the best-written articles, are those that its editors are most interested in. Consequently, there are articles that were assessed as good articles years ago that have clearly deteriorated considerably since then (e.g. Ted Frank). This usually happens because they were about a relatively technical and/or obscure topic. I am proposing that we require every good article to be reassessed every four years so that they can remain up to these standards, because the current system seems to resemble a high school student cramming for an exam during the last week he has to do so, making a really good grade on the exam, then completely forgetting about the topic immediately thereafter. Jinkinson talk to me 21:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the reason for that article's deterioration due to it being a niche topic, or because it's a BLP? BLPs reqire regular updating, so while a lack of updates for other types of article may have less overall impact on quality it can become quite pronounced in this type of article. My first thought is that regular reviews may place a high demand on reviewer time. How many of the 20,000 Good Articles were promoted before 2010? That's going to create a sizeable backlog. That said, restricting the re-assessment to BLPs would reduce the number needing to be re-reviewed while ensuring that articles more likely to degrade over time get some attention. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
We did a round like this back in 2007 and it took 2.5 years to review 2,810 GAs. With about 19,640 GAs we have right now, that would take about 17 years to review them all (assuming that the review rate is at the same speed and no articles are added to the GA list during those 17 years). In other words, while your proposal has its merits, it will consume far too much time and effort for the community to do it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be mathematically impossible. How about a system where if someone sees on that looks like it might not be up to GA standards, they could cause it to be re reviewed. Thant way, only the ones in question would need re-review, which would be mathematically feasible. Oh wait, we already have that system.  :-)  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The problem here is that while someone has to do it, no one wants to (like being an exterminator or something). Another thing that seems to happen a lot with articles about albums, for example, is that lots of people put tons of work into improving the article in the several months before and after it is released. This happened with, for example, 21st Century Breakdown, Stone Rollin', and Channel Orange (ie they were all nominated successfully as GAs within 4 months of their release date). Shame that the bounty board had to be closed down. As someone who wants to objectify as many things that have historically been considered subjective as possible, I think we should require reassessing them if they have a certain number of citation needed tags and cleanup infoboxes on them. Jinkinson talk to me 02:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


Can short articles like that of Peter Ostrum be promoted to the GA status? RRD13 (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:GA?, A good article is...Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic". Length alone is not a While notability is not in the GA criteria, a non-notable article is likely to be nominated for deletion, whether a GA, GA nominee or otherwise. See also WP:GVF, which compares GA and FA criteria, "Neither has absolute length requirements, although featured articles tend to be long and one of the original purposes of the GA process was to recognize good quality short articles." While I haven't looked into this article deeply, it seems there is little information about the actual film and reception of Ostrum's role. Furthermore, there is information in the lead which is not mentioned in the body (MOS:LEAD). I would recommend the creation of an "early life" section or similar.... Anyway, shortness alone does not prevent GA promotion. Adabow (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change syntax of WP:GA subpages[edit]

Who handles updating the WP:GA subpages? Please see WT:Good articles#Proposal to change syntax of WP:GA subpages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Good Articles At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Quickfailing unreleased media[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Quickfailing unreleased media czar  21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)