Wikipedia talk:What the Good article criteria are not

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Suggestion

All too often, essays don't catch up with the changes in the relevant policies. Many are simply abandoned and left to rust while the rest of wikipedia goes their own way... Every time the reader needs to check and compare the edit histories (and wow to those who don't). Right now this is not the case (the essay was written a few days ago and there were no major changes in WP:GAC afterwards) - but who knows, right? Remember the MOS wars.

I'd suggest that this and similar essays always carry a disclaimer saying that "This revision has been checked for consistency with governing policies and guidelines as of (date)." East of Borschov 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea, but note also that the essay actually transcludes rather than quotes the GA criteria. Geometry guy 21:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.

That concern is exactly why I transcluded the GA criteria. I didn't want the maintenance hassle involved in minor changes, and if there were major changes, I wanted the mismatch to be right in front of any editor who had his/her eyes open.

I think that the only significant unaddressed risk is if we added a new criterion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stability

I think the essay understates stability:

Merge or splitting articles between nomination and start of review would be confusing, and merge or splitting during review would be worse.
As either as nomination or review, I'd avoid major changes of the article once the review starts, and instead summarise them as comments for discussion during the review. --Philcha (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments.

For merges, it really depends on the nature of the merge: Many 'merges' look like redirecting the other page, and doing nothing (or very little) to the target. That sort of merge doesn't harm the page stability and shouldn't interfere with the GA review.

For splits (and more substantial merges), I agree that an agreement to actually split (or merge) the page is usually a serious blow to stability, but merely proposing it is not (especially if the editor who proposed it is being told that it's a lousy idea). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

This is a great essay by the way, I've already found it very helpful. I have a slight quibble, but maybe this isn't the right place. I'm not sure if I'm at odds with the essay or the actual criteria, so feel free to pint me elsewhere.

I feel that for "factually accurate and verifiable", the lack of a requirement for inline citations is overstated. In my understanding of WP:V, all info must have come from somewhere, unless it is blindingly obvious or undeniably easy for the reader to verify themselves. Saying that we don't need inline citations makes the assumption that the info used in the article is sourced from one of the sources listed at the end. This is very often not the case, particularly with articles that rely heavily or solely on online sources and where no general sources are used. Very often in articles I've come across at GAN, if it's not cited inline, it's not sourced at all.

"Counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" require inline cites, but what about statements that aren't really controversial, but that I as a reader have no idea whether or not they're true, and no idea where to find the source? Ok, maybe this is more directly related to the criteria themselves, I just feel that the essay is overstating it a bit, and discouraging reviewers from asking for citations/sources (sometimes the same thing) that should actually be there.--Beloved Freak 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think your concern is with the actual criteria, which are fairly limited.

Do you generally read all (or nearly all) of the sources named in an article (and perhaps a few more, so you can make sure that there isn't some unfortunate cherry-picking going on)? If so, that step should let you know whether a non-controversial fact is verifiable -- even if there are zero inline citations in the article. You can reasonably treat all inline citations as also being general citations.

The question I think you need to be asking yourself is this: When you're certain the non-controversial material is not required to have an inline citation (by GACR or any content policy), then how do you conclude that it "should" have one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, yes I do read the sources. Most of the articles I have reviewed have mostly relied on online sources, so that is easy enough. I am talking about information not found in the sources cited. I suppose I have been labouring under the delusion that we were supposed to point the reader to where they could verify the information. Anyway, I don't think I'm expressing what I mean very well, and it's clearly irrelevant to this essay, so I'll leave it there. Thanks for your reply.--Beloved Freak 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not contain material which cannot be reliably sourced. The GA criteria demand references (i.e., a bibliography) to all sources of information used in the article. But the GA criteria only ask for inline citations for material which the reader is most likely to want to check. Beyond that, many articles have only a few key secondary sources, which generally support uncontroversial claims made in the article, and these can be listed as sources without citing them regularly for every detail.

This essay is primarily written to counter reviewers asking for more than is required by the GA criteria (and requiring a certain amount of inline citation density has been a problem in the past). Consequently, there is less emphasis in the essay on issues where reviewers may ask too little. If that is a problem, it could be made the topic of another essay! Geometry guy 20:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right. You know, I'm not actually disagreeing with this essay, or the criteria, or what WhatamIdoing said above, but I think I'm just looking at this essay in the wrong way.--Beloved Freak 21:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belovedfreak, I want to thank you for looking at this essay in the "wrong" way, and being willing to share your reaction. It's actually very helpful.

