Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good articles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amkgp (talk | contribs) at 15:13, 9 March 2021 (→‎GA review for King Ludwig Oak: trim). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suárez GA review

Would anyone be able to take up the baton at Talk:Luis Suárez/GA1? Tbiw is unable to continue. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it over. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legibility of text in graphs

Does illegible text (specifically dates on x-axis) contravene criteria? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to be more specific I'm afraid. I don't think it would fail a GAN, but should be something we should look to fit (or there is little point in the graph.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA topic for Frank Bailey (firefighter)

The nomination of Frank Bailey (firefighter) was in subtopic Misc. Instructions on passing an article say: "List the article at Wikipedia:Good articles in the appropriate section." Now there isn't any Good article topic Miscellaneous. But the article doesn't fit any existing topic either. On the article talk page I've listed it as topic Society, but in the categories of the society topics, it doesn't fit anywhere? What should should be done? Thanks. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is no good fit. The current choice of putting it in "Culture and cultural studies" seems the best solution, as it seems to be quite a grab-bag category. CMD (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song) at AfD

The article is a GA. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article being a GA makes no difference to its notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Article Quality Ranking

It's not clear to the layman (me) what the ranking of best to worst articles are: featured, formerly featured, good, delisted good, a-class, b-class, c-class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.113.225 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles are more stringently reviewed than good articles. The A/B/C/start/stub listing, in that order, is used by WikiProjects and so is independent of the FA/GA system, but in practice most people would probably say A-class articles rank between FA and GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something obvious is missing in the six criteria

It seems kind of crazy, but there is a basic aspect missing in the six criteria for GA status: The article should be factually correct. I suppose that this is considered too obvious to include, but one could actually follow the six criteria as currently written, and sneak in a totally false premise, without technically breaking GA status. So the words "factually correct" should be added either to criteria 1 or 2. --Sprachraum (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, I just looked at the assessment table at the end of Talk:1917 (2019 film)/GA1, and there the heading for criterium 2 says: It is factually accurate and verifiable. That would completely address my criticism above – but why does the same heading on this project page read "Verifiable with no original research" ? --Sprachraum (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia runs on things being verifiable not necessarily factually accurate. Being "correct" usually works around people doing WP:OR or leaving notes on articles where the reliable source may or may not be right. Information being verifiable is more important to us, and is why we don't mention factually accuracy in the criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An article built on a false premise but somehow meeting WP:V would presumably fail criteria 3a (broadness) and/or 4 (NPOV). CMD (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where did the different naming in the table come from, that I linked to? Looks like a pre-existing template to me. And there is certainly no harm for an encyclopedia to make factual correctness a clearly named criteria for a good article, instead of just relying on the indirect effect of "verifiable" and "NPOV"! All I am suggesting is renaming the heading for criterium 2 on this page exactly like in the table: "It is factually accurate and verifiable." The version on this page is "Verifiable with no original research" – but the research point is repeated with the exact same words in 2c anyway, so won't be missed in the heading. --Sprachraum (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The harm is that you'd be placing on Wikipedians - who are not required to be experts or have any relevant qualifications - the burden of deciding what's true. Deciding what's true should be done by the relevant experts in the appropriate publications, and Wikipedia should summarise it. So the task of Wikipedians is to judge what is verifiable in reputable sources, not what is true. You're actually proposing a fundamental change in the role of Wikipedia, that it has done without successfully so far. The "indirect effect" is enough. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of "factual" is against the means of wikipedia regardless, so it shouldn't be changed. I have no idea why it appears in one GAN review, but that is a little by-the-by. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This talk of "harm" and "proposing a fundamental change" is way over the top – and contradicts the simultaneously stated position, that "verify" and NPOV indirectly imply factually correct anyway. I know all about the need to verify from reputable sources, I've been in the Wikipedia for 5 years now. And of course I know that not every Wikipedian is able to judge for him- or herself the factual accuracy of every reputable source. But that doesn't mean that we don't have to do due diligence in evaluating the sources we use – especially when looking at GA status. Being an encyclopaedia should mean always striving to be factually correct, even if that is never 100% attainable. I work mainly on the German Wikipedia, where a GA is called "Lesenswerter Artikel". The very first line in the link translates to "The following articles are professionally correct, verified, broadly detailed, and informative." Apparently Wikipedia has survived despite the apostasy contained in "professionally correct" (you could also translate "fachlich korrekt" to "substantively correct"). So I would appreciate you not just circling the wagons when I point out the different wording between a table used here for one (or many?) GAN reviews and the wording on this page, and am stumped why the word "correct" doesn't appear here anywhere. Perhaps "professionally correct" or "substantively correct" is less likely to trigger fears of fundamental change? --Sprachraum (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been explained that Wikipedia verifies, it does not assert correctness. I once knew the subject of a Wikipedia article. She told me her child had been born on a Monday while the article said Tuesday. I informed her that the cited source said Tuesday and so that's what the article reflects. Beyond that issue, most GA reviewers don't always check the sources cited, so who's to say if the article is correct? Chris Troutman (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, this line of reasoning is getting embarrassing. If you find out that a cited source contains an error, you remove the erroneous aspect from the article, or at least mark it out as "in dispute", or as "not reliably verifiable". And you could have told your friend to solve the problem by creating a trustworthy source with the correct facts, that can then be cited in the Wikipedia. That's not original research, that is preventing falsehoods polluting the world's databases. Wikipedia has a huge responsibility to not knowingly spread errors or disinformation, because (as you surely know) it is incredibly powerful: the worlds No. 1 source of information in concert with wikidata, copied constantly by other databases und myriad websites, as well as by an eagerly data-sucking Google, which then pushes the disinformation to the front of their search results. With the attitude you have described (which contradicts the proper meaning of "verify") you are basically abdicating the duties of someone working on an encyclopaedia. Like it or not, Wikipedia is used by untold people trying to find out the "facts" on any number of issues. If they see an article marked as "good", they will feel more confident that they can indeed trust the inherent information. If some (or most!?) GA reviewers don't bother to check the sources cited, as you suggest, they should please not bother to review GA candidates at all, and leave that to people willing to do the necessary work. --Sprachraum (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please drop the stick. You have been told multiple times that this is not how Wikipedia functions. We summarise what reliable sources say about a subject - no more, no less. Your arguments are based on weaving a WP:TRUTH that is asanine and contrary to what we do! The idea that you think we should be telling people to go and create reliable sourcing (which would be WP:PRIMARY in that case anyway, so wouldn't beat the non-primary source), is incredibly dangerous and is suggesting BLP subjects weave their own narrative. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we do here, whether at GAN, or in general Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote from the charmingly-titled Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. "The policies of Wikipedia state that articles must be verifiable and stated from a neutral point of view. This strongly implies that they must also be true." We do summarise what reliable sources say, but we don't take every reliable source we can possibly find and jam it in. If a source is found to be false, we don't include it. As a good example, I have cited Dave Marsh's biography of The Who on multiple GAs (including the band, Tommy, Who's Next and "Won't Get Fooled Again"), but I know that it gets Keith Moon's date of birth wrong (although, to be fair, so did everybody else before somebody found Moon's birth certificate and noticed he'd been lying about his age for his entire career).

