User talk:Marskell/Archive 20

Giggle

This was hilarious. Cheers! Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In case you're not watching my talk page (Citations in the lead)

I don't know anything of the history of this discussion around citations in the lead. All I know is that in the course of a recent GA review I was confronted with what I thought was an unreasonable request for citations in the lead, backed up by that reviewer's reference to WP:LEAD. The facts weren't "startling", there were no quotations, and it wasn't an article about a living person. Hopefully, while the discussion has obviously been frustrating for both of us, what's emerged is a better guideline than existed before. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Edward Low

Tim, you're an FA connosseur or however you spell it. Do you think Edward Low is ready to go to FAC yet? Neil ム 11:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, they have been implemented, and for the tidying. Can't really do anything about the refs, though - they are old, and I can't find anything particularly new. Neil ム 13:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

According to [1], it was constructed from the given references. I do have access to some of those (because they are old and on Project Gutenberg, or they have certain pages on Google Books), and havsn't found any inconsistencies.. as best I can tell, the site is reliable. Neil ム 13:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha - most of the info came from this fantastic find (pages 264-294) Neil ム 17:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it

I don't get it. Neil ム 13:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case ...

A man walks into a bar with a fried egg on his head.

The barman asks, "Why do you have a fried egg on your head?"

The man says, "Because a boiled one would roll off, you idiot!"

Ba-doom tssch x2. Neil ム 14:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe ease up

...a bit on Malleus (as per here). He's been fairly snippy, but you've been such as well. Maybe try applying the nifty wit of yours to find a way to let up and give each other a bit of space. What say you? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make an issue of this, then bring it on. Because what I see is an abuse of "power". --Malleus Fatuarum 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Callisto

Yes, I agree that lead is two fat. You may try to shorten it. Ruslik 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Stars really aren't my forte but...

I was wondering if there was any info about a seeming contradiction that has always puzzled me about Tau Ceti; why, if it has such a low metallicity, does it have such an enormous debris disc? Serendi^podous 14:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Eeep! Looks like good Jupiters aren't so good after all! Serendi^podous 19:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Please undo you recent edit to WP:NOR. The page is protected, and should not be edited, especially without discussing those changes on the talk page first. Dhaluza 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Heyy...if we're all interested in the topic, come an' give an opinion on Psychiatric abuse...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tau Ceti

Ruslik raised some concern on the review over the metallicity equation. Cheers, Marskell 20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

He's right about the metallicity concern. The text has been modified to say "about a third". There is some margin for error in the metallicity, so I think it's probably okay to be approximate. The third topic is already covered by the text, so I'm not sure what the problem is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

And this excellent question from Serendip: "why, if it has such a low metallicity, does it have such an enormous debris disc?" Does Greaves '04 address that? Marskell 15:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion of the Greaves article suggests that the debris disk may have been generated more recently than the Kuiper belt. It also suggests that the Kuiper belt may even be disproportionately small, perhaps because of an early disruptive event (from a close encounter with another star?). I'm not clear that this article really needs to answer whether there is any corrolation between a star's metallicity and the size of its debris disk. That seems to be rather speculative at this point. I believe we have also found planets around stars with low metallicity. — RJH (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Sputnik day!

Woo-hoo! Tau Ceti seems about there at FAC, BTW. Great work! Marskell 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's good news then. — RJH (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Friendly comments from my experience

Hi Marskell,

I see you having a tough time raising suggestions for addressing some of the problems you see in the GA process and its relation with FA. I was in a similar position once, as a member of the Mathematics WikiProject, which is pretty hostile to formulaic inline citation in general, and to GA (not to mention FA) in particular. I discovered it was pointless, as a member of a hostile group, to criticize or suggest improvements to the GA process, a process which, in fact, I knew very little about. So I decided to contribute to the process at GAR and learn more. In doing so, I came to understand GA better, and I earned the respect of others working there. I suggested more realistic improvements, and they were more readily accepted.

Unfortunately, for historical reasons, there is a tension between FA and GA, which now places FA in a similar position to the Mathematics WikiProject: many of its regulars are often hostile to and critical of the GA process. The relation is not symmetrical: GA regulars do not want to change FA, any more than they want to change the Mathematics WikiProject. But there is, sadly but inevitably, a back-reaction of distrust and hostility from GA regulars. Even though you are acting in good faith, you have to earn some trust and respect: it isn't enough to post on a neutral forum, and leave a friendly notification on a GA regular's talk page. Also, as I discovered above, you really have to understand the process you want to improve.

