Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

This page, a part of the Good article talk page collection, is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to go retrieve it. Current Archive location: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Archive 4

Archives
March 2006: Setting up; Use of icon in article space April 2006 – July 2007 August 2007 – December 2008 January 2009 –

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:12, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Should GA and A-class articles be recognisable through a symbol on the article page?

Once upon a time (i don't know for how long or how systematically) GAs had the GA symbol on the article page in much the same way as FAs have their little stars. When i raised this issue some time back, i recall it being said that we didn't add the GA symbol any more because of concerns about consistency of GA quality. It was suggested that we wait until after the sweeps before once again discussing whether adding the symbol would be a good idea. The sweeps are now finished, so I'm raising it. A related question raised by another editor is: should the same approach be taken to A-quality articles (a category used in some but not all Wikiprojects).

Should all GAs have the GA symbol on the article page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Consensus has been reached in favour for GA symbol on mainspace. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguments in favour

• Readers should have easy access to information about the quality of what they are reading. They should not have to go to the talk page to do this. Currently article pages contain two such types of info: the FA stars, and cleanup templates. They should have access to this third avenue.
• Article pages can already have single-person-issued quality assurance information on them: the cleanup templates. Adding a GA symbol would not represent a qualitatively new step in this respect.
• GA is the most frequently-used quality assurance process at WP (I think - more than FAC and PR at any rate), and should have a public visibility that reflects its significance in WP's processes.
• GAN is now pretty rigorous, with any problem assessments usually being promptly addressed at GAR. It isn't so arbitrary that to give an article page symbol would be to claim it means more than it does.
• Some nominating editors may feel an article page symbol represents greater recognition of the work that has gone into a typical GA. This may encourage such editors to keep contributing.
• The symbol will increase visibility of the GA wikiproject, attracting more participants.
• The symbol will both cause low-quality GAs to become delisted, and high quality articles that should be GAs to come to light.
• The symbol will attract attract readers into contributers by causing them to learn more about what goes on behind the scenes.

Arguments against

• However many sweeps, GARs etc we do, GA status is always in the end a one-person process that does not deserve article page-level recognition.
• While cleanup templates are also one-person initiatives, they usually point to the talk page where multiple editors work on the issues. GA is different.
• Cleanup templates are (meant to be) temporary; GA is meant to be permanent (as long as the article does not deteriorate over time). A comparison between their presence on the article page is therefore not valid.
• The GA criteria may be rigorous, and attention at GAR may be good (but also slow) once something is there, but sub-par GA promotions can be easily missed.
• The symbol will increase visibility of the GA wikiproject, with a risk that there will be more noms but not more reviewers, exacerbating the backlog.

What do other GA regulars think? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes

1. I think that it should. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
2. I think most GA reviews are pretty rigorous, and there are quite a few vigilant editors out there on the look out for nominations that shouldn't have passed. I also believe that all other language wikipedias do display the GA symbol on the article page itself. I've only been active in the GA process for a few months, however, and I could be missing out on some important factors. One thing to remember is that this wouldn't supplant the information on the talk page, and anyone that saw a page with the symbol that didn't look up to snuff could easily go through the GAR process. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 03:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
3. I think benefits outweigh drawbacks. We need to promote wikipedia's ability to audit its own content more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
4. hamiltonstone's analysis is thorough and good. IMO the main points are: readers need more info about article quality than at present; at present GA has made more progess in reassessment GAs than FA has in reassessment FAs. --Philcha (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Yes, the GA+ is a more useful measure of something than the FA star which is meaningless due to politics and an in-built protection system driven by people who have an interest in immunising hopeless articles for political reason (eg people with lots of old FAs or WikiProject leaders who need the stats inflated so they can take credit for their minions' work) and who have no interest in dismantling it. The consistency of the GA bar is far better, and was better before the sweeps anyway. And this is coming from a WP:FAR delegate. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Supported it since first joining WP:GA. Hopefully the success of completing Sweeps convinces others that effort goes into ensuring the quality of the GAs. Including a symbol on the article may also make it easier to notice if the article should be delisted if it has issues. The main reason I'd like to see it is to serve as an advertisement to further encourage new editors to improve articles to GA status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
7. For sure! Aaroncrick ^TALK 06:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Support: This is a good idea, for the reasons stated above. It will encourage more GAs and that can only be a good thing for Wikipedia. - S Masters (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
9. I've always been in favour, but I've reluctantly come to accept that it'll never happen. Malleus Fatuorum 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
10. There are some good reasons in favor stated above. Ucucha 14:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
11. Absolutely. FA and FL have their stars, and an unwarranted GA rating is easier to remove- because it can be done by an individual; rather than a month-long FAR/FLRC. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
12. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Along the same lines as what others have said, I think it helps promote good writing. The article doesn't have a "hidden" reward; I, too, would like to know that I've landed on a well-written article before I proceed to read it. I've always wondered why this wasn't done, and now I see that it's actually been a source of discussion for some time. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
14. Support--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
15. Support-- The arguments are laid out nicely, but those in favor are much stronger than those against. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
16. Support. Although I've seen a few low-quality GAs, these are the exception, not the rule, and by and large GAs should receive some greater measure of recognition on Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
17. Support. Having been involved with the GA process for a while (admittedly more on the nomination rather than reviewing side), in my experience standards have been generally consistent and the GA-class is a mark of quality. Nev1 (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
18. Support: Though the GA system is not close to perfect, neither is the FA system. Overall, the GA process has grown substantially more rigorous over the years and it would now most definitely be a service to our readers for GA-rated articles to be readily identifiable. Also, bringing more attention to the standard will surely further the improvement in its rigor, exactly as has happened with FA.—DCGeist (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
19. Support. There needs to be some kind of system that tells readers up front the level of quality of the article they're looking at. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
20. Support for GAs. 1) Mainly, this should help readers by giving them a quality indicator. 2) We put "cleanup" tags on articles; we should be able to put positive tags on articles. 3) Allowing GA tags on articles could give more incentive for more GAs. Maurreen (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
21. Support – With GA standards being well enforced these days, I'm in favor of extending on-page recognition to GAs. Why should most of the visible (non-talk page) indicators of quality be negative? Imzadi 1979 → 09:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
22. Support - Though the other option I mentioned below is probably my first choice. Otherwise, yes, we need to show our visitors that there is some sort of vetting process, even on sub-FAs. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
23. Support. Response to Mike Christie: Wikipedia has a transparency and reader participation level that Encyclopedia Britannica does not, so hiding any kind of article class marker or article cleanup tag is not necessary. Showing the reader that an article is considered GA-class is, I think, a good idea. I have been in favor ever since noticing that FA had the star but GA did not have the green plus sign.
24. Support - I think it would be great to inform the reader that the specific article they are reading has been assessed at GA through a formal review. In addition, the Simple English Wikipedia uses symbols on articles to mark GAs. Dough4872 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
25. Support - I don't think FA stars make any difference to readers, nor do I think they should. But as they are so esteemed within WP (and are thus unlikely to disappear), it would be unfair to withhold recognition for bringing up articles to GA standard (which may be very high) and reviewing them (which is really hard work). Buchraeumer (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
26. Support Just be bold and do it. No-brainer debate. Lugnuts (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Kitchen roll (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
28. Support FA is an exhausting process and many avoid it for that reason. Many GAs are quite good but just don't adhere to the more fiddly bits of the MoS. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
29. Support I think that the GAN/GAR system delivers speedy justice and effective reviewing of the article's quality. The ease of which a GAR or another GAN can be made by another nominator/reviewer to ensure quality allows for far more flexibility than the FA system, and the quality isn't a drastic step down. These are still far better than most of the Wikipedia articles, and recognising this visually is likely to be useful to editors looking for a sign that somebody has taken the time to flesh out and nominate an article, somebody else has approved of it and reviewed it thoroughly, and the GA delisters haven't found reason to take that status away, effectively two/three concerned people have been involved in getting it up to that quality, and that can be plenty enough quality control to develop some truely good work here. Kyteto (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
30. Support. I think it is an effective system for screening quality. Xtzou (Talk) 22:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
31. Strong Support just the fact that the symbol is on the page may mean that the standards for GA's may go up as well. Furthermore, I'll be more than happy to go to every one of the 228 GA's that are about warships.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
32. Support. After all, negative assessments of article quality are placed in huge banners at the top of articles. A tiny thumbtack-looking thing won't detract from most readers' experience. Abductive (reasoning) 07:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
33. It is helpful to a reader to see that an article has been assessed against reasonable quality standards and found acceptable. GA reviewing standards, the scutinising of those reviews, and the flexibility and responsiveness of the process makes GA a reasonably trustworthy accreditation that is widely respected across Wikipedia. Concerns about inappropriate listings are usually dealt with swiftly (though I am aware of some which have dragged on!) Unless there is an acknowledged fault with the GA process (and I don't think there is), we should display our confidence in our quality control system. SilkTork *^YES! 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
34. Support. I think hamiltonstone summed it up well. In the end, it's not a big deal, but it will do some good and no harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
35. I've been on the fence, but per Casliber —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
36. Support. Removing FA stars and other editorial annotations (such as clean-up templates) is unrealistic. Let us get this minor issue out of the way and move on to greater things together. Geometry guy 20:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
37. Perhaps the GA review should be reconsidered? That is a different issue.--mono 21:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
38. Support. Should not have been removed way back when in the first place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
39. Support it may be a perennial proposal but I agree with this one. Besides, Good Articles, though not (yet) featured articles, are still among our best and if it is shown that it is a GA, editors will improve it een more so that it will reach an eventual goal of FA. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
40. Support Could be useful to show the reader that the article is of good quality. Acather96 (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
41. Support Although I am not a GA regular! However, perhaps the GA status should not be the opinion of 1 editor, but of 2 editors. If two editors who are independent of the article both agree that it is of GA standard, then it is assumed to be so. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
42. Support I also suggest that all GA require 2 editors to declare it a GA. --Iankap99 00:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
43. Support. Since poor articles have tags and Featured Articles have stars, it would make sense to add something for GAs. It would also increase the presence of GA itself and could raise overall quality. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
44. Support While not perfect, the GA review process generally does identify Good Articles. First Light (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
45. Support, agree with above comment, by Casliber (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
46. Support: This can help wikipedia's reputation and allow GAs more recognition; at present, most readers dont even know they exist. 68.81.16.24 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
47. Support. The positives greatly outweigh the negatives. This can only help Wikipedia. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
48. Support now that sweeps are done to ensure the quality of GA. Some FA are in worse form than GA yet they are nowhere close to be delisted. Also, as reported recently, FAC process is bogged down by bureaucracy and people pushing POV to a point where many are quitting the nomination and commenting process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
49. It's been a while since this proposal went live and the groundswell of opposition we've seen on previous occasions doesn't seem to have arisen this time. Yet. I'm still apprehensive for the reasons outlined below, having seen this go down in flames before, but perhaps it's an idea whose time has finally come (and one that I think has very little not to recommend it). I do however echo the comments about wanting a broad consensus for the change; so far fewer editors have commented here than in the average RfA. It's also perhaps worth reminding the opposition that nothing on WP is permanent; if using a GA symbol turns out to be a bad idea^TM, it can always be removed. We won't really know until we try. EyeSerene^talk 12:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
50. Support more transparency and information are usually good Shooterwalker (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
51. Support. Positives outweigh the negatives, and I can see this as a useful tool for our readers. --Elonka 22:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
52. Support. The GA process (that is, the editors involved) produces a lot of good content, and having the icon would give even the most casual of readers a chance to catch a glimpse of the QA work that goes on behind the scenes. As others have mentioned, there are many older FAs that wouldn't come close to passing GA in their current form. decltype (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
53. Support I have seen some poor GAs, but as a matter of fact, having the GA symbol on the page will make poor GA assessments more visible and get new editors involved in the GA process. --JN466 11:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
54. Support The GA process, while not as intensive as FA, still brings articles to a higher level. Readers should see this, and I do believe it will help delist poor GA articles, and perhaps cause more people to strive to improve other article to GA status. Angryapathy (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
55. Support GAs today is far too invisible. This would be a great addition! Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No