Chris troutman "I once knew the subject of a Wikipedia article. She told me her child had been born on a Monday while the article said Tuesday." Are you implying a woman doesn't know her own child's birthday as well as some random person on the internet? That's crazy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Chris troutman's apparently-not-hypothetical situation, the "random person on the internet" is Christ troutman. We have no way to verify whether anything Chris is saying holds up. A source vs an editor claim is entirely different from your example of having different sources that conflict, in which case editorial judgement can help determine which source is more accurate. CMD (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that factuality isn't something volunteer editors should be obligated to determine (for GA nominators, reviewers, or any other editor), and that it would cause harm to the encyclopedia. Striving for factuality is expecting volunteer editors to become experts and is asking too much of them. On a personal note, I was once accused of vandalism for supporting material in an article which was "known to be false" despite it being found in numerous sources specific to the subject, an argument of factuality (rather than verifiability) by an editor claiming greater expertise. That put me off editing for several weeks while waiting for an RfC, stressing over the accusation hanging over me. I'll also note that for any subject which is evolving, articles will never be entirely factually correct, as we have to wait for the reliable secondary sources to publish. Adding factual correctness to the GA criteria would mean a continue de-listing and re-evaluation whenever the "facts" about a subject change. Altogether, this would be giving a lot more unnecessary work and stress to editors, and I feel that we would see participation fall as a direct result. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Striving for factuality is expecting volunteer editors to become experts and is asking too much of them." I disagree strongly with this. If you're not prepared to become an expert, or at least sufficiently educated to understanding the topic your writing about, you're at risk of making Wikipedia look like a laughing stock when experts do show up and think "who on earth wrote this?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has been the subject of jokes and derision since it started. I suspect most who have been around for a while are used to it. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Years for songs

There seems to be an inconsistency for this on the music good articles page, so I thought I'd post a message here: should album singles be listed by the year they were released on the album or the year of the single release? --K. Peake 08:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review for King Ludwig Oak

Hi everyone, can anyone of you review King Ludwig Oak as I might have to leave Wikipedia editing voluntarily. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 12:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles&oldid=1011193549"