GA has long ago moved away from its original mission to fill a gap for articles that can't be FAs because they are too short. I'm sure short articles can now be FAs: hell, after some debate, FAC is even accepting "Introduction to..." articles, another class of articles which could previously only hope to be GAs. The GA mission now, as I see it, is to provide a lightweight method for endorsing the quality of articles, not as flagship articles to appear on the main page, but as a basic standard. Personally, I would like to see a 10:1 ratio of GAs to FAs, so that it is clear that the two processes are different. For historical reasons, a lot of work is necessary before GA can fully adapt to the demands of such a role, but I believe much progress has been made already, and GA continues to improve.

Such a basic quality standard can be used as a stepping stone on the road to FA for those who wish to use it, but it doesn't have to be. I mean you can create an FA in a few days if you are utterly dedicated, but most editors prefer to proceed more slowly. I leave you with these thoughts. Geometry guy 21:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to emphasis one key statement from G'guy that differentiates his many proposals that have since been implemented from this one; he wrote, "I suggested more realistic improvements." That's basically what it comes down to. Your approach to it all was fine and dandy. But the proposal is completely unrealistic and, in turn, insulting to our project. And the boilerplate you've placed on G'guys talk page is no different. Lara❤Love 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So if I said that FA is completely pointless, that anyone that has posted to it has wasted their time because the project is just a bunch of fluff that pats editors on the back and gives them a shiny little star for articles that they like, while rejecting to grant FA status to those articles they don't like, regardless of quality, and, for those reasons, the project should be merged with some other totally different project, like GA, that wouldn't bother you? Perhaps if you also considered that you'd been taking flack from others in my project for months over the poor quality and shotty processes of FA, and many of us had called for the deletion of it. Still not bothered? If no, then good for you. But other people are proud of their work and passionate about their project. And when someone insults their project, it insults their work. That's not hard to figure out.

Your proposals and some of the statements you've made about the project since, show that you lack experience in it because your comments don't match what is true of the project. Perhaps you should consider taking G'guy's advice and participate in our project, learn our processes and review our current proposals before making judgmental comments on a project you neither understand nor appreciate. Lara❤Love 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Back up your claim that I've violated CIV with diffs. Bishonen's summary of those logs is hyperbolized. I've read the logs, it's not as bad as he states it. Have you read the logs? Past that, I can go through my archives if necessary. The use of "time wasted" in some form were yours. Just because you don't find GA to be useful doesn't mean it should go away. As has been stated many times before, not everyone wants to go for FA. And the hate, disrespect and calls for deletion from FA are numerous, would you also like me to waste time digging up those diffs? It won't take long, really, because there are dozens of conversations to choose from. Are you really questioning that? Because even you stated in your proposal that FA regs tend to be hostile. Lara❤Love 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see two editors I really admire not getting along over this issue, which is an important one. I have a lot of respect for both GA and FA, myself. I'd like to suggest that if there is to be an improvement (and surely things can always get better), one neutral way to approach it would be to start an independent content-quality task force or discussion page, which would advertise to attract interested participants from FA, GA, PR and anywhere else interested. It could include discussions of how to integrate A and B class into the hierarchy. That's a long term discussion and a successful answer to those questions critical to the future scaling of quality article production, in my view. My intended point is that if you get a group together that draws on the good and bad experience of each of these content-quality mechanisms, some synthesis might emerge that would have incremental suggested improvements. Involving varied participants in defining goals and problems before coming up with suggested solutions is more likely to be productive, I'd guess. Just my two cents. Mike Christie (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply here to avoid a third thread.

Yes Mike, that seems sensible. I noted on the pump that a workshop might be an outcome. Perhaps we should be scrapping A and B class? Do we have too many levels? Perhaps GA can more explicitly focus on short articles with longer pieces shuffled to a revamped PR? We need to address the redundancy issue and we need to do it without personalizing things. "I have my process, you stick to yours" does not help the encyclopedia. Would you like to moderate? Marskell 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Aaargh. I was afraid you'd ask that. I'm about to get in the car and drive to Houston for a business meeting, so I won't be active for most of the rest of the day unless I stop at a Starbucks. I'll consider it, if others would like me to, but I may not have time. Later -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting immediately. I have a plane to catch in two days myself. Marskell 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my previous comment didn't make much sense. What I should have said was that I had been planning to write an article on WP called something like "How to survive on Wikipedia by writing FAs and not getting involved in the project side of things". When you suggested I contribute to the other thread, or moderate, I realized I was going against my own advice; that's what the "aaargh" was for. And as for heading to Houston, all I meant was that I would like to comment further but wouldn't be able to for some time; an unnecessary comment.