1. I'm disillusioned – non-reviews like this one were not detected (the user is now banned but promoted several articles without any review) – this would not have happened in FAC where content quality is not determined by only one user. Hekerui (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   There are a lot more (100+) old FAs from 2005-07 when WikiProject vote-stacking with 10+ one-line supports (usually along ethnic lines) from members with 100% support voting record was not a stigma and most of these are still around. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   But current FAC procedures prevent this from happening: even if a FAC gets a gazillion supports now, if there are issues, they aren't passed. FAC has a means of dealing with this, that other processes don't necessarily have (delegates), and FAR can be used for dealing with articles that no longer meet criteria. On the other hand, many current GAs are not GA even when passed by new or unqualified reviewers (and kudos to the excellent job done by experienced reviewers, but not all are). As another example, almost none of the current medical GAs meet WP:MEDRS, since few reviewers are even aware of that guideline-- there is no reason to highlight those articles to our readers as having passed any threshold (bad medical info is a real concern to me, and all of the medical GAs need review). As a side note on current FAC processes, since Karanacs and I have been delegated, I have promoted almost 40% of the current FAs (I don't know Karanacs' number, but together we should be approaching 60%), and only four have been delisted: one was an uncontroversial merge, and was probably delisted unjustly, two I agreed with (User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Articles I promoted that have appeared at WP:FAR). Vote stacking does not prevail at FAC (and it is not only an ethnic issue-- it also occurs in all MilHist articles, and in other areas). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   I just wanted to comment on Sandy's concern re medical GAs. The WP:RS guidance refers to "Ideal sources" not required ones. I'm sorry if you think some of those GAs are substandard, but i'm not sure they are non-compliant with the general guidance. WP:MEDRS itself is excessively complex and i'm not sure it is going to be very effective in practice. I have little if any experience with editing biomedical articles, though, so i'm not up to speed with how they work out in practice. On a separate point, i didn't understand your comment "On the other hand, many current GAs are not GA even when passed by new or unqualified reviewers". Is there a word or something missing there? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

   The standards were not high in 2007, and most of them would be struggling badly now, not to mention the ethnic stacks from that era, which are jokes. There were some passed FAs there where all the non-ethnic votes were opposed, but the 10 crooked votes defeated the 3 legitimate opposes with proper reasons. And in those days any old sources were ok, including family tribute websites, etc. And 2007 and before FAs still account for at least 35% of current FAs I would imagine. And in the old days it was mostly only Tony checking the prose and often he got outvoted 10-1 or 10-2 etc... Nowadays there are about 10 guys checking prose/presentation at a similar or harder level. And yes, votestacking occurs in a variety of areas but not as badly in the 2007 and before era days when opposition to ethnic articles was simply irrelevant in the face of straight voting, and it was most conspicuous in those ones due to persistent accusations of racism against any dissenters. As for bad FAs, people aren't even through with the 2005/2006 crop yet, let alone the 2007 crop. (And as for MILHIST, the project is rather fragmented, and if you don't vote on Anglophone topics you sit there for 3+ weeks anyway etc as those are the only places with more than 2 active editors) In any case votestacking still helps as if you have none at all, you will need to get 3 independent votes, which guarantees that you won't pass until 25 days even if there are no objections...instead of 14-18 YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

2. I wouldn't be too upset if a GA symbol were to be added to articles, but my preference would be to eliminate the FA star on articles, not add a GA symbol. In my mind, we should think of readers as being completely unaware of anything that goes on behind the scenes here; asking them to understand the distinction between GA and FA is stepping out of the role of encyclopedia, and moving talk page discussions to the forefront. (I'm also not a big fan of cleanup templates and citation needed tags; I think in many cases it would be better to move the offending material to the talk page if there's consensus there's a problem.) I'm sure the editors of Encyclopedia Britannica think some of their articles are particularly good, but they don't flag them as such for readers, and nor should we. Mike Christie (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   I could certainly be persuaded that all of the tags and the FA star should be removed from article space as an alternative to this proposal to add the GA symbol. That approach at least has the merit of consistency. What is not consistent, IMO, is to make a special case for one rating system but not another. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