Geometry guy, I've been mulling over this question for a while, and staring at the criteria, and I think the answer is "no". That is, the GACR as currently written do not seem to require any sources in the article for any fact except for the five types of statements that require inline sources. They must be verifiable (e.g., at your favorite web search engine), but not verified. So, e.g., if an article says that Bald Mountain is south of Hell (pretend my example is True™ ;-), and zero of the sources cited in the article say anything about the location of the mountain -- but you can find a RS at your FWSE that supports this, or you happen to know it's factually accurate -- then this uncited-but-verifiable statement complies with the actual sourcing criteria.

However, even if an article does not contain any of the five kinds of material that require an inline source, then a completely uncited article couldn't be declared a Good article (even if all facts are accurate and verifiable), because 3a requires at least one level 2 section that names at least one reliable source, and thus implicitly bans unref'd articles.

Is that how you (and anyone else who's watching) read it, as well? If so, then perhaps we should add a sentence about the difference between "verifiable" and "cited". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2a: "it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout" (my emphasis). Geometry guy 22:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of looking at it that way. (This is why we have these discussions. ;-)

But was any reliable source actually used? What if I have added the information about the location of Bald Mountain from my own personal experience/expert knowledge/recollection of what someone once told me? (It's not a WP:NOR violation because I have specified that the statement is factually accurate and verifiable.) If I used no reliable source in writing that sentence, then should a reliable source be provided for it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) A big problem with WP:V is its ill-defined notion of "challenged" and "likely to be challenged". In the context of a review it could be interpreted as meaning that any request for inline citation by the reviewer is a challenge (making the issue 100% likely to be challenged, hence requiring an inline citation). Criterion 2 discourages such an interpretation, because it is essentially vacuous and thus completely unhelpful. Instead it asks for more sourcing than WP:V requires and sets a minimum benchmark for inline citation. If no sources were used for a particular fact, as in your scenario, then there are two possibilities:

The fact is common knowledge in the context.
It isn't.

In the latter case, your recollection of what someone told you once is not a reliable source (sorry about that :) ), and the GA criteria require that the article makes reference to better one(s), though not necessarily through inline citation. Geometry guy 20:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you exempt from the need to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT if you got the verifiable information from an unreliable source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to that guideline you have to refer to both the original source and your source. So the references and/or the inline citation (if there is one) would say "Scholar (2006), as cited by Friend In Pub (2010)". At which point, the GAN reviewer might reasonably ask that you check the original source. Geometry guy 21:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine that there's no good source underlying it, e.g., I learned from a random blog that Bald Mountain is south of Hell, and the blog doesn't name any other sources. It happens that it's True™, but I haven't used a reliable source to write this.

What would you do? Leave it uncited (unless/until a WP:BURDEN challenge appears), since I actually used no reliable source? Say that I got it from an unreliable source? Cite something that you didn't actually use? Deliberately 'use' a reliable source just so that you can cite something that isn't embarassing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GG, you can't have recommendations here that violate the content policies. V requires inline citations. We have to make that clear. [1] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're reverted my compromise too. [2] If you want to argue against the policy, you'll have to do it there, but that part of it (in fact all of it) has strong support. You can't create an essay that makes GA nominees think it's okay to ignore the sourcing policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just chipping in here on the offchance you are referring to me. I am not the creator of this essay, nor do I respond to the handle "GG". Thanks, Geometry guy 23:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WhatamIdoing has created a wonderful and much needed guide, and any flaws in this essay are due to the GA criteria rather than the writing of the essay. In the Factually accurate and verifiable section the criteria itself is "A good article is— ... Factually accurate and verifiable", with a wikilink to Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our core policies. That link is important. ALL articles are subject to that policy, Good or otherwise. The sub-sections aim to point out the key elements of that policy to assist writers and reviewers of Good Articles. If the sub-sections are at variance with the policy, then the policy takes precedence. The policy states: "anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question." That is rather easier to follow and understand than the current GA criteria explanation of "counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". We need to change the wording of the criteria from "counter-intuitive or controversial statements" to "any statements".

