Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:02, 18 February 2013

view · edit Frequently asked questions Main Criteria Instructions Nominations FAQ January backlog drive Mentorship Review circles Discussion Reassessment Report Shortcut WP:GAFAQ This is the list of Frequently asked questions about nominating and reviewing Good articles. If you cannot find the answer to your question here, you might want to ask for assistance at the GA nominations discussion page. Nomination process The backlog is huge! Is there something we can do to restrict nominations? There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the Good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting; by 2021, 470 were listed, 300 were waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 641 nominations listed and 481 waiting for a reviewer. While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page. Can't we force nominators to review articles? Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) was regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's work. What order do nominations appear on the Good article nominations page? One advantage of reviewing articles to help the Misplaced Pages community is the GAN appearance order: the more articles you have reviewed relative to articles you have nominated, the higher up in the queue your nomination will appear on the GAN page. Note that above this, order preference is given to nominators who are new to GA. What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address? Any editor with significant contributions to the article may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so significant-contributor IP nominators are permitted. Non-significant contributors should follow the advice above for editors who have not significantly contributed to the article. Dynamically changing IP nominators may want to clarify to the reviewer that, despite their signature, they remain the same person. Can I nominate an article I haven't significantly contributed to? No. Nominations from editors who have not substantially contributed will be removed unless the nomination shows that the article's regular editors were consulted on its talk page alongside a note on the GAN template showing their commitment to the process, e.g., |note=Adopted following extensive improvement by another editor. In the past, many drive-by nominators did not know the article or its sources and did not respond to questions by the reviewer. Review process I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first? Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age or position in the queue. As a reviewer, I want to help the nominator improve the article, but it already meets the criteria. What am I supposed to do now? The purpose of a GA review is to determine whether the article meets the GA criteria. Article-improvement discussions are intended to prevent near-misses in nominated articles that almost meet the criteria. If the article already meets the criteria when you first review it, then explain exactly what you've checked in each of the main criteria (e.g., "I have verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images.") and list it as a Good article. "Quick passes" are as legitimate as quick fails, although they are less common. Please do not make a list of nitpicky details or exceed the written requirements of the Good article criteria in an effort to make the review look rigorous. Instead, thank the nominator for presenting such a polished article, and encourage them to submit another. Who can respond to the review? The nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article, while everyone interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. Nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination. Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't? The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator will likely want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact, all editors interested in the article are encouraged to respond to reviewers' concerns. However, nobody, including the nominator, is required to. If the reviewer identifies concerns directly related to the good article criteria and no one addresses the concerns, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. If the article does not meet the Good article criteria after the reviewer has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination. Future article editors may benefit from review comments on how to improve the article. The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over? If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination, you may try asking them to ask for a second opinion. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. To prevent avoidable disputes, reviewers should either not make comments unrelated to the Good article criteria, or they should carefully label those suggestions as optional (e.g., "I know that citation formatting is not required by the Good article criteria, and I will not consider this when making my decision, but if you might send this to Misplaced Pages:Featured articles later, then that process requires consistent citation formatting"). Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days? No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the quality of the article and the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example, "time=fourteen days", and the {{GANotice}} template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page. What should I do if a review page becomes inactive? This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page. If a new reviewer is truly needed, follow the instructions page under "If a review seems abandoned". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with. I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified! That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your comments while independently deciding on their assessment. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and also decline to list the article as GA. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the good article criteria, you can initiate a reassessment. How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides? The quality of a Good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down. What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process? You can bring those concerns to the GA nominations discussion page to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.

Archives

18 March 2006 – 15 April 2006 15 April 2006 – June 3 2006 April 2006 – Jun 2006 Jun 2006 – Aug 2006 Sept 2006 – April 2007 April 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – February 2008 February 2008 – May 2008 May 2008 – September 2008 October 2008 – March 2009 March 2009 – August 2009 September 2009 – May 2010 June 2010 – January 2011 January 2011 - December 2011 January 2012 - June 2012 June 2012 - October 2012 October 2012 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This talk page should be used for discussions relating to the nominating and reviewing of Good article nominations. Please direct any comments regarding the improvement of the GA program as a whole to WikiProject Good Articles. Thank you.

There is currently a Request for Comment taking place which will help with future of this WikiProject. Please take a few minutes to look over the proposals here and post your opinions here. If you have any proposals, feel free to include them below the current proposals.