3. GA criteria are not designed to be overly strict. Because GA status can be conferred by any single editor, the standards can be applied very unevenly (although kudos to all who participated in the GA sweeps). These two points combined make me wary of marking these articles with an icon; I think it could be difficult for a reader to understand what that actually means. YM has a point that there are a lot of older FAs that are substandard, but FA process tries to be consistent in promoting new articles - GA can't really do that. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
4. It's currently possible to set this as a personal preference in your preferences. IMO, the default should be off (as it currently is), as GA status is far less consistent than FA and thus has far more potential to confuse readers. Yes, there are bad FAs, but it's far easier to get a bad article listed as GA than it is to get a bad article through FAC. I agree with Mike Christie above that if any change is made, it's to default all displays of article status to "off" to readers; the star means nothing to general readers. – iridescent 13:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   It's also far easier to get a poor GA delisted than a poor FA, so it's swings and roundabouts. I once felt quite strongly about the inequity of not displaying the GA symbol, but more recently I've become somewhat persuaded by Mike's idea (which was also expressed in the last discussion of this issue, by Raul IIRC), that all of this "metadata" should be dropped, including the FA star. Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   I'd certainly endorse that; as I say above, I very much doubt that star means anything to 99% of readers. FA doesn't mean "perfect article"; I'm sure most readers couldn't care less if the article complies with WP:MOSDASH and WP:ALT. – iridescent 15:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

5. I was also opposed to this a couple years ago, and while I'm not as vehemently against the idea nowadays, I still don't like it; GA is an excellent and worthwhile project, but I have several concerns. I entirely agree with Mike Christie in that we should endeavor to separate content from internal process as much as possible, and I've long advocated for an alternative to inline cleanup templates. I'm OK with the FA start for identifying our most scrutinized content, but given the inconsistent standards at GA, I feel using the icon on articles themselves would be excessive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   • To be pursuaded by this argument i'd want to see some clear evidence of inconsistent standards being applied at GA and not being detected when they are. When i recently audited a sample of about 20 GAs during the backlog elimination drive, i sought to cover most of the inexperienced reviewers as well as some experienced ones. All the reviews were basically sound, and all the articles looked to be within the range for the GA criteria. I was pleasantly surprised. I just don't feel there is strong evidence to support the criticism being levelled at GA here. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

6. I agree with Iridescent. It's much easier to get a bad article to GA than to FA, since only one reviewer is needed; therefore, I don't think a bad article should have an icon on its page. Really, per all of the above in this section. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
7. If its a one person review then its too open to human falliability (or even malice) GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose this Perenial Proposal - I like the current rationale for not doing it the best. FA is a community process. GA is an individual process. Adding to the article page will cause confusion that that article is actually good, and I've seen some really bad GAs in my day...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 20:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   • But have you seen any really bad GAs since the sweeps (which is on of the reasons this discussion has been postponed until now)? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

9. For a few reasons, none of which are listed in the intro. 1) vandalism and credibility. nuff said. 2) people (the average user) might begin to think that pages with GA status are the only credible articles or worse may begin to believe everything they see on a GA page. 3) its bad enough that we rank pages to begin with, now we're applying this so that everyone can see? 4) Articles with GA status include/once included universally offensive things like Adolf Hitler, Lawrence Taylor, 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver and 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and controversial things like Hezbollah and George W. Bush. Do we really want people to think that Wikipedia is labelling these things as "Good"? No thanks.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 20:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   Just as an aside, since when was Lawrence Taylor "universally offensive"? Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

   But to the point, wikipedia is, of course, uncensored, and the subject matter should never compromise the article. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose. I would not like to see that. GA is just one person's opinion, and I've seen some very poor GAs. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

    There are over 8000 GAs from memory - i'm sure a few are poor, as are a small number of FAs. I had a couple of queries: how many poor ones have you seen post-GA sweeps being completed; do you mean poor, as in you didn't think much of the article, or poor, as in they did not comply with WP:WIAGA even though they got passed? Can you give any examples? Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

    • It is not the amount of people doing something that matters, it is the process behind what they do that counts. The GA process and the criteria on which it is based is a community product open to inspection and ammendment by consensus. A reviewer is applying the community criteria. Another member of the community can challenge the reviewer's interpretation of the criteria. It is very much community based. Anyway, I'm not quite convinced that one person gets it any more right/wrong than a handful. I am reassured that if there is a doubt about a listing, it can be quickly and easily challenged. SilkTork *^YES! 17:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

11. get rid of the stars while you're at it. -Atmoz (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose; high potential to mislead readers, who are likely to falsely assume that the certification of an article indicates it has been fact-checked. As well, the kindergarten-ish feeling of the stars/this proposal are generally embarrassing to the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

    Actually, you should read Wikipedia's general disclaimer. According to the disclaimer, nobody should assume that a Wikipedia article (be it FA or GA) to be flawless and error-free. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

13. Oppose I agree with many of the opinions above regarding the GA process being one viewers opinion and the potential for misleading readers rather than editors is too big. I also have to say this is simply an attempt at self-gratification. Why is this being held on the GA talkpage and not somewhere more central such as the Village Pump. Woody (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

    It is listed on WP:CENT. –MuZemike 18:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

14. I am not confident enough in the strength of our GA reviewing process to think that this is a good idea.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
15. Per Mkativerata above. Also GA needs more reviewers, not participants, and is ill equipped to handle a substantial increase in nomination rates. Also the difference between a GA and a FA is not immediately clear to new readers and may lead them to an inaccurate understanding of page quality. Also an insufficient rationale has been presented for how this change will improve Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

    How it may benefit Wikipedia is an interesting question. WP:Featured articles is viewed about 2700 times a day. WP:Good articles is viewed about 10% as often. I wonder if more people will find their way to WP:GA as a result of this change? And will that result in more GA-oriented editors? Abductive (reasoning) 06:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

    You don't think that the higher number of people visiting WP:FA might be down to there being a large bolded link to it on the main page? – iridescent 13:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

    I considered that. Portal:Featured content, which is linked twice from the Main Page, gets viewed over 15,000 times a day. Abductive (reasoning) 21:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

16. Not as long as GA reviews are a 1-person process. The criteria may be consensus-based, but unlike FA, there's no consensus involved in the actual application. Mr.Z-man 15:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

    Perhaps you ought to focus on the result rather than the process. Do you have a driving licence, for instance? If you do, how many examiners were in the car with you when you took your test? Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

17. I say no, because GAs are simply not FAs. An FA is the best that Wikipedia has to offer, thus it deserves a star. A GA is quite good, but it isn't like an FA. Adding a star to GAs as well would decrease what being an FA means. I mean, I recognize that GA editors would love to have that, but there's more. In some ways, you can compare it to the European football (not soccer!) leagues, the UEFA Europa League and the UEFA Champions League: Only the best clubs of the best leagues come into the Champions League, whereas every country gets at least one club into the Europa League. It's indeed unfair to the less successful countries to not come into the Champions League, but if it were different, the Champions League would lose its uniqueness and its attractiveness that it currently has. I personally don't mind that only one person reviews the article: I've read several GAs, and after all, while I recognize they're not super mega awesome, they're better than most of this site's articles. But as I said already, they should be left as they are. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

    In Olympics and other major sports event, competitors are also awarded with silver and bronze medal. Clearly your "argument" doesn't hold much weight because I haven't heard any gold medalist complaining that silver and bronze medals are awarded and thinks it's "not fair". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

    And, every country in Europe other than Liechtenstein (which doesn't have a football league) participates in the Champions League (see the CL Places column). Don't know where you've got the idea that "Only the best clubs of the best leagues come into the Champions League" from. – iridescent 08:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

    The GA star is different from the FA star. There would be no confusion.--Iankap99 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

    FAs aren't necessarily good at all. There are a lot of ones poorer than GAs but are entrenched there for political reasons or a lack of will to otherwise make them accountable YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