Can you let me know what you meant by "moderate"? Did you mean participate, or mediate? Mike Christie (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, I saw your note on my talk page. Have you seen the note I posted in the interim at the Village Pump, here? I was trying to expand there on the note I posted here. It seems to have had some positive response so far. Mike Christie (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Examples

These are examples of your insults, along with some responses:

• "Marrying the two processes would be an enormous boon—it' not FA regulars who have been resistant to suggestions on how to do it."

  On this point, what two projects? GA and FA or GA and PR? If the former, I'd like to point out that GA pages link to FA, but not the other way around. That says something to me. If the latter, well no doubt. Of course GA would be reluctant to merge with PR and FA would be all about it. That's apples and oranges... makes no sense. Your proposal goes back and forth between GA merging with PR and GA marrying FA. So what, you want GA to merge with PR then marry FA. What sense does that make?

• "It wastes edits through duplication."

  How so? Not everyone wants to go for FA, so it would be a waste to get rid of a project that people, although not you, appreciate.

• "It created an artificial plateau—a pat on the back for getting halfway up the mountain."

  Again, not everyone wants FA, so do devalue the work of those editors who get their work to GA by basically saying "You're half way to something that matters" is shameful.

• "You should consider looking at the contributions of an editor before launching an attack so petty."

  You should take your own advice. You should get to know a project before launching a proposal to basically dismantle it.

• "[I]t damages Wikipedia to have two quality content processes that do not intersect."

  GA, in it's current form, damages Wikipedia because it does not intersect with FA?

• "All of the non-mainspace edits wrt to GA are a waste."

  I don't know what the "wrt" represents, but I'm pretty sure I still get what you mean, which is that any project edits are a waste of time because they're not building anything toward FA, right?

• "It damages Wikipedia because the overhead is duplicated."

  I'll have to do some research, but I'm pretty sure Jimbo or someone stated that WP basically has unlimited storage. I'll get back to you on that one.

As far as your claims that I've been uncivil. My comments to G'guy were made after I spoke with you. And this ridiculous proposal and the comments that you've made regarding our project constitute the same. If my responses can be regarded as uncivil, then I would consider your comments falling under the point of "Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact." Politely bashing a project while proposing it be dismantled seems to fit that description perfectly. I'm glad I was inclined to go read that page again.

Past that, I'm all for mediation. I get that I'm overly invested and overly passionate about this project and as such take these sorts of things really personally. And I'm trying really hard to stay chill, but it's not in my personality to bite my tongue. I'm not trying to be uncivil or the like, but I do feel it important to state my opinions, and they obviously come off as harsh. Oh, and last thing, I'd like to clarify the "hate" comment. I'm not saying that you hate GA... although I'm not saying you don't. The point is that FA discussions have made it clear that many of them do hate GA, by the definition of the word. Lara❤Love 16:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I checked, and the response I got from the ref desk is "There is an explicit guideline somewhere that you should edit to improve the content and leave the performance to the technical people." Considering both GA and FA participants are editing to improve the content, you should leave performance to the technical people. If you need the guideline, I'll keep searching. Lara❤Love 18:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration is key. You can't collaborate on the mainspace. You're singling out one project for talk and project page edits, stating their damaging Wikipedia and creating overhead, or no, that's not what you meant. You meant it's wasting editor's time. Time they could be using on editing the mainspace, they are instead wasting collaborating and building consensus. Shame on us all.