• WT:GAN

New Proposals for GAN, Part I

Okay. I have started this RFC to propose and evaluate all the new proposals to replace the backlog elimination drives, as well as new proposals to encourage users to become reviewers, or to increase the level of active reviewers, etc. Note: This RFC is not to choose which proposals will be implemented, but to work on the proposals brought up, evaluate them, tweak them and get them ready before we vote for the ones that will be implemented (which will be handled on the Part II of the RFC). Therefore, I invite all users to go ahead and write the proposals they might have in mind to solve any of all the issues that the GAN process is dealing with. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 20:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this still a priority? It seems that the increased points implemented for GA reviews in the WikiCup this year is diminishing the backlog. This page shows that participants have performed 158 reviews, compared to 57 GA submissions. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We still need a way to get new reviewers. The WikiCup flow won't last forever, and we can't rely on external factors to control the backlog. Right now the backlog is pretty low (Under 300), but we still have the problem of reviewers. Also, this can lead to new ideas. — ΛΧΣ 21:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to just be a brainstorming session at the moment, which is not a bad idea. AIRcorn (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The wikicup does run most of the year, so it will be interesting to see how it progresses. New Year (summer for me) is mixed WRT free time...so it might be worth seeing how the next few months progress. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am actually quite impressed with how the point change has impacted WikiCup originated reviews. Last year we ran roughtly one review to one nomination via the contest. So far we're at 3:1, though the ratio will change as participants get eliminated. Resolute 23:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars seem like a de-facto way to encourage... just about anything. Since the Wikicup is a success, maybe we could have ongoing scores and a leaderboard. Copying Peer Review by encouraging GA submitters to do reviews is another one. I am not experienced enough to do reviews, so call me a drag on the system, but someone who has done a lot of GAs or FAs... CorporateM (Talk) 16:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Bringing this back. — ΛΧΣ 19:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I strong believe that we should not post messages of the type, "you've got a GA now so its your job to review another nomination". Like its close associate "you pass my article and I'll pass yours", it leads to potential conflicts of interest. Previous backlog drives with incentives (stars) for the highest number of reviews was, in the case of some reviewers, leading to some superficial reviews but there were notable exceptions and this may well have the same result. For example someone nominating an article and getting a review of the type "I can't see anything wrong, so I'm awarding GA" may well regard that as an expectable way of reviewing articles and then review in a similar manner. Reviews of that type can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012, just in case any thinks that is an unrealistic example. Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Adam Smith review

Just FYI, the GAN review for Adam Smith was started by the nominator. It's probably a mistake on the nominator's part. (Talk:Adam Smith/GA2) I'm not sure how this should be addressed. Edge3 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Alas, someone seems to have fixed the issue by deleting the review. Edge3 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I able to review?

Hey guys, I was wondering if I would be allowed to help review any "Good article" nominations? I don't have the best reputation on Misplaced Pages, but it's definitely improving. If anyone needs help reviewing or improving an article for the nomations, please feel free to leave me a message! Kind regards, Rhain1999 (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Indeed, you are allowed to review good article nominations. Also, going a bit further, I encourage you to take one article of the list and start reviewing it :) If you need help understanding the criteria, or find youself unsure about some specific things in the article, or would like to have your review checked before passing/failing the article, you can ping me at my talk, or post here again. We will be more than willing to help. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ 03:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearing out the VG backlog

I think it is really time to clear the backlog of Video game nominations. One particular user, Niemti, does not interact well, especially with reviewers at GANs and this issue was brought up at his RfC. He was asked to slow down by multiple editors, but it appears that he has no intention to slow down. The relevant discussions can be found at WT:VG#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Is_it_time_to_clear_the_GAN_backlog.3F and at WT:WPGA#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Clear_video_game_backlog.3F. If anyone is willing to help clear out the backlog, please do so. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone knows I'm all for backlog clearing, but as a reviewer I'm reluctant to touch his noms based on his conduct in other reviews. On surface reads I'm finding clear problems on some but don't want to have to deal with the responses. I imagine others are the same way hence why his are languishing. Wizardman 17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to echo Wizardman's claims. The VG queue doesn't actually has a backlog. It has all the nominations that come and go, and then there are Niemti's nominations, which nobody is willing to touch. — ΛΧΣ 17:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact that nobody is willing to touch Niemti's VG nominations due to his conduct in other reviews (that includes me, even though I never have touched his GANs), what should be the best possible solution? We can't sit there, twiddle our thumbs and let the nominations linger for another few months. I feel that something needs to be done now. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We have tried many solutions in the past. Failing his nominations doesn't work. He re-nominates them again. Telling him to stop nominating doesn't work. Telling him that he should work a lot more on those articles before nominating doesn't work either. The only possible option we have is to restrict Niemti to:

1. Have no more than 5 active nominations in the queue;
2. Not renominate an article that has been failed if no less than a month have passed; and maybe
3. Do a mandatory peer review of all articles that have been failed, and that he has nominated, before resubmitting.