18. Oppose: I'm already iffy about the FA star. I don't mind highlighting the best articles (Lord knows that Wikipedia's reputation for writing quality needs to be bolstered), but the problem is that both the GA and FA process is so uneven, especially as time progresses. If we could review each FA and GA each time the standards are revised, and thus guarantee that the articles meet the criteria in reality instead of just history, that would be different. Even articles that did meet the criteria at the time may deteriorate over time and not get reviewed for a very long time. Review each article, and then I could support this. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

    Perhaps you missed the GA Sweeps Project, which did exactly that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

    And on the other hand, FA never planned to do anything similar. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

    Like he said. It doesn't make much sense to highlight tier 2 when tier 1 is still a mess. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

    We're not yet to the point of showing GA on main page. But for now, we just want some recognition for GA by having its symbol on the articles. I recall that the FA community did discuss to have a Sweep of their kind but in the end it all bogged down due to bureaucracy (i.e. can the FA director and his team able to handle all the workload resulting from the sweeps, on top of their usual FAC/FAR duties?) and unwillingness to change because there's no competition to drive them to improve. If tier 1 is a mess, then proposals should be made targetting the tier 1, but shouldn't be not downplaying or blaming tier 2 for the mess and chaos generated by tier 1.OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

    Absolutely agree with Ohana. The state of some FAs should have no bearing on whether or not GAs get a mention on the content page. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

19. Per all. 68071 (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needed improvements?

• I'm a huge fan of the GA WikiProject - this was my first 'home' on Wikipedia - but I'd like to sound a note of caution with this proposal if I may. A little history might be useful first. The last time this was discussed (in 2008; archive here), the outcome was that wikipedians generally were too mistrustful of GA's quality assurance to accept that a GA symbol in article space would be a reliable indicator of quality. The single reviewer process has many strengths but one or two weaknesses that were, it seemed, too significant for those strengths to overcome. As a result of that debate a number of us started a working group to examine the GA process; our aim was to see where and how it could be improved to address the legitimate concerns that had been raised. After long discussions, we proposed some small changes to the review process. These did not get project approval, so we went back, rethought, and tried again. Our second proposal also didn't receive project consensus, so in the end no changes were made and I believe GA perhaps missed an opportunity to address some of the more cogent criticisms levelled at it.

  The reason I'm bringing this up is to illustrate that unless the project can demonstrate that things are somehow different since the last time having a GA symbol was discussed, I don't believe the outcome will be any different. There have certainly been improvements in transparency - for example, the introduction of dedicated sub-pages for reviewing and reassessing - but these were quite a while back and I fear the major stumbling block, as ever, is going to be the perceived unaccountability of GA's single reviewer system. EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I broke this out into its own section.

I wasn't around for the previous discussions about this, but I had glanced at them previously.

I am concerned that if significant progress has not been made to resolve previous objections, this will backfire. That is, not only would this not win consensus this time, but this try could make the next such try harder.

Although I'm in favor of the general idea, maybe it should be suspended to make sure the case is strong as it feasibly can be. Maurreen (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's basically what I'm getting at. I've perhaps oversimplified the reasons why this proposal failed last time (I'd recommend reading Sam's masterly closing summary) but I think we need to be able to demonstrate what's changed that means current consensus should be revisited. EyeSerene^talk 09:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But I should correct myself, in that I think what I had glanced at before was something different but related (maybe the argument against the most recent proposal).

There was a discussion maybe two months ago about getting the GA symbol on article pages. I think everyone on whatever GA-type page that discussion was on agreed with that idea. But we also agreed with EyeSerene's point here. We talked about moving to the next stage (what EyeSerene is indicating overall), but I think we were struck by intertia. Maurreen (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a simple improvement would be to have two reviewers. Maurreen (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

To summarise the issues that the working group looked at, we wanted to minimise the weaknesses (lack of transparency in the process; single reviewer system leading to lack of quality assurance etc) while keeping the strengths (scalable process; lack of bureaucracy; reasonably fast throughput; collaborative ethos; the 'personal touch' of a single reviewer etc). Requiring more than one reviewer was strongly resisted - no-one wanted GA to become FA-lite - but actively encouraging (though not requiring) additional comments was an avenue that seemed worth pursing. We thought this might be done by having a lead reviewer/additional comments system. The other main idea we came up with was that all reviews should stay open for a minimum period to address the concerns about drive-by reviews and give time for additional comments to made. The discussions and proposals linked above are off-putting in their length but perhaps worth a read (mainly this one).

Other objections (Will readers know what the GA symbol means? Do most Wikipedians even know about GA? Would a symbol be for for the benefit of editors or readers? Should assessments be displayed in article space at all?) will be harder to address, but I think there are certainly things that GA could do to maximise its chances of eventually getting this through. EyeSerene^talk 10:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:GA has made a big effort to improve or delist old GAs. If a few GARs are inferior, they can be reassessed quickly. My impression is that GAR is more effective than FAR at present, even without this example. --Philcha (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

GAs are not reassessed quickly (I nominated one for review weeks ago that is still listed GA and hasn't been reviewed), and most of the medical GAs passed the sweeps while being out of compliance with WP:MEDRS. On the other hand, the recent trend at FAR is in the opposite direction-- speedy delists! So if anything, FAs are becoming harder to get and keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sady I can't find this article to which you refer (as having been nominated as needing review). Can you point me to it? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think those are definite plus points. GAR is efficient and reliable and the GA sweeps did an excellent quality control job. Also, the transparency of the review process has mostly been addressed since the last discussion. However, I think there's still some way to go before GA is ready to put this to the community at large again; any serious proposal will need to look very carefully at why this keeps being rejected and how the project has acted to address the concerns that led to its rejection (the same concerns, incidentally, that are being raised here again). EyeSerene^talk 15:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say quite a number of those concerns are being raised in the abstract - without evidence - or based on people's past memories. And the test isn't whether the process is perfect but whether it is robust enough to give some reliable guidance to the reader. I recently saw an FA get up that contained clear original research - it doesn't mean i'm worried about the FAC process as a whole, and i was happy that there were easy steps to take to address it. I'm not sure there's much systemic evaluation being made here. I am however interested in the point about the recognisability of the GA symbol and how well understood it would be by the public readership. That's a good point. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

• I don't know if I necessarily agree with that it would give incentive to get more articles up to GA. At least I always thought the satisfaction itself of getting an article successfully promoted to GA was good enough of an incentive. –MuZemike 08:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Another option would be to enable by default for all registered and unregistered users the interface gadget "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." This might prove to be more informative in general, rather than just offering a little icon in the corner that people may not understand or think to click on. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think all those ratings would be too confusing for non-Wikipedians; most would have little idea what all the ratings mean. Ucucha 11:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The class in the rating has a link to WP:ASSESS, where the rating is spelled out clearly. Anyway, more information could always be added, like maybe a "Learn more" link... although WP:ASSESS seems to discuss the topic quite thoroughly. Either way, I feel that if we are going to inform the public about our assessment process, WP:ASSESS is a great place to point them to rather than just WP:FA and WP:GA. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • There will be very few people who actually read that page in enough detail to get a sense of the ratings, I believe. Ucucha 12:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is a WP:PEREN discussion, frequently declined, there is no reason to have it again, nothing has changed. Wikipedia:PEREN#Indicate_Good_Articles_to_readers. GAs are passed by one reviewer, they are not a community process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please see Geometry Guy's response to your previous post about it being at WP:PEREN. That is not an accurate description of the process. It is a community process where one editor acts as the opener and closer of the review. Most times they are the only contributor between opening and closing, but there is nothing that requires only their comments to be taken into account, and the process has community evaluation at WP:GAR etc. It is certainly less stringent than WP:FAC but it is not accurate to characterise it as an individual process. Did you see my other queries raised in the context of a prvious post above? hamiltonstone (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• FYI I've placed notes at Template:Cent and WP:VPR as this needs input from a wider spectrum of the community than those watching this page. –xeno^talk 13:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I didn't take it to CENT because i was starting to think the proposal needed refining, per in particular comments by Eyeserene. But it's out there now. hamiltonstone (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Someone else mentioned it, and perhaps it could be a simple addition to the GA process. Require that EVERY GA reviewer get a second opinion before passing. It would slow things down a little, but since A-class articles are supposed to require two editors' agreement anyway, this seems reasonable, as GA is, again, much more commonly used. This would also help to further bridge the gap between GA and FA in general. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it wouldn't. It would just be another step on the road towards GA becoming FA-lite. Whether or not there are tiny graphics of whatever colour in the top right-hand corner of an article seems to me to be supremely irrelevant to what we're trying to do here. Or at least what I'm trying to do here, which is to improve as many articles as possible as quickly as possible, and to help others to do the same. That's what GA's about, not pretty baubles. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Malleus on this. hamiltonstone (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• • • I'm not sure how your comment applies to what I said. I was only suggesting a way to make the GA review process more robust. If you favor speed, that's fine. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 04:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion makes me wonder: what proportion of the GAs reviewed in the sweeps were found to be wanting? Are there other data points which make the case either way that GA is or is not a reliable standard? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the data is available at WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total. I doubt there is any other data that would meet the criteria that you specify. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A breakdown of the results is available at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-15/Dispatches. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Some more comments:

• Having the GA Sweeps and a recent month-long GAN backlog elimination drive completed, I'd say it's appropriate to bring up this debate again as the situation has slightly changed; all the other times, the Sweeps were still going.
• As an editor (who has contributed to 7 GAs and more soon), it really doesn't matter to me if there's a GA button on top of the article's page. To me, it's more of a personal satisfaction in getting an article from, say, Start-Class all the way up to GA and seeing how far the article came along to get there.
• I believe SandyGeorgia and others' points about GAs not being determined by community consensus are still valid.
• I would be against having two editors approve a GA. We have a hard enough time trying to keep the number of GANs low as it is, and requiring another reviewer would multiply that problem. Also, in most WikiProjects, A-Class (which is for the most part between GA and FA) requires at least two editors to review and approve it. We don't have the manpower to consider such a notion/proposal.

–MuZemike 00:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Having thought hard, I have a slightly more pressing concern. Do we want to be announcing something as "good" to the world (ie a form of endorsement or recommendation), that is in principle open to manipulation by someone with a biased view and a reviewer of the same biased viewpoint? I'm concerned that this proposal has good value in that it promotes article quality and encourages attention to GA's... but might promote a kind of "politicization" of GAs for POV purposes. On the flip side most GAs do get multiple eyeballs and can be revoked or questioned if there were a doubt. If GAs get more formal recognition will there be a way to encourage wider eyeballs to counter anything like this? For example, a list of GA nominees, similar to RFC? I'd like to hear more thoughts on this before casting a view either way. I like the idea of promoting GAs, but not if it is likely to increase POV. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a list of current GA nominees at WP:GAN (and of current GAs at WP:GA). Ucucha 20:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the same incentive to get POV FAs exist and to be frank, the uninvolved guy on Wikipedia generally does not care at all about content issues in other places, so unless the guy uses a ridiculous tone, they won't get any eyebrows for POV/content issues YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Don't know if I mentioned this before but anything which breaks down barriers between passive readers and active contributors I feel is a good thing. If the tiny symbols attract even one or more reader into editing, by whatever way, including pointing out a Good article that they feel no longer meets criteria, then it is a boon for the site. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Although some of of the opposes above believe that GAs are not developed enough to warrant their own symbol, I would say that we the GAs are a great influence on the encyclopedia. Looking at just a few GAs, some articles were developed out of stubs and significantly improved to reach GA status. It doesn't really matter if an editor did all that work for a symbol or a barnstar, the end result is that we now have an article that is sourced, neutral, and developed enough to adequately cover the subject. I list the GA/FAs that I've worked on at my user page, and although I like the fact that they got that far, the main reason I display them is to encourage other editors to take the steps to bring an article to GA/FA quality. I don't see why we would want to hide what these articles have become. If we're worried that readers aren't going to know what GAs are or that they're going to have some different perception of the articles in relation to FAs, the symbol and link to WP:GA will clarify that. Most readers don't necessarily know what an FA is, but once they click on that star, they clearly can see an intro on that page that details what an article must contain to be an FA. This green symbol will do the same for GAs—provide an indicator for those that are curious about the article's quality while also having the option to visit WP:GA to learn more about what it takes to get there. Although there may be some worries about adding a GA symbol that would detract from the allure of the FA star, in the grand scheme of things, it's not that big a deal. When the vast majority of Wikipedia's articles are in poor condition, we should do everything we can to continue to encourage more editors (and hopefully turn more readers into editors) to continue to improve articles to GA/FAs. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• I Support the addition of this symbol to all GAs. One of the criticism of Wikipedia is that there is supposedly no review process. Both GA and FA are reviewed and having both these pages labeled will make more readers realize that this common perception is false. By the way the support was 55 to 19 for this proposal. Should it not have passed?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It has passed, and we're now talking about implementation in the thread at the bottom of this page. Ucucha 12:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Should all A-class articles have the A-class symbol on the article page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm strikingthrough this to leave the discussion visible, but suggest that this one is dead in the water and need not further detail us. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I replaced that with {{archivetop}} for easier readability, but good move; this was a major failure. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguments in favour

• Being rated as A-class represents a higher standard than GA (generally requires 2 uninvolved editors to tick it off -see WP:A?), so it has if anything a stronger claim to represent a quality assurance standard than does GA.
• While formal A-class review systems are only actively maintained in some specific Wikiprojects, such as Milhist, Ships and Aviation, it is a cross-WP standard which can be applied to any article: see WP:1.0/A.
• The symbol will increase visibility of the A-class standard, attracting more nominations and participants.
• A-class nominations tend to focus on content-related issues and ensure that the article is accurate (as opposed to GA's style focus).

Arguments against

• While A-class may be a cross-WP standard in theory, as it is supposed to be assigned by WikiProjects it is not uniformly applied; Milhist's standards (WP:MH/A) are much more explicitly defined than 1.0's. As a result, there may be less certainty for readers about what an A-class symbol means compared to FA or GA.
• The increased rigour at GA may be closing the gap between GA and FA, making an additional quality standard redundant in the longer term.
• Symbols on the article page should be limited to those of widespread, well-known standards, not ones that are only used by some wikiprojects.

Yes

No

1. Oppose. These A/B/C class article evaluations lack any sort of academic rigor; many editors bypass these useless grading schemes for GAN and FAC, which at least require a review process. A/B/C grades are often assigned randomly, with little or no consistency. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   I think you are confused. A-class articles require, at minimum, support from two uninvolved editors. It's quite different from the B/C/Start/Stub grading. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