We're two separate processes with different procedures, different criteria, different reviewers. We have just as much right to discuss and collaborate as any other project on Wikipedia. What I think is a waste of time is this discussion and all relating to it. It makes no sense, it's wavering, and completely ridiculous. It's a waste of time. Lara❤Love 19:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some additional comments from reading G'guy's response below. I apparently missed part of the proposal, or your additions to it. Getting rid of GAR? Are we getting rid of FAR and FARC as well? The idea that G'guy liked, about removing articles from GAN once they are being removed, unfortunately, is also a bad idea. But don't get me wrong. I don't think this one is ridiculous. For someone who doesn't understand the behind-the-scenes work of GA, that would be a good idea to throw out. It, unlike most of the rest, makes sense. However, there is a bot generated report that lets us know which articles have been tagged as under review or on hold for too long. That way, we can easily keep up with what's going on. People sometimes forget about that review they started Monday of last week and nobody bothered to drop a line on their talk page. Or that article they were thinking they passed/failed, but it's still on hold. So if the articles were just removed from the page when someone decided to review them, there'd be no way for me (or anyone else who may ever be inclined to do it) to check through these and drop little reminders. This is a further example of why one should get to know a project before making mass proposals to change it or get rid of it. Lara❤Love 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's an example of the procedural sloppiness that I've been talking about from the beginning. You have cluttered and confused throughput: "People sometimes forget about that review they started Monday of last week and nobody bothered to drop a line on their talk page. Or that article they were thinking they passed/failed, but it's still on hold"—stop right there and you have an example of why the process is problematic. The clutter and confusion then requires caretakers generating voluminous non-mainspace edits: waste. The fact that you even need to do sweeps should tell you something.

The principal point of the General review, which I think Guy grasps, is that it could generate the 10 to 1 evaluation increase. There is simply no way of moving into the five or even six digit range with the present GA structure. (Or FA—there's no pretence that 100k articles are actually going to go through the process.) Conversely, there would be no pretence with a General review that it swears by every article—you would have to accept an error rate of 10% to 20%.

FAR is explicitly a content improvement process. GAR is a vote; if it clearly resembles anything it's FARC circa late '05. Marskell 11:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Friendly comments from my experience revisited

[I hope you don't mind me moving this here: I have trouble following posts on multiple pages and would like to continue our exchange here. This page is on my watchlist.]

Hi Marskell,

I see you having a tough time raising suggestions for addressing some of the problems you see in the GA process and its relation with FA. I was in a similar position once, as a member of the Mathematics WikiProject, which is pretty hostile to formulaic inline citation in general, and to GA (not to mention FA) in particular. I discovered it was pointless, as a member of a hostile group, to criticize or suggest improvements to the GA process, a process which, in fact, I knew very little about. So I decided to contribute to the process at GAR and learn more. In doing so, I came to understand GA better, and I earned the respect of others working there. I suggested more realistic improvements, and they were more readily accepted.

Unfortunately, for historical reasons, there is a tension between FA and GA, which now places FA in a similar position to the Mathematics WikiProject: many of its regulars are often hostile to and critical of the GA process. The relation is not symmetrical: GA regulars do not want to change FA, any more than they want to change the Mathematics WikiProject. But there is, sadly but inevitably, a back-reaction of distrust and hostility from GA regulars. Even when you are one is acting in good faith, you have to earn some trust and respect: it isn't enough to post on a neutral forum, and leave a friendly notification on a GA regular's talk page. Also, as I discovered above, you really have to understand the process you want to improve.

GA has long ago moved away from its original mission to fill a gap for articles that can't be FAs because they are too short. I'm sure short articles can now be FAs: hell, after some debate, FAC is even accepting "Introduction to..." articles, another class of articles which could previously only hope to be GAs. The GA mission now, as I see it, is to provide a lightweight method for endorsing the quality of articles, not as flagship articles to appear on the main page, but as a basic standard. Personally, I would like to see a 10:1 ratio of GAs to FAs, so that it is clear that the two processes are different. For historical reasons, a lot of work is necessary before GA can fully adapt to the demands of such a role, but I believe much progress has been made already, and GA continues to improve.

Such a basic quality standard can be used as a stepping stone on the road to FA for those who wish to use it, but it doesn't have to be. I mean you can create an FA in a few days if you are utterly dedicated, but most editors prefer to proceed more slowly. I leave you with these thoughts. Geometry guy 21:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Your friendly advice

Hi Geometry guy. Thanks for your comments.

I have never seen a process on Wikipedia that generates as much emotional investment as does GA. Any criticism—and this is true since early '06—is treated as a personal insult. It makes discussion impossible. On the village pump I've been told that people are motivated by hatred in saying that GA doesn't work. Whaaa? If that's the starting point, where are we going to get to? And the emotional aspect is reflected in GA wording. It's constantly talking about itself. Constantly mentioning how it's not FA. And it's studded with misconceptions about what FA actually is. "Hell, after some debate, FAC is even accepting 'Introduction to...' articles." When did it not accept them? The opposes here were baseless. FA has accepted every class of article—except very short ones—since its inception. Toilets in Japan was made FA in 2004. I offered up this on the village pump without reply: name me five GAs that could not be FA. I've never found any.