I think this may be a solution, but I also think that it may end up being a bit punitive (imo). I'll let other regulars to voice their opinions. Maybe the current action (to ignore him) is the best we can do. We may not try to find a solution in search of a problem ;) — ΛΧΣ 18:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's RfC/U is likely to close to soon; my suggestion would be that we wait for that resolution and take our cue from it. The backlog of an extra dozen in the queue doesn't seem like that big a deal--it doesn't seem like they're delaying other VG articles from getting reviewed, which would be my main concern--but limiting Niemti to five active nominations could be reasonable given the long-term interaction issues. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Imposing these restrictions might discourage him from contributing. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

...and that was why I said it might be punitive. We have to find a way lo make him learn that it is not good, not even healthy for him, to nominate a big bunch of articles. He won't be able to take care of all of them if a WP:VG GA drive is being held, or if a general GAN drive is being held. Also, if we start making recruitment drives, he won't be able to speed up either. It would be good to explore solutions about this with him. — ΛΧΣ 20:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've stated before that I'm also hesitant to take on any more of his GANs due to the inevitable fight that will ensue. The two options I see are:

1. Ignore them, not really the greatest option but at least he can't renominate something that's already nominated I guess.
2. Organise a drive to clear the review backlog. Coordinate it so all start at once. It may be harsh but it could hopefully be the bucket of water that shows him he can't spin that many plates simultaneously and not expect to drop them. Cabe6403 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would choose option number two. I don't think we can just sit here and wait another two months until an uninvolved user comes along. Something must be done and we don't want to push ourselves too much here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Studying this further, I see two problems. First, Niemti is preventing other users from nominating those articles, and as we all know, if somebody nominates an article, no other users will touch it without talking first to the nominator. Second, Niemti is backlogging the queue all by himself with his nominations (he currently has 19 nominations), preventing reviewers from finding nominations form other users, who fall lost between Niemti's name all over the place. — ΛΧΣ 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

UNSPEAKABLE HORROR. But speaking of which, Ada's apparently now free to be taken. --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Niemti. I understand that you want to take those articles to good articles status, and I applaud your efforts toward these goals. However, I would strongly recommend that you take only a fixed low number of nominations at a time. Let's say, 5 nominations as I said above. I do restrict myself to no more than five or six nominations, mostly because I know I can't handle much GANs, given that my time is reduced. I may assume that you have more time and it is reasonable. Also, if you reconsider the way you approach other users when they volunteer to review your nominations, you may get GAs more faster . I wouldn't like to see you restricted from nominating articles or something, but you have to agree that there is a problem here, and we won't be able to solve it without your help. — ΛΧΣ 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can remove 7 (2+5) even today, 2 more are in progress (on hold but fixed already), makes -9 in foreseeable future, leaves a total 10. Better now? --Niemti (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That is an incredible start. I am willing to take some of your nominations myself to help you get your GAs and reduce the VG backlog, so that will soon put the number below 10 I really appreciate your collaboration Niemti, and remember to always treat well the reviewers of your nominations (as long as they do the same) :) — ΛΧΣ 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The 5 that I chose to go are: Shank, Liu Kang, Elexis Sinclaire, KOF '94, Street Fighter X Tekken, so none of these. One article that is waiting REALLY long is Darkwatch. And if you want something quick, I think Sniper Wolf would be. --Niemti (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I might take Sniper Wolf for review this weekend. — ΛΧΣ 23:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I notified Niemti of these discussions as it is only fair that he can defend himself. I personally think the best solution is to enforce a limit where he can only have a certain number of unreviewed articles nominated at a time. That way he can still participate and improve video game articles, but he is not dominating the queue. As soon as someone picks up a review another one can be nominated. 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

@Niemti, would you consider voluntarily withdrawing some of the GAN nominations (perhaps the newest ones until the older ones have been reviewed) and/or slowing down your rate of GA noms? Cabe6403 21:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you help finish Ada Wong and Lemmings (video game) I'll remove 5. A good deal? :) --Niemti (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a great start and I thank you for co-operating. I will not be able to assist with the reviews for the reasons I have previously stated and also that, considering my involvement with the RfC and the previous ANI cases I think it would be a COI for me. Lemmings is waiting for a 2nd opinion so it shouldn't really be be to finish it. Cabe6403 12:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dead Refs OK?