   This isn't enforced then. At WT:INB Nichalp (talk · contribs) used to self-award A-class articles Sir Creek (he also proposed a caste system whereby certain "quality" editors like him would be able to self-award while others could not Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_40#Culture_of_Thiruvananthapuram:_Class_A_formal_review) and there are others floating around that were randomly added. On another note, with in-project reviews, many WikiProjects systematically cook their books. I did a person sampling once and one WikiProject had 100% FAC/FAR support and the average size of their B/Starts were 14k and 3k (the average of other projects I sampled were 25k and 7k). Also with internal assessments there is a strong impetus to not put up their own articles up for review if they fall behind standards. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose A-class articles vary in quality more than GAs as there is not a centralised process of assessment. Formal processes such as that of Milhist are the exception rather than the rule. The underuse of this class is demonstrated by the statistics: 730 A-class articles compared to 9,149 GAs, 3,107 FAs, and 1,392 FLs. Having a mark on an article such as the bronze star should be a mark of quality, with the varying standard of A-class articles I don't think this can be guaranteed. I feel the A-class process has a long way to go before it can be taken as a legitimate mark of quality. Nev1 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Now is the time: Let's end the chaos of GA/A/FA. Let's recognize that in the scale of Stub/Start/C/B/GA-A-FA that a separate A-class rating is superfluous. GA and FA should be recognized as different orders of A: GA being equivalent to A-/A, and FA being equivalent to A+. This is not grade school: there is clearly no need for three different ratings in this narrow range and absolutely no need for three different rating processes. According article page designation to GAs and denying it to As will encourage rationalization of the system. Ultimately what we want is a drive to make each A-class article an FA candidate; in cases where no one volunteers to act as nominator for that, redesignate the article automatically as GA and see if it survives eventual GAR vetting. That will bring sense to the system and concentrate grading efforts into just two processes rather than three, improving results overall.—DCGeist (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose: as wtih DCGeist, I too feel we need some ratinalising here and maybe a push to review all A class articles (and maybe nominate at FAC) would be a great benefir I think. Streamlining is a good thing here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose "Featured" and "Good" content have established widi-wide systems. Other ratings do not, and thus should not be marked for readers. Maurreen (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose for the time being due to the variation in quality between different WikiProject assessments and the limited use of the A-Class rating. Some A-Class review processes - Milhist being the obvious example - are extremely rigorous (basically FAC in all but name); others, as pointed out by YellowMonkey, less so. According to the guidance from the V1.0 team at WP:ACLASS this isn't necessarily a problem, but unless we also have a way of informing the reader of the 'soundness' of the process behind the rating I think a symbol on an article would be essentially meaningless. It could even be counter-productive; readers coming across lower quality A-Class articles may then be sceptical about the credibility of the higher quality ones. EyeSerene^talk 07:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
7. Absolutely not-- MilHist is one of the most respected A-class reviews, and one only needs examine the cursory pass of Douglas MacArthur to see the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Absolutely not. A-class assessment is arbitrary, inconsistently applied between projects (see American Civil War, A-class to WP:MILHIST but not A-class to WP:USA, as a good example), and aside from the walled-garden of military history, virtually moribund—for instance, number of A-class articles on British topics not related to military history: one, and that's incorrectly classified as it's not actually on a UK topic. – iridescent 14:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose - While it would be a good idea to indicate articles that were assessed at A through a formal review, the problem is that ACR is not done Wikipedia-wide, but by individual WPs. For example, WP:USRD, which covers roads in the US, has an ACR system set up; however, WP:CRWP, a project that covers roads in Canada, has no ACR. In addtion, many A-class articles are also GAs, so the dual GA/A tagging would be confusing. For tagging articles, we should stick with FA and GA. Dough4872 15:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
10. Agree with the first post in this section. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose - this is done by wikiproject, so unless we can somehow unify every wikiproject on A-class, there's no way.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 20:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

1. My initial reaction was yes, but since there aren't consistent standards, I have some doubts. Also, it may be confusing to some readers to see articles market with "GA", "A", and a star. A casual glance wouldn't really tell you which were which, in terms of a quality ranking. I think it would have to be either GA or A, and while I like the idea of A quality articles, I'd say there is way too much inertia to ever implement that in place of the GA standard. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
   1. I don't think anyone is suggesting an article should have more than one symbol. It would have just whichever was the 'highest' quality rating. I may be mistaken, but I think there is a clear acceptance within WP that the order from lowest to highest is GA-A-FA. I accept it might be slightly less clear to a lay reader. That could be an argument to limit the symbols to just GA and FA, but others may have a different view. You are right I think, A-class could never supplant GA given the momentum and record of the GA project. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
   2. Sorry, I was afraid that wouldn't be clear. I didn't mean more than one per page, I just meant having three different symbols could be confusing. That's one strength of the current system: you see a star, and you know the article is top quality. If you saw, on different articles, a star, a plus symbol, and an A, as a random reader, would it be clear what the order of quality was? Torchiest (talk | contribs) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
2. There's no standard with A-class though, not every project uses it. GA seems (to me) to be accepted across the board, so one could incorrectly infer that A-class is lesser than GA. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
3. If A-class is allowed I see every project creating their own operation so that they can bannerise their stuff. In 2006, there was an India-Star on some pages that got quickly deleted, and given that some projects have almost 100% and exactly 100% (in the case of one nation state wikiproject) pile-on support (votestacking) on their FACs, I wouldn't be surprised if lots of them started A-ing articles that are really C+/B- standard YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Several projects already operate A-Class Reviews of some sort. I won't speak for the others, but WP:USRD only accepts nominations of current B-Class or GA-class articles for an ACR. In practice, because of the Stub → Start → C → B → GA → A → FA progression, only GAs are nominated at ACR typically. For that reason, USRD A-Class assessments, for which we require 4 reviewers to support promotion, are all GAs. (Any that aren't should probably pass a GAN easily.) Unless a Wiki-wide ACR is instituted though, I don't see a consistent and acceptable basis for displaying the A-Class symbol. Imzadi 1979 → 09:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General comments not directly relating to one of the two proposals

Thanks in advance for everyone's input. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Polls and WP:RfC's are nice and all, but a proposal such as this requires much greater visibility than a WikiProject talk page (was this even listed as a request for comment?). At a minimum, this should be advertised on WP:CENT. Also, I suggest a proposal such as this be discussed somewhere more central; Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be appropriate. --auburnpilot talk 02:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This was more of an internal discussion to start; Hamiltonstone is going to list this on CENT "about half a day" from now —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Yes, I am intending to list this at WP:CENT, but was letting the proposal get bedded down and wrinkles ironed out amongst the most active relevant editing community before seeking to attract that many eyes. If anyone else reckons its ready to go to CENT, then i don't own this, but I am hoping a couple more key editors like Geometry Guy might wade in so we know that there is clear support amongst those with the most history around here (eg. I noted Nehrams2020 and Malleus have passed through, which is good). hope to get to CENT tomorrow my time. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Aviation, WP:Milhist, and WP:Ships have been informed of this discussion. Nev1 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Nev1, good idea. I have also flagged it on the FAC talk page. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• It was ed17 who notified the projects, I just thought it should be mentioned here. Nev1 (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, you are right, I should have mentioned that here. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wide publicity will be good. I don't want people surprised later. That seems like it keeps happening (with other things, not related to this). Maurreen (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As a project that operates an A-Class Review, I notified WP:USRD as well. Imzadi 1979 → 09:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm backtracking. Before publicizing this any more, maybe we should discuss any needed improvements and past objections. Maurreen (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that would be ideal, but unfortunately I think the cat's out of the bag. If I can humbly offer some advice, my instinct would be to close this down before too many entrenched positions are adopted, take a look at past discussions, go through all the objections, and decide what (if anything) can be done about addressing them. The final proposal will need to be carefully formulated in a way that answers previous objections and makes GA's case as strongly as possible from the off, bearing in mind that most editors don't revisit a discussion they've already commented on (so it's extremely difficult to argue an 'oppose' into a 'support'). EyeSerene^talk 16:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:PEREN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes please do, and then please ignore it, as it is a dated description of the GA process that does not at all reflect how the process has evolved during the three years that I have been involved in it.

I have thought to rewrite it many times, but decided it was best to leave it. "Whether or not an article is a Good Article is decided by one reviewer, not by a consensus-based process" is false. Whether or not an article is a GA is instead decided by one reviewer at a time with disagreements resolved by a community process, GAR. That is how consensus is achieved, by iteration, and I have been impressed over the years by the alertness of GA reviewers and other editors to problematic reviews.

I am not saying this because I support a GA symbol on articles. Indeed, I have always been sympathetic with the view expressed by Mike Christie that we should not be providing such indications to readers - including the FA star, which (as Yellow Monkey points out) can be somewhat entrenched in older articles.