Looking closely at the history, the change of the wording from policy was made Sept 2007 by User:Deckiller after discussions here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The move to reduce the wording from following policy occurs in A proposal, and is generated by personal feelings against the implications of the policy wording: "I long for the day when "likely to be challenged" is removed from our collective vocabulary. It's simply an excuse for Geogre-ish non-referencing" / "I find that spotty as well. Though getting rid of that might be overreaching for now." / "Why not? We may as well clear up any ambiguity right here and now. I could think of better ways to word it, perhaps "extraordinary claims" (Bob is an alien needs citation) or "hard statistics and facts," or "information culled from experts" (which is highly unlikely to be common knowledge)." / etc.

The general improvements made as a result of those long discussions was very good, but the final wording got side-tracked by the personal opinions right at the end, and people lost perspective that what they didn't like was actually policy wording, and changes to policy wording should take place on the policy page. The wording before the change was "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged".

While understanding and respecting people's aversion to the wider implications of the policy wording, the change to "counter-intuitive or controversial statements" was inappropriate and should now be changed back to "any statements" or "any material". SilkTork *^YES! 11:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be bold and amend the criteria, but my edit hasn't worked. Probably a good thing, as it should be discussed first. SilkTork *^YES! 11:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork and thanks for commenting here. I agree with you that Whatamidoing has done an excellent job with this essay, which responds to a tendency for reviewers to impose their own criteria on an article ("my way or the highway" is one description I have seen of this).

Your edit to the GA criteria worked, but won't feed through until the GA criteria page is purged. However, I agree with you that changes to the criteria should be discussed first at WT:WIAGA, so I have reverted your edit. While I sympathise with your motivation to make this change, I disagree with it, so let me explain.

The GA criteria are not policy like WP:V. The do not and cannot overrule policy. Indeed as far as I am aware, they do not even have official status as a guideline. They are not part of the encyclopedia, but are instead part of a (very well established and successful) behind the scenes process to improve the encyclopedia, known as GA. Consequently they have been adapted over many years to optimize that process.

I have no problem with WP:V stating as policy that any material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" should have an inline citation. It is a grand statement that reflects our vision for an encyclopedia that readers can trust. Unfortunately it is also a rather ambiguous phrase (challenged by whom? how likely?). Consequently, even though the GA criteria link to WP:V, it is appropriate for them to give a more precise "GA meaning" to the phrase rather than quoting it directly. Otherwise, reviewers could simply say "I challenge this statement" and hence impose their own preference for inline citations (and inline citation density) on any article they review, even one with just one substantial secondary source.

The history of GA is very interesting, as initially it was rather lax about citations, but then there was a huge crackdown which was very unpopular. The discussions you refer to from 2007 were a response to that, and a step back from an extreme position. I think the current criteria provide a good balance of specific advice to reviewers about inline citations. I have been encouraging stable criteria and moderate changes since that time. If you believe that the balance needs to be shifted, please open up a thread at WT:WIAGA. Geometry guy 22:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one of the mental shifts necessary to understand GA is that it's not a "mini FA". We're not looking for near-perfection. If you don't provide an inline citation for non-controversial material (but the sources do exist, and thus the material is verifiable), then that's okay for GA. People shouldn't be failing GAs because there's no citation after "The human hand normally has four fingers and one thumb," or "Arizona is in the southwest United States," or "Elvis Presley was a famous musician." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be amused by this diff. However, it's a good illustration of the problem with WP:V as it's currently written. As Gguy implies, not every challenge is predictable or valid. For me, interpretation of "challenged or likely to be challenged" generally boils down to I know it when I see it... which is usually fine for experienced editors that are well-versed in article writing norms but not so useful for new or inexperienced editors. Personally I'd like to see a clarification along the lines of "challenged or likely to be challenged by a reasonable, educated layperson", but that discussion's for another place and time :) EyeSerene^talk 08:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd address the WP:V issue by changing it to "challenged". Good editors will normally provide citations when they write material, just so they don't have to mess with it later, but "required when challenged, and not technically required otherwise" eliminates all the guesswork. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love the 5 fingers example!

Changing WP:V simply to "challenged" would be a significant shift which many editors would oppose. We have to accept that there are differing opinions, editors with different backgrounds, and different interpretations within different fields as to what "verifiability" means, and different problems faced by different articles: "likely to be challenged" covers these gray areas. But at the level of a GA review, even "challenged" is problematic, as the reviewer (or any other editor) can challenge any statement they like by adding a "citation needed" tag. Indeed, we want reviewers to make legitimate challenges. But what is a legitimate challenge?