From what it appears, dead refs are not apart of the criteria and this article says it is fine to have them in it. In my opinion, dead refs should be part of the criteria (in terms that if there are dead refs, the article can not pass) because there is no way to verify the statements. Anyone agree?--Dom497 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No. This has come up before and I'll repeat my position from earlier discussions: a dead web address is just as verifiable/reliable as a newspaper or journal cite when you don't have access to those printed media (more so, actually, as it's possible for whoever is trying to verify the ref to use an archiving service like this to try finding it online themselves. Obviously it's preferable for links to all work, but they shouldn't be a prerequisite. If I cite a fact to a book that isn't available online it would go unquestioned, but to a website that subsequently goes down? Alarm bells, apparently. GRAPPLE X 19:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I echo what Grapple X has said above. Dead references are permitted in Good articles as long as they are formatted in a way that you can replace them, or look for a new link. — ΛΧΣ 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Please read and get yourself acquainted with WP:LINKROT. OhanaUnited 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dead web addresses are not just as verifiable. There are a limited number of archiving services out there, so unless the site was privately archived or the owners still have a copy then the information from the site may be lost forever. There is a difference between difficult to verify as with newspapers or journals that you don't have access to and possibly impossible to verify like dead web addresses that aren't publicly archived. Whether the possibility is sufficient to require their removal can be debated, but I don't think the two are comparable as you say. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Related to these dead refs, would it be reasonable to require that online refs be archived using http://www.webcitation.org/ before a GA passes? I've not used it yet, but it appears like a lot of editors do use it and it seems easy. Ryan Vesey 02:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify, dead refs would still be okay. It would prevent future dead refs by requiring that the online references that still exist are archived. Ryan Vesey 02:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is terribly fair to any editor who wishes to create GA standard work to insist they use a third party service. As stated above, it is perfectly fine to cite a dead link just as it is perfectly fine to cite an out of print book. ★★RetroLord★★ 03:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In short, this is why we push having references filled out, with dates, titles, etc. despite some hating that. It's precisely so that, should links go dead, everything remains fine article-wise, and worst-case scenario we only have to remove the url. Wizardman 03:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If the url isn't archived somewhere, how can we be sure that it ever really existed? And if it is archived somewhere, why shouldn't the link to the archive be provided? The situation is not at all analogous to out of print books, which are still available in libraries or the secondhand market. George Ponderevo (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If the URL isn't archived somewhere we assume good faith, it's the same way if the reference is in a foreign language. Ryan Vesey 05:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we? So AGF = "switch your brain off"? It's in no way equivalent to a foreign-language source, as I can translate that. And I could check for the existence of a printed source, even if I couldn't immediately check its contents. But how could I be sure that a url ever existed? George Ponderevo (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think dead refs should not be allowed. If an archive can be found, use it. If not, remove the dead ref. The link could be added to the talk page, so if the site ever came back or if an alternative site can be found the information/link could be added back. The key here is the ability (or possibility) to verify the information. If a book/journal is cited then there is evidence that the information is verifiable by e.g. the book being available at libraries as shown by worldcat. With a dead web address, we have no reason to believe the information will ever be verifiable again. Unless we have reason (i.e. evidence) to believe the information will ever be available in the future, then we shouldn't be basing articles on them. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what Odie says. Context is key - without having the link to hand, or available via the Wayback machine, you cannot verify the information in it, and since it is substantially easier to fake a website entry than to fake a book, the two are not the same. I would not accept "Joe Schmoe was convicted of murdering Sally Simple" and referencing a dead link in findarticles.com. Ritchie333 08:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about people faking urls, more that the information is no longer verifiable and may never be verifiable again. With a book in a library, we have assurances that someone could go and obtain that book. With a dead web ref, the information may well have perished from existence (unless we have evidence to the contrary). Recently an article I worked on developed a dead ref. Googling the url shows that people linked to it on various web forums and through some indexing site. The content from the url is gone though, no waybackmachine, no webcite, no archis.is, no one quoted the source in a web post or anything. As far as I can tell the information is completely gone, but through the secondary sources we have evidence that the url existed. Is this sufficient? I do not believe so, because we have no reason to believe the information can ever be verified again. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that dead refs are not part of the criteria, and it isn't policy to refuse dead refs. This discussion started when one of the articles I passed was immediatly put through reassessment over one or two dead links. I don't think it is fair on a nominator to refuse a GA over a few dead links, especially if they aren't in the criteria. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Could they not have avoided drama simply by fixing the two links using Wayback or another source? Ritchie333 09:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as I said, if it isn't part of the criteria, articles shouldn't be assessed on this. And if this were to be included in the criteria, it is possible thhat significant amounts of current GA's would become instantly disqualified, neccessitating another sweep? Just my thoughts. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I take a more pragmatic view of GAs. If I find something that technically isn't part of the GA criteria but would improve the article, I think it is fair game to suggest it be done. There are acceptable counterarguments I'll take, like "I don't have that source", "it would take too long", "I don't believe we've got consensus" but refusing to fix something soley because it doesn't meet the GA criteria but is otherwise a simple task does not wash with me, as IAR states we can bypass them if we've got good reason to. I have a real problem with people using GA as a rubber stamp. Ritchie333 12:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on the IAR front, but I am cautious as I was attacked a while ago regarding my review of their article which apparantly overstepped the criteria. Also I don't think we should be too liberal in interpreting the GA criteria or adding our own, they are there for a reason. '★★RetroLord★★ 13:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Checking links is already part of the GA criteria, and I'm surprised to see anyone claim differently. If you are unable to check that a url ever existed, that it links to a reliable source, and that chunks of the text haven't been copy and pasted from it, then clearly the article fails criteria 2b and potentially 1a. The situation with printed sources is quite different. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that assuming good faith overrules this. In order for wikipedia to function, we have to assume that the url did at some point exist as a reliable source. ★★RetroLord★★ 13:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that that's a charter for cheats and rogues, and if taken to its logical conclusion would mean that we require no citations at all, for anything. The GA criterion is quite clear, and checking that cited sources actually exist is part of checking for reliability. If you can't find a url, or any evidence that it ever existed, how can you conclude that the links are to reliable sources? George Ponderevo (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, I misread the guidelines. Misplaced Pages:Link rot says that information should not be considered unverifiable because the link doesn't work. That is counteracted by the guideline WP:DEADREF, which says that once a reference is dead for 24 months it should be considered unverifiable. That's an excessively long amount of time, but I'm creating two proposals below to address this. Is this the correct place for such proposals? Ryan Vesey 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  As a caveat to everyone above, just yesterday I came across a site that has quite a lot of usage in references that no longer worked. Webcite and Archive both didn't have the source. I tried a different site and saved about 5% of the refs through there. Does that mean all the information is suddenly unsourced in these articles? It's not the writer's fault that they moved and blacked out all the information. I get what others are saying, which is why I always use book or newspaper sources when I can, since if links go dead there they are still verifiable in print. Wizardman 17:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal One