My view instead is that ultimately it is not a big deal whether a symbol appears in the top right corner of an article. Most readers won't notice it, and the GA symbol is obscure enough that most won't know what it means. What really matters, and this has been one of the driving forces behind my contributions in these years, is that content review processes work harmoniously together to improve the encyclopedia. So it was deeply heartening for me to read the comments above from all viewpoints, in which I felt so much good will about our common goals and the challenges we face. Geometry guy 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

People who only participate at FA and its leaders tend to like to insist that FA is really good when it's not really, if they tell the truth they loose prestige, especially as they have a stake in their image. How many WikiProject leaders don't put on a show about their project? How many of them actually have a neutral newsletter? Most only have good news in there and if something is brought up about POV pushing or something they just ignore the post. If a WikiProject leader is honest about their project's articles then their stats go down, which in any case, wasn't their "merit" anyway apart from the votestacking YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's entirely fair, or indeed at all fair. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been listed at WP:CENT, and a note posted at WP:VPR, but I would suggest that some additional efforts (RfC, Signpost, posting to Wikiprojects ... anything else that might help) be taken to add visibility. I can't think of many changes one could make to Wikipedia that would be as visible to editors as the addition of a new symbol to mainspace articles; I think every effort should be taken to ensure that the many editors who would be startled by seeing the GA symbol in mainspace would be reassured on reading the discussion that led to that outcome. There is certainly plenty of support being expressed; let's be sure that it's as broad a consensus as possible before making the change. A separate point: if an RfC is undertaken I would like to suggest that it include, as an option, the choice of eliminating the FA star from mainspace articles. Mike Christie (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

To editors perhaps, but I doubt that many readers even notice, or have any idea what the bronze star means. I agree with you that the choice of losing the FA star ought to be offered though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree re editors vs. readers; I said "editors" deliberately but perhaps I should have emphasized the point. It's the editors, not the readers, who might come here to complain, after all. Mike Christie (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Good articles

Since you are at it, if you adopt the GA star for English language articles, could you consider indicating foreign GAs ? Currently, foreign FAs are indicated using the template Link FA, but no template Link GA is in use. In all wikis I know, either none (on small wikis) or both (on large wikis) are in use, the case of en: is a bit weird in that regard. Oyp (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of foreign language wikis that don't use GA symbols for other foreign language wikis. Some times ago I went through many to add said symbols for a German GA and found they are widespread but not universally used. Hekerui (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While I applaud your suggestion to give GA (whether in English or in other languages) more credits, the complexity is larger than what you thought. Foreign GAs often use different symbols than ours. It would cause too much trouble to integrate different symbols into toolbox. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Er… what ?! All that needs to be done is to copy the Link GA model from a foreign wiki and have a bot broaden its scope. It is already done in many wikis. You don't need different symbols, just one. Oyp (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, why not just use our symbol? No need to use the symbol from the linked wiki. --PresN 18:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New proposal related to the FA star proposal above

I have made a proposal at WT:ASSESS that is somewhat related to the issue of the FA star (and the desire for a GA icon). It looks at a broader issue by focusing more on helping readers understand our assessment system, rather than just focusing on recognizing quality content. Feedback, positive or negative, is strongly encouraged. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Right now I see some oppose simply because A-class is not included. So here we are again, history repeating itself. People are focusing disproportionate weight to trivial issues or failed to address issues related some niche parties which results in a horde of voters opposing the scheme while not looking at big picture. You're playing with fire. Stub, start, C, and B-class are assessed differently by different projects and editors. You shouldn't group GA and FA with these classes. I strongly urge you to withdraw that proposal in WP1.0 because you're trying to tackle too many things at the same time. Besides, we should develop a strong opinion here first on the GA symbol in mainspace issue, get the kinks ironed out, and then move to WP1.0 for how to streamline the rest. Just my thoughts. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with OhanaUnited. Maurreen (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Still, at least getting it on the table and seeing what ensued gave some valuable insight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it didn't, It just exposed entrenched positions. Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It was informative for me, since I hadn't been as familiar with those "entrenched positions." It's not over yet. Once I get caught up on some content creation that I've promised, I plan to revisit the issue, not as a new proposal, but more as a RfC. Now that I have a better feel for which landmines to avoid, I'll try to outline the issue better without offering any specifics. If we can get a general consensus that an explanation of some sort of assessment should be provided to the readers, then we can slowly start trying to tackle the more challenging issues, starting with the broadest issues and working our way down. It may not work. Compromise and civil debate will be needed. Call me an optimist, but I would like to think that the majority of our editors are capable of these basic negotiation techniques.

I don't want to have to address each of those sticky issues individually, but I will if I have to. However I prefer the approach of Buckminster Fuller: "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." – VisionHolder « talk » 00:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish you luck. I'm reminded of a comment by Dr Johnson, which I'm quoting from memory: "Nothing will ever be done, if first all objections have to be overcome." In the wikipedia context, I'm afraid that translates to "nothing will ever be done" The place has ossified. Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia (or in any aspect of life) has universal approval. Yet things still manage to change. It's simply a question of what we can collectively envision. Yes, there are numerous objections; however, many of our problems now stem from ideas that originated when Wiki was much younger. Wiki has grown and developed since. The stresses we feel (such as falling behind in assessments) are a product of a system that didn't anticipate the uneven growth and editor interest. If we take a step back and consider the broader picture, maybe we could re-design the system to better fit our strengths and weaknesses. Anyway, just keep an eye on WP:VPD. I'll try to post something new within a week. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. For myself, all I can say is that I've been through this "GA is crap, it ought not to be featured" probably once too often now. I spent a lot of time and effort, as did many others, on the GA sweeps, in the naive belief that it might open a few minds, Obviously it didn't, so I'm the fool. Malleus Fatuorum 03:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't think the sweeps were a waste of time; they improved a lot of articles. Improving the encyclopedia is more important than changing someone's mind on a project-space talk page, though in fact I believe a lot of people do have a better opinion of GA's commitment to quality now as result of the sweeps. Mike Christie (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do feel that it was a waste of time. It should be clear to anyone who bothers to look that the quality of GAs is now far more consistent than the quality of FAs, but still the same old objections keep geting trotted out. Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think if your enjoyment of Wikipedia relies on changing the minds of a significant number of fellow editors to agree with you (on almost any topic) you're bound to be frustrated. My own view is that an outlook that allows one to enjoy Wikipedia for the good in it, without getting too annoyed by the negatives, helps to keep one on an even keel over the long term. Mike Christie (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made no comment on my enjoyment of wikipedia, but it certainly doesn't rest on changing anyone's mind about anything, as I've come to learn that's next to impossible. I'm simply saying that if my crystal ball had shown me that even though the quality of GAs is now far more consistent than it is for FAs, there would still be entrenched idealogical resistance to the idea of a green dot on the article page, then I wouldn't have taken part in the sweeps. Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Entrenched ideological positions don't bother me in the slightest, as they carry almost no weight in determining consensus, being usually made by those who are out-of-touch or out-of-step. In contrast the above !vote shows that a large number of editors have recognized the hard work that has gone into improving the reliability and consistency of GAs: those who have contributed to this, especially to the GA Sweeps, can feel proud of their work.

If the above !vote had been the result of an RfC on an independent page, then it would demonstrate clear consensus for a green dot on article pages. And even though it took place here at WGA, it provides a positive indication that many editors have moved on from historical positions about GA, and that the encyclopedia is ready for an article space GA icon, just like the ones other language encyclopedias have. Geometry guy 17:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Refs for every sentence