The present criterion is a modus vivendi and operandi that has worked well at GA for many years. It is a delicate balance between reviewer independence and review consistency, but has worked well in terms of low levels of disputes and reassessments since 2007. Geometry guy 21:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It made me chuckle when I saw it :)

I agree, GA has been largely successful in furnishing its reviewers with a pragmatic rule of thumb that can be applied to produce a decent standard of verification while avoiding plumbing the depths of the wikilawyer's charter that WP:V has the potential to become. Although I understand where the objections are coming from, I don't accept that GA sourcing guidance is at odds with WP:V. It simply attempts to define a realistically achievable subset of the wider sourcing criteria. EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the issue here is with the criteria and not reviewing. And when reviewing one should not set one's own policies. That said, I think the project should "bite the bullet" and require inline citing. And set a citation style. Saying "well you can do it other ways" is theoretically OK, but in practice leads to very poor quality control (I can prove it by random article visits). It's sort of a historic remnant of the looser wiki. But we should just get over it and upgrade. TCO (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely

Under "Factually accurate and verifiable", what do you think about linking to Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged?

We occasionally seem to have editors interpret "likely to be challenged" as meaning something closer to "conceivably possible that someone might eventually challenge this". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great essay

I always push people when thinking about corporate strategy to better define what they won't do, what they won't emphasize and to clearly articulate areas of trade-off (i.e. we will work on this and reduce effort on that). REally like the "what it is not" thought experiment here.TCO (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting sources in good faith

About the recent addition "Sources should not be accepted in good faith":

I don't know if this quite hits the right note.

It's absolutely true that a reviewer should not completely skip the citation review stage with lazy handwaving about "good faith". Reviewers should be aware that, with the best of intentions, the editors might have made a mistake, and it's the reviewer's duty to find any such mistakes now, to save the authors any embarrassment if they decide to pursue FA.

But I don't think we are requiring scrutiny of 100% of sources. I think it acceptable to pass an article on the assumption that a few sources were probably used correctly, at least if they don't cover contentious BLP matter and your review of the majority of sources has demonstrated that the editors have generally been careful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration of a mistake to avoid

I'm looking for some elaboration of this mistake to avoid: "Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources."

How specific is this intended to be? Does "information" mean "a specific fact", or does it go all the way up to "all the major aspects"? The reason I ask is that I initiated a good article reassessment of Wait Your Turn based on its dearth of information about the song's writing, recording and composition, which I believe are the major aspects of a song article. The participants arguing against delisting have stated that the lack of coverage in the article does not preclude its GA status because such information is not available, which I believe they got from this essay. But it doesn't seem like this one mistake to avoid was intended to trump the actual criterion (#3a). Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 03:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers' hobby-horses

It seems to me that a long, detailed article may not be suitable for GA review, because any reviewer is likely to disagree with some aspects of such an article. I am having a drawn out discussion with the GA reviewer of David Hume and I'm thinking of withdrawing my nomination of what I think is a GA. For instance, this reviewer objects strongly to the number of quotation marks in the article. S/he also thinks that some material, although present, should be put in another part of the article, although previous editors have left it where it is. Furthermore, s/he thinks that there is not enough emphasis on the financial situation of Hume, even though there is a line that points this out, and previous editors have not thought it very important. This seems to me to go way beyond the GA review guidelines. I even had to argue against the idea that the names of writers of RS references should not be mentioned in the text unless they were famous and had their own WP article - this objection was withdrawn. As WhatamIdoing points out above, "GA is ... not a "mini FA". We're not looking for near-perfection". Perhaps this should be emphasized more in the review guidelines. Myrvin (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're having such a frustrating time. Some reviewers are better than others, just like some noms are better than others. You have the option of withdrawing it and re-nominating it later, if you want.

In general, my suggestion is for you to pick one issue at a time, and ask the reviewer to specifically identify, by number, the exact criteria that the objection is based on. Sometimes this helps the reviewer get away from "not how I would have written it" to "what the criteria say". If a plausible criteria is identified, then you can ask for a second opinion on the specific question of whether (for example) due weight has been given to Hume's financial situation. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the advice. What has happened is that another reviewer has volunteered to take over. The original (actually the second) reviewer has failed the article, and I've put it into the system again. So, third time lucky perhaps. I think the "too many quotations" was the main problem. I can't find any rules about this. The reviewer said they made the article's language less than clear and concise. Myrvin (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing: I think there is a problem with the "clear and concise" requirement. Any reviewer who doesn't like the way an article is written - say with "too many quotation marks" - can simply say that, because of this, the article is not clear and concise. This could happen with any MOS entry that the reviewer likes, or just because of a hobby-horse, with no MOS justification. I wonder if this catch-all GAC could be made clearer.