• Per the existing criteria and per WP:AGF, Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Dead links in bare URLs will be considered unverifiable for the purposes of GA nominations.

Support

• Support As nom. Ryan Vesey 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Good idea. TBrandley 17:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with the proposal. If an editor has taken the time to fully cite his/her contributions, holding a dead link against them is not fair. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support As my Nighthawk (roller coaster) nomination is what brought this up, I support that they should only be considered unverifiable if it's a bare URL.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Seems sensible, and seems close to practice in other academic publications. As an aside, I think it'd be best to include a couple of extra words and lose one- "Dead links are usually considered verifiable if the link is not a bare url. Dead links in bare URLs will normally be considered unverifiable for the purposes of GA nominations." J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question. Would this criteria retroactively disqualify current GA's, or only apply to future reviews? ★★RetroLord★★ 20:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Only to future reviews. — ΛΧΣ 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree it should be for future GANs/GARs, but I would not disallow this to be used as the basis to initiate the GAR of a previously passed GA. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bare links should never be permitted. If the reference that has gone dead is well formatted, then we should allow it. — ΛΧΣ 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support I would expand this to a ban on bare URLs in general, since it takes just a few seconds to explain your URL even if you're wikimarkup novice. – Philosopher  21:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I would reasonably oppose a GAN if part of the references were bare links. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to justify their use other than laziness, and GAs are held to a general standard of quality that must include complete references. As for a dead {{cite web}} ref, I consider it exactly the same as any reference to a magazine that I don't own a copy of -- worrying, and would prefer an alternative source be found, but as long as source's existence is credible I would be willing to assume good faith. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Not strong enough. It's far too easy to fake online citations. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• You do realize that opposing this is the same as supporting our current criteria which do not address dead links at all. Ryan Vesey 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  That may be your interpretation of the current criteria, but it's certainly not mine, as I've tried to explain above. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Could you please explain which current criteria you are referring to and what your interpretation is? --Odie5533 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  2b and potentially 1a, as I tried to explain above. If you can't validate a url then how can you be sure it's a reliable source? AGF only applies where a GA is taken to GAR, when it might be permissible to assume that the original GA reviewer had indeed checked the source. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• If the site was already pre-determined to be reliable by e.g. a wikiproject with a discussion of the source prior to shutting down, then what? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  We're not discussing the site, we're discussing what it's claimed that a page on the site no longer available actually said. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Question What does this entail at a practical level? In other words how is this going to be added to the WP:GACR and what will the wording be? AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal Two

• To prevent linkrot, the nominator should archive all online sources using WebCite or another on demand archiving service if one exists or the nominator must seek out someone to do the archiving for them.