Where has the idea come from that every sentence in an article must have a reference? I have seen this said in several reviews (example). This is instruction creep of the worst kind. I am not for one moment advocating allowing unattributable material, but Wikipedia articles are already overcluttered with inline cites. WP:V makes a clear distinction between atributable, which is always required, and attributed, which is required for "anything challenged or likely to be challenged". SpinningSpark 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the statement from the review: "the exception being that several sentences/list items/a paragraph is verifiably covered by a source. If the latter is the case, one citation at the end of the paragraph or list is fine :)" The first formulation could be clearer but the rest of the statement sounds pretty reasonable. Hekerui (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to GA reviews, if something is likely to be challenged, then I'm challenging it. That being said, there should be some common sense exercised here; the bloody obvious, fictional/plot elements, and other similar stuff normally doesn't require sourcing because it's either not feasible or impractical. There should be a reference at the end of whatever that reference falls under; for instance, it's not uncommon to have only one citation in a paragraph at the end if all that material comes from that reference. –MuZemike 18:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the "official" wording says, the de facto position is that everything has to be cited. Not necessarily after every sentence, but somewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the example choosen is a medical article and that has to comply with Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) as well as WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We've discuused this before. The worst problem is when someone inserts an uncited sentence into a series of sentences that was fully supported. In that case another editor case to read backwards to the last sentence that was fully supported, and insert the ref there too. It's easier to insert the reference after each sentence, it's just copy and paste. Then the inserted, uncited sentence can meet its fate at the hands of WP:V - and a bit of a push, if you're in the mood. --Philcha (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a problem, I agree, but it's not addressed by the messy and distracting "every sentence should be cited". Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What I try and do these days when editing is if I have a ref which supports several sentences in a row, leave a commented out comment on how many sentences or (or para) it supports. At which point it can be split later if things have to be rejigged. One day I hope there will be a show/hide option for the general reader, but I don't notice inlines myself at all these days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Casliber's idea looks. I'd hide a copy of the citation in the (X)HTML comment, and then copy the citation at the end of the last supported sentence if an inserted, uncited sentence appears. Then remove the insertion per WP:V and explain than: the insertion was remove per WP:V; only a properly citation is accepted, not a URL shortcut - I already use to much time on other's chores, mainly vandalism. Then removed the copy of the citation at the end of the last supported sentence, as there would still be one in the comment. --Philcha (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may be allowed to speak frankly, I think this just yet more wikibollocks, designed to make it even more difficult for editors to contribute. If anyone has a problem with the accuracy of anything in an article the proper course of action is to discuss it on the article's talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Malleus, I thought you might speak frankly :-) Seriously, I'm concerned that the elaboration of policies and guidelines - some justified - are making it increasing difficult for new editors and those who did not get the help they need at the right time (I remember being one of the latter). I'm developing User:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors and hope that in time it will be good enough for an essay in main space, and if it becomes really good it may become part of the welcome pack for new editors. It's structured as the first few steps a newcomers takes in through the door, and adopts a conversational style to put the reader at ease. I'd be grateful for comments at User talk:Philcha/Essays/Advice for new Wikipedia editors from members of WT:GAN. I'd strongly prefer not to see "wiki cops" and "builders inspectors" turn up at present - they will in time, but I want them to be a minority when they do. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, but the comments at the top of this section were raised by an editor who currently (in the last week or so) has both submitted articles to WP:GAN and is reviewing articles at WP:GAN - hardly a new editor. Pyrotec (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Pyrotec, to summarise:

• The para at the top objects to closely-placed repetions of the same ref(s).
• This may be a precaution against uncited insertions into passages which previously were well supported.
• Casliber suggested (X)HTML comments to count the number of cited sentences, and I suggested placing a comment including a ref at the end of each properly cited sentence, so that the ref could be copied into the end of the previously properly cited sentence. This would make it easy to see the uncited insert and apply WP:V.
• That led to a discussion of the difficulties of new editors. --Philcha (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no real substitute for actually reading the refs and using your judgement. Littering the article with more than necessary cite tags and hidden comments is a pretty poor way of guarding against bad faith or OR editing. A fairly frequent vandal tactic is to just cut and paste an exisiting ref. Checking the edit history and then seeing if the refs actually support the diffs is the only sure way. Looking for gaps in a chain of tags tells you nothing. SpinningSpark 14:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I was talking misguided but AGF editors. I agree that vandals can missed up anything. IMO the only solution for vandals is a must tougher policy - I'd like to see vandals get "3 strikes and you're out". --Philcha (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Note

While there's been bickering above about whether to use the GA logo on pages, or what to do with assessments and the like, the backlog has quietly jumped back up again, only three weeks after our elimination drive. We kinda need some people to do reviews to at least break even; we don't have the energy to do another elimination drive in August, which may happen at this rate. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if the "bickering" to which you refer was resolved, then the project might find itself with a few more reviewers. Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

When should we close that poll and do something with it? The poll is running on its third week and hasn't received new votes casted on either side for a week. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we are done here. This poll has indicated strong support for GA quality being recognised on article pages, but there were some significant concerns raised by experienced editors. I think this has been to some extent overtaken by the excellent discussion initiated by VisionHolder at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. This has the potential to address some issues, such as the current mixture of letter-based (A,B,C,), word-based (stub), and classification based (GA, FA) systems, mixture of individually done and community-based assessments, with or without formal review procedures, and in one case, a classification (A) used only by some projects.hamiltonstone (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

We could try "industrial action". --Philcha (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The blacklog always increases after an elimination drive: check the records. There are also open reviews, some going back into March, that need to be closed by someone. Perhaps the empty work list encourages the submission of new nominations; and there is a wiki Cup competition in progress. Pyrotec (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So how are we going to proceed to reflect the new consensus? And we should implement this before moving on to propose or address the stub-to-B class problem.OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is consensus YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So, that symbol...

Consensus was reached in the above discussion. Now how does one go about adding that symbol to the top of the article? I was hoping the project page would've been updated with the info. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh ... is this supposed to be worked into a template, so it will eventually occur automatically and appear on all GAs? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I created Template:Good article (by analogy with Template:Featured article) and added it to Mesopropithecus as an example. I suppose we should get a bot to add it to all existing GAs, unless someone wants to volunteer. Ucucha 19:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Very nice! I don't see how you added it, however. I would help if I could figure out how. Xtzou (Talk) 19:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Like this. Ucucha 19:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, I see. Thanks! I will try it. What is a good method of systematically adding them? Should adding the template be added to the GAN instructions when an article is passed? Xtzou (Talk) 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, Ucucha, thanks so much! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to have a bot which adds the symbol to all pages listed on WP:GA and periodically checks to re-add any missing symbols. Doesn't seem like a difficult bot task to me (though I wouldn't be able to write it). Ucucha 20:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that this was done Template:Link GA needs to be resurrected and the bot (!?) adding symbols can mark foreign GAs with symbols in the "languages" as well. The German and Persian Wikis have bots that do that together with adding foreign FA stars. Hekerui (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And shouldn't the GA symbol in Mesopropithecus hide the "Good articles" category? Hekerui (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I created Category:Good articles by analogy with the FA cat, so the category is now hidden. I'm not sure whether we really need that category, though; I put it in the template because the FA template also had it. Ucucha 20:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I put at request at WP:BOTREQ#GA symbol. Ucucha 12:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much to Ucucha (talk · contribs) for taking the initiative to put in the request at WP:BOTREQ, much appreciated. I have restore the template, {{Link GA}}, per [1] -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to trudge ( ;) ) my way through the articles adding the template. Miyagawa (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's so many. That's bot work :) Hekerui (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an RFC or project notification or something for this? I had no idea this discussion was going on. It sounds like something that should be addressed site-wide, not just at this project. —Gendralman (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, in various venues over the years. Time to move on now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It was advertised on WP:CENT (and is still listed on there as of the timestamp on my signature). –MuZemike 22:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is a big deal. The symbol is so inconspicuous as to be unnoticeable. Who could possibly be offended? Xtzou (Talk) 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, time to move on. I'm hostile to this and think it's likely to backfire, but even I can see that there's an overwhelming consensus in support of it and extending the discussion isn't going to change anything. – iridescent 22:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Making Template:Link GA work

An admin needs to do the work to get {{Link GA}} to work and show the GA icon next to interwiki language links. The following pages need to be edited to make it work:

• MediaWiki:Common.js (copy the "function LinkFA()" and make the necessary changes)
• Copy File:Monobook-bullet-ga.png from Commons to Wikipedia, and protect the image, to use it as the bullet
• In MediaWiki:Monobook.css and MediaWiki:Vector.css (of course, this should be done for all skins, but these two are the most important), copy "li.FA"

And you're done. Gary King (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... -- Cirt (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For the last point, can't we use MediaWiki:Common.css? Ucucha 19:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the changes to the ones as recommended above by User:Gary King - does that work now? -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Not on Aikido (using Vector). Ucucha 19:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Gary King, thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Monobook.css and Vector.css, the image should be linking to this. Everything else is working fine. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job everyone. It works great now. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, working now. Ucucha 19:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked Adolf Hitler and under Vector I see nothing. Is that just me? Hekerui (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You might have to purge, refresh, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, works now. Didn't after I purged the page but did after I cleaned out my browser cache. Weird, but nevermind. Hekerui (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Purging the page won't do it. You need to bypass your cache. Gary King (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)