Also, I have fallen foul of a reviewer's liking for a particular aspect of an article that other editors seem to think of little importance, so have ignored. In the case of David Hume, the reviewer thought that his financial situation was very important. I pointed out that this is not a good enough reason to fail the article, since GAs do not need to include every single aspect of what an article could cover. This cut no ice, even after I included a line to say he needed to work for a living. It now turns out that what s/he really wanted was a thorough re-write. Very frustrating for a nominator. Myrvin (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Clear and concise" can be a problem, although I think that "well-written" is probably more open to abuse. With "clear", you can ask whether the reviewer understood the sentence? If so, then it's clear (Right? Because if it was unclear, then the reviewer would not understand it). With "concise", you can ask whether the reviewer believes that all this information could be conveyed in a smaller number of words. But with "well-written", it's pretty subjective.

I hear what you say about hobby horses. A few years ago, I saw one review of some award in which the (very inexperienced) reviewer wanted to know what the menu for the award dinner was. For WP:DUE weight, you can always fall back to what the sources cover. If the sources only mention Hume's financial situation briefly, then Wikipedia should emulate the brevity of their attention to it.

Have you read WP:GACN? WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read it, but I'm not sure that the reviewer has. I wonder if the GAC on clear and concise could include your words above. My reviewer seemed worried that s/he could not tell whether s/he was reading a quote or a non-quote. Myrvin (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a stupid suggestion. I thought I was posting at WT:GAC rather than here. (Of course you've read this page if you're posting here!) It's difficult to get changes to GAC itself, especially changes that tend to make the list longer. Have you invited the reviewer to read this page? I think that all reviewers would benefit from it, but you might call me biased on that point, because I'm one of the primary authors. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did give a link here, but s/he just said s/he had "read GAC, thank you." You might find the new part-review edifying: Talk:David Hume/GA4. Myrvin (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing: I feel I have opened Pandora's box. Take a look at Talk:David Hume/GA4 and tell me which of these hundreds of demands are actually GAC demands. We now have two reviewers and two sets of hobby-horses.Myrvin (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've got a few good suggestions amongst an enormous amount of nitpicking (not all of which is unreasonable) and a remarkable amount of "I like ____ better than what you chose", where ____ is not in the criteria. Did you happen to request a more thorough review than average (for example, to prepare for FAC)? People do that sometimes, and it can result in this sort of "Spanish Inquisition" mode. Other times, it's just a sign of reviewer's inexperience or uncertainty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS/Captions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic value

The GA criteria link MOS/Captions and MOS/Image relevance, and my understanding is that in general they are expected to be followed. My confusion, partly based on a line in this guide, For the purpose of a GA review, all other parts of the MoS are optional. resulted in this enlightening discussion on Aircorn's talk page (even though in this case, there may be an exception sufficient to justify relaxing MOS/Captions). Therefore, I propose to add a rider to the statement "all other parts of the MoS are optional"; something like "except image relevance and WP:MOS/Captions, which are covered under the GA criterion 6." Catrìona (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @WhatamIdoing:, who seems to have been involved in creating this guide. Catrìona (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catrìona, thanks for the ping. A link to Wikipedia:Captions was present in the very first revision of the Good Article Criteria. At that time, the page was neither a guideline nor a part of the Manual of Style. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic value was moved into the MoS in late 2011. So from the parochial POV of the GACR, those aren't – or, at least, they weren't – MoS pages, and I think you're the first editor to notice that they became MoS pages some years ago. Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 2#An MoS Discussion might interest you, as a sort of philosophical background about why we want to limit how much of the ever-sprawling MoS needs to be considered.

On the subject of your actual problem, the image creator's reply at c:User talk:Rexcornot/Archive 1#Crediting you for thumbnails should entirely resolve the difficulty: no credit line is required on Wikipedia. (The account was renamed a while ago; it's the same person.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I've now added a note with clarification. Catrìona (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common knowledge

In 2010, as discussed above on this page, @Geometry guy added a sentence saying that common knowledge does not require inline citations. This is consistent with long-standing practice and pages such as Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed ("General common knowledge" was in the first draft of this FA-focused page by @Raul654 in 2007) and Wikipedia:Common knowledge#Acceptable examples of common knowledge (a page originally split from Wikipedia:Reliable sources in 2005). The usual example of common knowledge is "Paris is the capital of France".

