Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/Sailor Moon/1
- Comment (without prejudice). I've stated this before at GAR on several occasions, but it seems appropriate to reiterate it here: WikiProject guidelines are not, and never have been, part of the GA criteria. WikiProject assessments were set-up with a different purpose by Wikipedia 1.0, and they chose to include GA status as a milestone; the GA process has never adopted them. WikiProjects have considerable expertise and reviewers are welcome to use WikiProject criteria to inform their interpretation of the GA criteria, just as past precedent can be helpful. However, the integrity and lightweight nature of the GA process requires that the only criteria are those listed at WP:WIAGA. Criteria laid down by WikiProjects such as WP:FILM, however helpful, are not GA criteria.
- I say this without prejudice concerning the GA status of the present article which I have not yet reviewed. Geometry guy 16:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay...however what other guideline is there for "comprehensive" and "focus" other than the relevant MoS, which shows which minimal sections a well-crafted article in that topic should have. It also is an FA requirement, so why is it not a criteria on some level in GA as well? May want to send an announcement out to all GA reviewers about this, as well, as honestly more do include this as part of Criteria 1 than do not, that I have seen. Or perhaps we can start a discussion to have this codified or formally rejected, since it does seem to be the common practice and belief of many reviewers? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is covered by criterion 3, not criterion 1: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". Note that "broad" is a weaker requirement than "comprehensive". I agree that many reviewers rely on WikiProject guidelines to inform their judgement. However, it is relatively unusual for overly strict interpretations of the GA criteria to cause problems. After all, we are all here to improve the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- From this GAR, it seems that it is causing problems, and I do feel it needs to be made more formal one way or another so that all GA reviewers are on the same way. I've done dozens of GAN and GAR reviews, and I've always included adherence to the overlying MoS as part of criteria 1 (though this is the first time, that I can recall) where someone argued against it being a criteria. So presumably, since GAC does not require adherence to the MoS, but a project does, an article could be GA while not being GA on a project level? (probably drifting off topic here) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a disagreement over the article here, which I have still not looked into, so I'm moving this thread to talk. The meaning of "GA-Class" (as a WikiProject assessment) is a can of worms, which I've tried to clarify on many occasions without success. I think the best we can do is present GA at face value, and let projects decide if their GA-Class requires more than the GA criteria. Geometry guy 18:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- From this GAR, it seems that it is causing problems, and I do feel it needs to be made more formal one way or another so that all GA reviewers are on the same way. I've done dozens of GAN and GAR reviews, and I've always included adherence to the overlying MoS as part of criteria 1 (though this is the first time, that I can recall) where someone argued against it being a criteria. So presumably, since GAC does not require adherence to the MoS, but a project does, an article could be GA while not being GA on a project level? (probably drifting off topic here) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is covered by criterion 3, not criterion 1: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". Note that "broad" is a weaker requirement than "comprehensive". I agree that many reviewers rely on WikiProject guidelines to inform their judgement. However, it is relatively unusual for overly strict interpretations of the GA criteria to cause problems. After all, we are all here to improve the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay...however what other guideline is there for "comprehensive" and "focus" other than the relevant MoS, which shows which minimal sections a well-crafted article in that topic should have. It also is an FA requirement, so why is it not a criteria on some level in GA as well? May want to send an announcement out to all GA reviewers about this, as well, as honestly more do include this as part of Criteria 1 than do not, that I have seen. Or perhaps we can start a discussion to have this codified or formally rejected, since it does seem to be the common practice and belief of many reviewers? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Including the MoS in GA criterion is frankly impossible. My first GA has more than six projects claiming it, and i removed others that seemed too tenuous that appeared after gaining GA. Should i follow the comics, or the film, or the manga, or the science fiction, or the literature guidelines? Project guidelines are just that, useful guides on how best to structure articles on a broad class of articles, but they cannot be requirments unless all projects agree, which wuld make it redundant to the main MoS.YobMod 10:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)