"It isn't enough to post on a neutral forum, and leave a friendly notification on a GA regular's talk page." Why not? It's enough for most any other discussion. Must I be sprinkled with holy water before offering a comment? "You really have to understand the process you want to improve." I've been watching the GA pages for 18 months. I don't know every procedure but I understand it in general terms. And the central criticism remains: it diverts resources insofar as there is no linkage to our primary quality content process. It duplicates overhead. And, ironically, it has more overhead at this point than does FA.

Try this thought experiment: if you had to scrap all of the GA instructions and write them again, how would you do it? Don't think of that as a bad idea or an insult to work thus far. Would you not attempt to create a linkage? Marskell 06:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about your 10 to 1 waiting at the doctor's office. Based on current trends, that would require GAC handling apx. 500 a month (the net FA gain in Sept. was 61 and its proportion is as high is its been in 13 mos). And as your volume increases your review page naturally becomes overloaded. So could it handle 10 to 1? Likely not. And, from a project wide perspective, we need two orders of magnitude, not one. 100K is Britannica range.

So. Think of this: a Wikipedia:General review where none of the nomination, reassessment, or even central list exist in present form. You make a request on a largely unmediated request page. Somebody acts on it, removing the request and going to talk; if it's not acted on after ten days, a bot removes it. The criteria are further generalized: you should be relatively unfamiliar with the topic. Imagine you are coming to it from Google and ask yourself if it basically satisfies you in terms of sourcing, prose, and comprehensiveness. If it does, after a bit of talk banter, you add a passed general review template to the talk. (Thus an overall list could still be generated, also unmediated.) If it fails, do nothing. Removing would work through talk. You come across a page that's passed general review: "Sorry, unless a good paragraph on Spoo is added this article is not satisfactory." If it's not added, remove the template. No reassessment page.

There'd be no green plus sign. That would reduce badgism, which is good, but might also reduce motivation. But, I think it could move to something like WP:DYK: a medal on the occasion of your 25th review, a barnstar for successfully requesting 10 pages, etc. All of the overhead is gone, which is what GA was supposed to be. This could easily handle an order of magnitude volume increase—there really wouldn't be a limit on the volume it could handle. Marskell 08:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your detailed responses. There is a lot here, and I appreciate very much your thoughts and ideas.

First, let me get the things which are, to me, less important, out of the way.

1. The spirit of GA. People who work on GA come in for a lot of flak from multiple directions. There are attacks from those who claim that it lacks any quality and want it to be scrapped. On the other side, there are attacks from article editors when their work gets failed or delisted because it doesn't make the grade. When a group of people face common threats, it brings them together. I think this accounts for what you see as "emotional attachment". Understanding GA is more about understanding its ethos and the challenges it and its reviewers face.
2. The holy water. I apologise for the imperative tone of my remarks, which I wasn't really wanting to direct at you personally, but rather at a generic "you". You personally, and indeed anyone, are free to approach the issue of GA reform however you like, and in whatever forum you wish. I was just trying to explain that the way one approaches an issue affects its chance of success. A proposal to radically alter GA isn't going to fly with GA regulars, so incremental improvement seems to me to be a more productive strategy.
3. Introductory articles. I apologise if the flippancy of my remark made it sound hostile. It was not intended to be, and I take your point. However, neither GA nor FA are monoliths: there are shades of opinion about the interpretation of the criteria in both. In this case, it was the "comprehensiveness" criterion. You may say that the criticism of "Introduction to general relativity" was baseless, but it was well argued by several serious minded editors. I'm glad that the consensus was to accept the article. I think it was the right decision for precisely the reason you state: FA should be open to all.

   Another class of articles which struggle at FA are ones with highly technical or advanced material. Even really quite elementary mathematics such as 1-2+3-4+... (which is essentially the only math FA about mathematics) comes under fire for being unsuitable for the main page. Advanced mathematics like Sheaf (mathematics), even if it dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's of MoS and the inline citation requirements, would have a struggle at FAC because this stuff is not comprehensible to anyone without a degree in mathematics. This kind of stuff can be made partially accessible, e.g., Homotopy groups of spheres, but it would still be tough to make an FA out of it.