@The Rambling Man removed it a few weeks ago, saying "common knowledge is purely subjective, this is a highly inappropriate term to use". The edit changed the page from saying "Statements made in the article should either be common knowledge or reflect the material in the sources" to saying "Statements made in the article should be reflect the material in the sources."

I don't agree that Common knowledge is purely subjective. (Common sense might be purely subjective, but that's not the same thing.) IMO removing this phrase changes the page so that it implies that absolutely everything in an article must be found in a cited source (not just in a reliable source, but specifically in one that's already cited in the article), even if the material is indisputably WP:SKYISBLUE material and actually undisputed by anyone.

This phrase was meant to address problems with reviewers exceeding the written GA criteria. I think it should be put back in this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it first so I agree with the rambling man here. The standards for referencing have improved since 2010 and this essay probably needs updating to reflect that, not just in this regard. The wording “likely to be challenged” from the criteria does not equate to common knowledge. No one is likely to challenge Paris as capitol of France, but I would challenge the sky being blue. As I type it is black, and even during the day it is as likely to be white, red, grey or another colour. If I as a reviewer challenge a statement then it needs a source. If one can’t be provided then it needs to be amended or removed. It doesn’t matter if it is common knowledge to the nominator. Also it is worth noting that this was removed from the original research part. Even if we agree common knowledge shoulD not be cited that is more a 2b revelation. In fact original research should just be a simple no, with anything resembling it needing attribution and a cite? 06:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Aircorn (talk)

It shouldn't be there. What's "common knowledge" to some (e.g. Christian Americans) may not be common knowledge to others (e.g. atheist Australians). Good articles are not nor have ever meant to be close to FA, but reducing it down to just argument over what is and what is not "common knowledge" is an unnecessary distraction. Even DYK has higher standards than that shoddy approach. Oh, and WhatamIdoing, please try harder to reflect what actually happened. That was removed by Aircorn, you then reinserted it, before I removed it again. You really don't start these discussions well, do you? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have either of you ever seen an GA review in which there was a dispute over whether something was common knowledge? I don't remember seeing one, but 11 editors have mentioned "common knowledge" in GA review this year, so let's see what they think:

Some of these editors said that the material was common knowledge; others said that it wasn't. I didn't see anything that looked like an 'argument over what is and what is not "common knowledge"', but perhaps these editors will comment on whether they experienced a dispute over whether something was common knowledge and/or whether they think that Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not should explicitly say that GAs (like FAs) don't have to provide inline citations to common knowledge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment in the album GA review was over a passing mention of Horn's other albums within the article. Horn is one of the most notable producers of the 1980s, and the most notable user of the sampler instrument Fairlight CMI. My comment wasn't a dispute of common knowledge but of the meaning of a word, specifically whether "sampling" should be linked to sampler instrument, since the album used the sampler instrument Fairlight CMI and not "sampling techniques", as in a loop of a 50s jazz song for a hip hop track. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase occurred in my GA as part of an unrelated quote, but I'll chime in since I'm here. I can agree with the statement that common knowledge claims do not need to be cited to meet WP:GACR. Though I think this follows fairly directly from the fact that common knowledge is pretty clearly not going to fall under any of the five enumerated categories of statements that do need citations. If we are going to explicitly state it, then I agree with Aircorn that it's more relevant to 2b than 2c. Colin M (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in the context of this sentence: I think this is fairly uncontroversial per WP:WTC#When a source or citation may not be needed, specifically "subject-specific common knowledge", which can be confirmed by visually looking at addresses. This was part of a discussion of whether a map is sufficient to demonstrate that a building in NYC, which is known primarily by a name rather than its address, was next to another building. However, it's important to note that I then said: all of these names are connected to addresses in this source, so this along with the [...] map should cover the content sufficiently. In other words, for the purposes of that specific review, the concept of common knowledge was unnecessary as the building's address was explicitly cited in another source. Epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really tell what I am being called on to testify towards here. I used "common knowledge" in a discussion that was referring to that Alfred Munsell was commonly given the title of the father of color science amongst color scientists. The link I was point to in the discussion was a critical assessment of that claim by a color scientist (which confirmed that common knowledge). Maneesh (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly echo the above statement to a reasonable degree, as the term was used by me in reference to the certified units pushed by a song since it is well known that modern RIAA certifications are for these type of units. --K. Peake 04:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically neither are these are "common knowledge" as far as I'm concerned so I'd expect them to be cited. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Calendar (New Style) Act 1750/GA1 there was consensus that the material was not common knowledge.Johannes Schade (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so an example of where some thought it was common knowledge and some though it wasn't. As anticipated, there's really no way anyone can assume what "common knowledge" really is. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who in that discussion said that was common knowledge? I see three editors agreeing that it wasn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: no article should fail GA on the basis that the reviewer is applying stricter criteria than those set out at WP:GACR. Further, the GA criteria must not be interpreted as being any stricter than the corresponding FA criterion. WP:GACR#2b requires that all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and WP:FACR#1C requires that claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate so the GA criterion cannot be any stricter than that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has disagreed with that. This is not about source quality, it's about "common knowledge" getting a free pass and the debate over what is considered "common knowledge" to one (e.g. the examples given above about record certification etc) and not to others (e.g. the calendar debate). In all these cases I would challenge the material and thus it would need to be cited. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In what you call 'the calendar debate', it appears that everyone else agreed that it needed improvement, too.