Support

• Support As nom. If this passes, I will create Category:Wikipedians willing to archive sources using WebCite and will add myself to the category. I know of a number of Wikipedians who would likely add themselves as well. Ryan Vesey 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, WebCite is currently almost heading to death. Unless a miracle happens, no new archiving will be available. Notwithstanding, I support the idea of archiving all the sources, and it is something a constantly practice. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ 20:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. What if the backups go dead? Should we backup the backups? If the original is dead, but I link to a backup I created on my blog, would I also have to backup my blog onto webcite? This could get silly, very quickly. Further, this kind of mandatory archiving is not, as far as I am aware, something that is required in any serious academic publication. If it is required elsewhere, I'd be interested to hear about that place. It is also not required anywhere else on Misplaced Pages, including FAC; if it's going to start anywhere, GAC probably isn't the place. J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per J Milburn and because we shouldn't make editing articles harder than it needs to be. The purpose of GA is to encourage the creation of "good" articles, not to scare away editors. – Philosopher  21:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per J Milburn. We should definitely set up more automated archiving, and even create a task force to archive all links in incoming GANs, but I don't think we should require it for GA. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Demoted FAs

I'm not sure if this s explained elsewhere, but if an FA that was formerly a GA gets demoted, does it then revert to being a GA, or are both "ranks" removed? FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