4. Badges. I'm against them too, especially in article space, as it is an unencyclopedic self-ref. But people like their badges and the sense of achievement that goes with them: would you scrap the FA star too? So, I'm willing to live with the FA star on the article, and the GA plus on the talk page.
5. "if you had to scrap all of the GA instructions and write them again, how would you do it? Don't think of that as a bad idea or an insult to work thus far." I don't take it as an insult at all. In fact it is a good thing to do, because it generates ideas.

Which brings me onto the parts of your messages which are, to me, the most important: your ideas.

• "The criteria are further generalized: you should be relatively unfamiliar with the topic." I disagree with this one for a couple of reasons. First, I think we should be placing as few conditions on reviewers as possible. Second, GA, like FA, finds it difficult to handle technical content. This has led to hostility from some projects, such as mathematics, who basically consider GA to be completely incapable of assessing mathematics articles (see Talk:Hilbert space). You do need some familiarity with the topic to know whether a technical article is good or not.
• "No reassessment page." GAR is used way too much. GA does have a procedure, like the one you suggest, for the delisting of an article by a single editor, but it is not often used, because that editor has to take all the flak. I'm afraid many editors do not take kindly to ultimatums being placed on talk pages of "their" articles. Even if this issue could be addressed, I think a reassessment page is still needed, for resolving disagreements about the status of an article.
• "Thus an overall list could still be generated, also unmediated." This is a good idea, but it needs some thought. For it to be more useful than simply a Category, it needs to be structured, which means that the talk page template needs to have structural information. GA has made a step in this direction with the "topic" parameter. However, adding structural information to the template adds to the overhead, which is what you were wanting to avoid.
• "Somebody acts on it, removing the request and going to talk". This is the idea I like best. There isn't a lot of point in keeping an article listed at GAN while it is being reviewed. This could be a very nice simplification of procedures. I'd like to see if this one can fly.

I'm happy to continue with incremental change to GA. GA has its flaws, but the 10 to 1 ratio isn't going to happen overnight, so they don't all have to be fixed at once. The general review that you suggest has a lot of good features as a longer term target for GA. For example, some of the subsidiary GA pages may not be needed in the long run because they are there to fix temporary problems caused by the history of GA. Anyway, I hope GA will continue to improve, and thanks again for all the ideas. Geometry guy 19:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GA structure

Thanks Geometry guy (what diminutive do you prefer? :). If the size of your first post was 1, and my response was 2, and your last was 4, then we need to get back to 1. Thus, I'll try to be short—not to dismiss your comments at all, but for clarity of conversation. (This is a general, not a point-to-point reply; I make no typo promises):

• The ethos of GA appear to me no different than the general ethos of the encyclopedia: namely, build the encyclopedia. I don't need an initiation on that point. The question isn't whether GA intentions are good (they are), but whether current procedural structures best facilitate direct content improvement. At best, GA does this redundantly.
• There is no class of articles (again, excluding extremely short ones) that have ever been barred from FA. This is now a fourpeat: show me GAs that cannot be FAs. No reply on that, thus far. "...or are unlikely to reach this high standard soon due to a variety of reasons" stands on the GA page now; a line to that effect has stood for two years. It has never been validated. No one has elaborated upon the articles that GA supposedly covers that FA doesn't—Worldtraveller wanted to do so, but no one has made it happen. Both processes have a hard time with technical content? Then it's a difficulty with both processes, not FA. Raul will promote math articles. Bring them: bring Euclidean geometry to FAC (look for good math editors to review it first) and it will surely arrive on the mainpage as Today's featured article in short order because of its prominence. It would be good for history buffs and math buffs both.
• Glad we agree on badges. The present GA structure exists because of badging—that's a central problem. Is the same true of FA? Well, it's six years old—badging has arrived after the fact, though it certainly plays its part now. My opinion on little symbols in mainspace: we identify the self-decided best quality level; we identify none; we identify all. Identifying the best content and content that explicitly defines itself as "merely satisfactory" makes no sense. Best, all, or none. Best and half-best is silly.

You presented non-numbered bullets to the "General review" sub-thread. Note, that my initial post was a talking point; obviously we couldn't try something so raw immediately (I actually added it in Wikipedia space and should move it out). But I see ample room for agreement. It's not something that GA would evolve toward, but rather devolve toward. GA should shed structures. It's not (certainly in late 2007) about killing GA. It's about thinking creatively across orders of magnitude and deciding what amount of review is possible. Three centuries is the joke with FA—three centuries to have Britannica quantity at FA quality. If (a big if) GA is producing Britannica quality articles, we're still talking about a century. We don't need it. We don't need two structures dealing in the same order of magnitude over the same concerns. GA doesn't have to die—it's energy can be transformed.