In the 'record certification' example, the comment had nothing to do with verification. The request was to shorten a sentence in the lead (approximately from "was certified gold for selling 500,000 units" to just "was certified gold"). But if we pretended for the sake of argument that it had been a comment about verification, I wouldn't necessarily call it common knowledge myself (it is well-known within its field, but not necessarily known to people who don't care about US pop culture), but I also don't think that number falls into the list of "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" that is required to be cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does fall into that because I would challenge it. You see, once it's challenged, it needs citation. As I noted. Perhaps you didn't quite see that. Trying to claim some kind of generic "get-out clause" which is abundantly unworkable in most any circumstance, is a waste of time and energy here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it was not removed from 2b anyway, but from 2c it contains no original research.. There is no wriggle room here. It might be common knowledge to some that the All Blacks are the greatest rugby team in the world, but I don't see any reviewer worth there salt saying that this does not need a citation and some sort of attribution if it is to be said at all. Same goes with any other opinion, synthesis or original research. Aircorn (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where did your rugby team example come from? Have you seen any disputes that sound like that? I've not been able to find any. Or was that just a strawman argument – an argument to discredit a non-existent proposal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, compounding the dreadful opening statement (again) you're now actively hostile to commentators. Way to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have asserted that "common knowledge" is an unworkable standard, and that it therefore should not be mentioned on this page.

I find:

no evidence of actual disputes about whether a given claim is common knowledge, including at FAC (where they mostly say that some uncited point isn't common knowledge – but agreeing that something isn't common knowledge is still agreeing);
references to common knowledge in Wikipedia:When to cite; and
a page about Wikipedia:Common knowledge

– and all I've got from you is a statement from you that you're absolutely, invincibly convinced that the previous decade-plus absence of disputes on this point will, if we leave the phrase in this page, somehow, at some point, cause some serious problem. I'm not convinced by your assertion. Vehement assertion isn't convincing. It is still more likely that the future is will be similar to the past (which had no disputes about this point) than that the future will be significantly different from it. Remember the line about the definition of insanity as "doing the same thing and expecting different results"? I think if we keep doing the same thing that we did on this page for the last decade, then we should expect the same results that we've gotten for the last decade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly adding a clause with "common knowledge" absolving someone from referencing a fact which will almost certainly not be common knowledge to someone else is purely divisive. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated criterion 2

Criterion 2 has recently been changed to increase the standards for what needs to be cited. I've updated one of the bullet points in this essay to reflect this, but a broader update to the section on criterion 2 is still needed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE

This essay says: Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic: WP:SIZE is not a good article criterion..

However, the templates recommended in WP:GAN/I#R2 specifically link to WP:SIZE. For instance {{GAList}} (b (focused)) and {{GAList2}} (#: B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style))

So is WP:SIZE a GAC or not? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checklists and templates are not the criteria.