(Shoot, this is still really long.) Marskell 21:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm glad you didn't respond point-by-point. I'm usually G'guy for short. I see plenty of room for agreement too. Indeed, I agree with quite a few of the things you have just said. I also disagree with quite a few, but they could easily be put in the "agree to disagree" category that makes Wikipedia work. I will think further about this, and comment again when I get time. As for your request for examples, well, I agree Euclidean geometry should aim for FA, but Homotopy groups of spheres? I also gave Sheaf (mathematics) as an example which could make GA, but for which FA is unrealistic. There are hundreds of articles like this. Anyway, I'm not convinced this is a point worth arguing over, so enough from me for now. Geometry guy 22:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC) (There, how was that for a short post!)

Try it on for size

General review The General review is intended to encourage and identify competent content with a minimum of bureaucracy. It has no subsidiary pages outside of template space. If an editor feels that they have updated a page to the point that a general reader would be reasonably satisfied with the coverage, they may nominate in one of the categories below. The article should not neglect major aspects of a topic, have sound prose, and cite its sources. Nominations need only a blue link and a summary sentence. Any editor may choose an article from the list: remove it from this page, start an article talk thread, and leave a user talk note with the nominator. Reviewers are encouraged to edit the article directly if they see room for improvement. Once the reviewer and nominator are both confident that the coverage is competent, the successful General review template may be placed at the top of article talk. The template should be linked to the thread where the review took place. Where an editor finds a page that has passed General review but feels the coverage dissatisfying, he or she may reiniate the process: start a thread, leave a user talk note, and attempt to improve the content. If this fails, the template may be removed. Currently there #### that have passed General review. There is no canonical list. Ideally, every article on Wikipedia will one day be able to pass General review.

Hmm? Marskell 09:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I will continue the thread above for clarity. Geometry guy 19:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Next step on assessment/evaluation discussion

Marskell, I think I'd like to try to put a page together to workshop some of the ideas that have come up. I don't want to set something up in competition with what you have, but I would like to try going about it in a different way. I think what I'd like to do is get down onto a page some ideas about how a collaborative workshop might proceed, and work with a small group -- yourself, if you're interested, Geometry Guy, LaraLove, and perhaps a couple of others, to draft the goals and roadmap. With luck that shouldn't take too long. My preference would be to start with goals, which are something I think all the groups can agree on. One of the smartest people I know once commented (in another collaborative team environment) that disagreements about methods are usually, at their core, disagreements about goals and values.

Please let me know what you think -- if you feel the page you've set up is still the right way to go, I'll probably wait and see how it works out, rather than start something else; I don't think there's any point in having two initiatives going on at the same time. Mike Christie (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What I had in mind to start with was something like the following sequence.

1. Get a small number of users involved, including at least couple with GA experience and a couple with FA experience. Maybe also someone with some high-quality WikiProject background.
2. Discuss and agree the steps below.
3. Create a list of all the content review methods.
4. Identify the overall goals of the methods.
5. At this point, when we have some consensus on the methods and their goals, go out and canvas for additional people to join the group. I would suggest placing notices at the pages associated with those assessment functions, rather than at the Village Pump. I'd like to get workshop participants with experience of the methods and processes, though of course there could be no restriction on who participates. The expanded group would review the list of methods and goals and ensure we still have consensus.
6. Look at the existing methods to see which of those methods meets which goals, and where they fall short. Derek.Cashman's recent edit to Wikipedia:Content review/workshop is a draft of this step.
7. When the above seems reasonably stable, initiate a discussion of what areas should be tackled first. This is effectively a prioritization step, though some intractable problems might be deferred despite being very high priority.
8. Pick a problem near the top of the list and create a workshop section to discuss proposals to address that problem. Of course this is where the real work begins; the goal of everything above this point is to create enough mindshare and common understanding of the issues that the discussion is simplified.
9. Once a proposal is identified that we think has a real chance of improving one or more process, get a proponent of that proposal to take it to the appropriate forum -- GA, FA, or wherever. If it's broad enough, it might require going to the Village Pump, but I think initially we might come up with some more modest ideas that only applied to individual processes.