Both of those links were added by @SilkTork (here and here, one minute apart). Presumably he thought the links would be helpful to other editors. A link can be helpful even if compliance is not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this article links to WP:SIZE when saying that "size is not a good article criterion", other than the link shares the same word. "Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic" is true, and WP:SIZE says the same thing: "This page in a nutshell: Articles should be neither too big nor too small." So, WP:SIZE IS a good article criterion. If the article waffles or is padded or is too large then it fails "Broad in its coverage: (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". If it is so short that the essentials cannot be understood then it fails " Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic". These are precisely the points raised and discussed in WP:SIZE. That sentence in this essay is wrong. SilkTork (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was inserted by Geometry guy back in 2011. Geometry guy was at the time the unofficial self-appointed co-ordinator of GA. I liked and respected him, as did pretty much everyone involved in GA at the time. And it was very useful having someone always there to sort out queries or problems. His commitment to GA, and the time he spent on it, were very appreciated. Though there often wasn't much in the way of consensus building in decision making. I think, however, we all know what he was saying, because back in 2011 it was quite common for reviewers to impose their own ideas during a GA review - one of which was that if an article was short, it was sometimes automatically failed. I should think that Geometry guy wrote that sentence to indicate that an article should not be failed purely because it was too short, but it doesn't really make sense the way it is written by linking to a guideline which says that articles can be short as long as that is appropriate for the topic. I suggest Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic. - linking to WP:SIZE as the guideline which informs that particular criteria. SilkTork (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have missed him, too, and I was glad to see that he started editing again recently.

Your memory of the overall situation tallies closely with mine. We were spending a lot of time telling reviewers not to make up their own rules or impose additional guidelines. The distinction can sometimes be fine: The article must be grammatically correct, but the main MOS page (which is primarily about correct grammar) is not a GA criterion. The article must be as short or long as necessary, but SIZE (which is primarily about making the article as short or long as necessary) is not a GA criterion. It might be clearer to say something like (in the context of the whole paragraph, with new word underlined):

These criteria do not impose arbitrary size restrictions (in terms of kilobytes, characters or readable prose). Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic: WP:SIZE is not technically a good article criterion. However, size issues may be indicative of genuine GA problems with coverage (3a), concision and focus (1a and 3b), or the use of summary style.

Or we could address the problem directly: Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic, and reviewers must not fail a nomination over the WP:SIZERULE.

Or we could remove the links from the templates (maybe pointing back to the above paragraph, since excessive length can be associated with more than one valid reason to fail an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about (new in bold)?

These criteria do not impose arbitrary size restrictions (in terms of kilobytes, characters or readable prose). Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic. Although WP:SIZE is not technically a good article criterion, ~~However,~~ size issues may be indicative of genuine GA problems with coverage (3a), concision and focus (1a and 3b), or the use of summary style.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One system

@EEng, I removed that because there is only one ref system now. The relevant part of the original version of this paragraph read this way:

"Any system that allows the reader to connect a specific sentence with a specific citation is an acceptable inline citation method; editors may choose between <ref> tags or author-date parenthetical citations or even make up their own system. However, they are required to pick one system for the required inline citations, because switching between systems is distracting to readers."

Parenthetical citations are now banned. That means that there is only one system left. Ergo, we don't need a sentence saying that you must use the only system that you're allowed to use, which is little blue clicky numbers.

(NB that GACR are agnostic about the wikitext used to create the refs, so {{sfn}} and <ref> tags are considered the same system, because both produce little blue clicky numbers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, most editors are not agnostic on the subject of (for example) short vs. full citations, and certainly an article can't be a GA if both types appear in it. How about this [3]? E Eng 22:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article certainly can be GA even if both full and short citations are used. What makes you think otherwise?

The GACR says: "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied so that the reviewer is able to identify the source."

As long as you can identify the source, then a column of short cites that is marred by a stray full cite is not a problem that the GACR cares about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I think you're right. I was fooled by the text you changed [4], which originally read Any system that allows the reader to connect a specific sentence with a specific citation is an acceptable inline citation method. However, one system should be used consistently for inline citations. To me, a citation "system" is specific to a choice of e.g. full vs. short, but as you point out there's no basis for that in the GA criteria themselves. With that in mind, I've dumped all the talk of "systems" [5] and streamlined the text considerably. How about that? E Eng 07:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems accurate.

While we're at it, I wonder whether the line (which I'm sure I wrote) "If an article contains none of these five types of statements, then Wikipedia:Citing sources § General references may be used" is pointful. The threshold for WP:LIKELY has changed so much that this will never happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]