I was also considering suggesting some ground rules for the organization of the page. I'd suggest the page have the roadmap (above) laid out at the top, along with the goals of the workshop. Below that would be each section in turn: list of content review processes; list of goals, and so on. I'd want to keep stable sections separate from active discussions -- I can think of a couple of ways of doing this, but I don't think the details are as important as making it clear what's reached consensus and what is still being debated. The talk page would be for suggesting changes to the process itself or critiquing the workshop, or any other discussion not part of the suggested list of steps above.

Lastly, your use of the term "moderate" led me to wonder if there would be some value in me playing the role of a mediator/coordinator. That is, I would try to avoid expressing much partisanship in any direction, and in return would take on the role of identifying when consensus is reached. I also might try to guide the discussion, in the way a facilitator might.

With regards to trolls, and any other non-productive contributions, I think they're harmless enough on the talk page, and with consensus from the group to remove off-topic discussions from the project page I think we'd be OK. Anything moved that wasn't blatant trolling would probably go to the talk page.

That's roughly what I had in mind, though of course it would be fleshed out and changed by the initial small group. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you say. A couple of specific comments:

• Yes, small groups lack legitimacy; what I intended to propose was a small group simply to determine if it is possible to start approaching consensus, and to gain some shared understanding. After that, I agree it would be necessary to have a much broader discussion.
• My problem with your specific problem -> implementation proposal is that I suspect it would be valuable to look at all the content processes together, and I think your approach may not naturally lead to cross-process insights. It could well be valuable, though.
• I'm not sure you're right about soft targets. I think the process of identifying soft targets is likely to be divisive in itself, and won't build the sense of cross-process collaboration that would really make such a workshop effective.

I'll think about listing the content review processes on your workshop page; whether I do or someone else does, that would be a useful list to get down. I'll also keep the page on my watchlist and may go ahead and participate more; I don't know how much, to be honest, because I do have some reservations that we aren't really starting in the right place.

How would you feel about me posting some version of what I wrote above to the talk page of your workshop page? If it got some agreement from others, would you feel it would be a productive route to try? Or would you rather I wait and see how your approach comes out? I'm totally OK with either way. Mike Christie (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

As a curiosity, can you offer your thoughts on Cullacabardee, Western Australia? I am pretty agnostic on the whole GA vs FA debate, but I'm curious to see if this GA (which was affirmed on review) which I wrote some six months ago is in the FA ballpark at all - I freely admit this fell into my "I submitted it to GA because I didn't think it could ever make FA based on the limited information available about the subject" category. (This, after reading your reply to GeometryGuy, is my only reason for asking the question - any answer given will neither be used to mount an FAC nor to justify one at a later stage.) Orderinchaos 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Content review - goals

Per your suggestion I've made a couple of changes to the content review pages. I'll let LaraLove and Geometry Guy know too, in case they're not watching it, and after that I'll let things take their course. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Laika

I'm watching Yomangani's Laika; this is a Mars edit.[2] Greek to me; is that accurate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Ceoil left you a surprise, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Shucks, but don't mistake seeming good intentions for raw nationalism ;-) Ceoil 17:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ceoil left you another nice surprise, here. (I re-read Bobcat yesterday; gosh, that's a good article. Hit every nail on the head.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

review

Ok, that's fine. I misunderstood your edit summary. It didn't describe very well what you were actually doing. Dr. Cash 18:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While it make make sense to put it on the talk page, I think once the talk page grows and is archived, the list of the pros & cons will be relegated to little-viewed archive pages, so I'm not sure that's a good idea. It's still fairly notable and pertinent information. Dr. Cash 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. Dr. Cash 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Lutosławski

Hello. Yes, I now have Stucky and Jacobson, I am still waiting for Rae (on request from the library: an undergraduate must have borrowed it and taken it on their summer vacation) and a bit of spare time. I'll see how it goes, and I'll certainly update the FAR when appropriate. It may be a few weeks: is this still OK? Regards, RobertG ♬ talk 11:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FAR and away

What would you think if two established editors reassess a featured article as B-class without going through FAR? How about without any prior notice on the talk page? Gimmetrow 01:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on that one, Gimmetrow. Marskell, I've been really tied up and have a slew of sudden Dr. app'ts. Two things FYI - [3], [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Peerage Featured article review

Could you take a look at this situation? I have lost my patience and will be able to remain civil much longer. Judgesurreal777 01:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Judge, some editors like to hear themselves talk even when they have little to say. Don't let it get to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)