GA status is removed as soon as an article becomes an FA, so there's nothing to restore. Every demoted FA (that was once a GA) needs to be reassessed to see if it still meets the GA criteria. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy that says that? It seems backwards. It certainly makes sense to review demoted FA's, but they should go to GAR. Ryan Vesey 18:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But once promoted to FA they are no longer GAs, so GAR is irrelevant and GAN is the appropriate venue. How far down the food chain would you go? What about an article that was listed as A class before it became an FA? Articles can have only a single class, and they can't by default fall back to a previous assessment that is by definition out of date. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Usually, articles that are demoted at FA have issues that would keep it from keeping even its GA status (lack of references, poor prose, massive pov). Certainly if a demoted article isn't that bad then it can always be nominated at GA. Wizardman 18:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the referencing and prose requirements for GA are much laxer than for FA and an article that is dmeoted because of reference or prose decay (or simply because they were promoted at a time when the FA criteria were laxer) may very well meet the GA criteria.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That just makes no sense to me. When an article is promoted to FA, it would presumably still meet the GA criteria. While we don't include both icons, I see no reason to assume the GA status is removed. FAR doesn't assess articles against the GA criteria so we can't assume that the article has reverted to a point that is unacceptable for a GA until it has been assessed against the criteria through a GAR. The GA and FA process are also separate from the A, B, C, Start, Stub class projects. Those classes are set by WikiProjects and don't necessarily need to be the same (a conclusion I personally disagree with). An article can be both A class and a GA as seen in Fort Jackson (Virginia). Ryan Vesey 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. A-class is a project-specific assessment, unlike FA/GA. It would be quite possible for an article to be assessed by one project as A-class but by another as C-class for instance. Let's remind ourselves of the purpose of GAR: "Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status." A demoted FA does not have a good article status, therefore the appropriate venue for those who believe that the article still meets the GA criteria is GAN. "George Ponderevo (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• It would make a lot of sense if FAR was conducted with the GA criteria in mind so that the review could simultaneously give GA status to those demoted FAs that meet the criteria.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think that would make any sense at all, as the two process have different criteria and largely different reviewers. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It would make sense to not bump articles further down than necessary. It should be a simple matter for a reviewer who can find out that the article doesn't meet the FA criteria to dtermine if they do meet the GA criteria. That the reviewers are different seems utterly irrelevant, there is no reason they should be or that FA reviewers would be unable to understand the GA criteria. Demoting FAs that meet the GA criteria to B level just because the FAR reviewer is too lazy to see if it meets the GA criteria is both insulting to those who have written the article and detrimental to wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus, and it is also why I made this thread, as it puzzled me that there should apparently be a gap between the two. All the FAs I've nominated were former GAs. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say it's the simplest and least controversial method to not automatically assign demoted FAs GA status without another GA review. If the article is good enough to meet the GA criteria then a GA review should be painless, if it's not then it shouldn't be rubber stamped by a technicality. GRAPPLE X 20:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not automatically, but those who demote it should have the option to convert the article straight to GA (if they feel it meets the criteria) instead of a new separate review, I think. Then we swap two flies in one bash, instead of endless bureaucracy. It isn't exactly a bad thing to get more GAs easily, whatever the means. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Have to say I wouldn't be comfortable seeing an article put through by a separate means; it also stands to reason that if an article has dropped sufficiently below FA standards as to be promoted, any editor who wants to work on it to GA status is likely going to prefer to work to save the FA status instead. Muddying that process seems needlessly complex—"fix it to remain an FA but we'll also review it against separate criteria too so it might just end up a GA" versus "restore it to FA standards or don't". FAR should really be as streamlined as possible, in my opinion. GRAPPLE X 20:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I came here is because of the Emu article. It was demoted from FA, but could easily be a GA, but perhaps not an FA yet. No one has worked on it to get it to FA since it was demoted, so if the demoters had had the option, it could perhaps had been a GA then (with fewer tweaks), instead of what it is now, and in the foreseeable future. So what I'm thinking is that there could be two options when demoting; simply demoting, and demoting to GA. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the best option is just for reviewers to bear in mind that they can recommend taking the article to a GA review; if you feel emu could make GA easily then by all means that's perfectly open to it. I just don't like the idea of devolving the powers of the GA process to anything else. GRAPPLE X 20:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be MUCH better to suggest to FAR reviewers to also conduct a simultaneous GA review unless the article quality is an obvious GA quickfail. It is already exceedingly frustrating for an article writer who has been through one FA nomination, then dragged to an FAR and demoted for them to be interested in going through yet another review process with new demands from a new reviewer. I think it is very much worth it to make this process less painful and humiliating for the content writers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen how few FAR reviewers there actually are? And as Grapple says, it's not for the FA process to determine whether or not an article meets the GA criteria in any case. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That is just based on the notion that the FA processes and GA processes are necessarily separate and unrelated - when in fact it makes more sense to see them as simply two different stages of a single process of quality review. There is no good reason I can see that they should be sepate, they are not essentially different but just a simple evaluation of an article in relation to a set of criteria. The fact that there are few reviewers is exactly a reason that it makes sense to have one review instead of two separate ones.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But they are separate and unrelated processes, with different aims. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No they are not, that is just a narrow minded view from one particular side of an imaginary fence. For article writers the process and the objective is exactly the same. The aim is to asses the quality of wikipedias articles so that the quality of any given article can be identified by the reader and the path for improvement can be identified by the writer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that you fundamentally misunderstand ... well, pretty much everything I've said, so I don't feel that I have anything further to add. Have you floated this idea on the FAC talk page? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. And no I haven't because I didn't start this thread but just happened to agree with its initial premise. And given my experience I am sure that the good people at FAC are every bit as narrow minded when it comes to imagining the work they do as part of a larger process of wikipedia quality control. They seem to mostly think of it as a way to exercise power over nominators.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Every bit as narrow-minded as who? Is it really necessary to remind you of WP:NPA? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Come on. This weird bipolar thing is baffling. It weakens Misplaced Pages rather than strengthening it. GA and FA are just stages. Everyone here whines about few reviewers; this could be a help. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Stages" do not have points of view, so you are yet to explain your use of the term "narrow minded" in any way that does not make it a personal attack. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confusing my comments with those of Maunus now. We are separate people. As for "points of view", you're talking as if there was a Misplaced Pages civil war going on. Perhaps there is, but there shouldn't be. I find the mere notion downright retarded. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I was, apologies for that. To your more general point, there is much about Misplaced Pages that is "retarded". George Ponderevo (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, one less retardation is hardly a bad thing, no? FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but this is a step backwards, not forwards. "Let's all assume good faith that the most absurd claims backed up by long dead urls are actually true, and that the cited web page hasn't just been copied and pasted.". Does that really seem like a step forwards to you? A step forwards to what? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Um... What? I think you're responding to something in another thread... This discussion is not about dead URLs. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a too compartmentalised view of the discussion, but whatever. If you and your supporters are so set on undermining the GA process there's obviously nothing I can do to stop you. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If you could please explain how the process is "undermined" I might be able to comment. All this proposal will do is give the GA reviewers less articles to think about, because they won't have to friggin' re-review a delisted FA which was formerly a GA. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Maunus again. As a writer of both GAs and FAs, I'm positive most others would feel this way, and it would create a steadier stream of GAs. And besides, people are always complaining about lack of GA reviewers, so this proposal could ease that pressure. I can't see any negative aspects of it. It's not that the standards would be lowered or anything, the process would just be sped up. Can anyone point out a downside? FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  Let's see if I've got this right. Your proposal is basically to devolve GA reviews to a small group of FAR reviewers most of whom have no idea what the GA crireria are or how to apply them? And given the historical acrimony between the two processes probably don't care? Do you really think that makes any sense? George Ponderevo (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you came to that interpretation of what we have been arguing. We have argued that FA reviews should be encouraged to take into account whether the articles they demote meet the GA criteria and if they do they should give the demoted article GA status. So what about the historical acrimony? Thats not a good reason for anything. If FA reviewers can understand the Fa criteria than they can sure as hell also learn to understand the GA criteria. What doesn't make sense is to make a review process that is more designed to humiliate and exasperate content writers than to make sure wikipedias articles high quality articles are recognizeable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not at all what I propose. I'm not talking about replacing the GA process itself, only about giving FA reviewers an extra option. And I personally don't care about this "historical acrimony" (which I've never heard of, and find utterly ridiculous), I work freely in both fields, and making this easier is only a good thing. Bureaucracy for the sake of it is strangling Misplaced Pages. The readers don't really give a damn who wrote an article, or whether it went through the FA or GA process to get where it is. If this "historical acrimony" is so serious, you really need some fresh blood to sort it out for you. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And neither do readers care whether an article is an FA or a GA. It might be informative for you to review the history of the relationship between FA and GA, and the reason that GA Sweeps was felt to be so important. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that because "different people" usually contribute to either process means that the boundaries should be kept so clear cut? What about all the people who contribute to both, and find the FA as a mere extension of GAs? Those are the people who do most of the improvements of articles,as far as I can tell. Not the entrenched conservatives, or whoever. Integration is hardly a bad thing. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And you are repeating the past by considering its arbitrary boundaries between two processes with the same goal to be sacrosanct and unchangeable. Thinking like that we'd still have a wall between East and West Germany.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding is that if a good article is promoted to featured article status, and then demoted, it has to go again through GAN to regain its GA status. A good article that is promoted to featured article loses its GA ribbon and its removed from WP:GA, which means that, at the time of its promotion, it no longer is a good article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And that's the problem, there is not even an option to revert it back to its GA status (if it still meets those criteria), instead of demoting it to nothing. And that' what this proposal is about. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe a featured article promoted in 2008 would not pass GA at this time. I am not comfortable having a former FA to retain GA status without a review or a proof that it actually meets the GA criteria. Otherwise, we'd have a rise in our level of GA reassessments due to poor articles being given back the GA ribbon without a check. — ΛΧΣ 21:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And that's why the FAR reviewers would be given the option to promote it to GA instead. Again, no one has proposed a former GA should automatically become so again after delisting. We're talking about giving the option to integrate GA reviews/promotion into the FAR reviews, thereby saving reviewer energy. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Demote to GA if the article was GA previously, and if the FAR discussion determines that GA status should be retained. Standard FAR procedures should include a discussion of whether the article meets GA criteria. Following this procedure will save editor energy and time. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Demote to GA There is absolutely no reason to squander reviewer energy on separate GARs when an FA that was formerly a GA is failed and still meets those criteria. This proposal will take the pressure off. Taking this further, even regular FA reviewers could even have the option to say "promote to GA" instead of simply "oppose" (this would create more GAs, and make nominators less humiliated, and less likely to leave the project for good). But that is a separate issue. I don't think we should care about the egos of individuals who feel the need to entrench themselves as writers of either FAs or GAs, the project itself is more important than that. Seriously, no one cares about your little pseudo-civl war. See also my formal proposal here: FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone give me an example of an article that was demoted from FA status but would have instantly passed a GA assessment if one was held during the FAR? Emu is not such an example, incidentally. It was given FA status in 2006, it was brought to FAR in 2011 (by which time the nominator had effectively been absent from WP for some years, with just seven edits between May 2008 and the FAR - so there is no question of this FAR driving the FAC nominator away), and the article was demoted for (inter alia) having significant unsourced material, which would be a bar to a GA pass anyway. Bencherlite 22:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can give you a possible future example. The Rodrigues Solitaire article (which I wrote) is an FA which was formerly a GA. But a user has stated he wants to start a FAR, because he feels there should be more specific page ranges. That, however, is not a GA criterion, so it would still meet GA criteria if it was delisted from FA. But as things are now, it would have to go through the GAR process again to reach GA status (though it already passes the requirements), which is a waste of time and energy. Other examples could be articles that are delisted due to prose issues, comprehensiveness issues, cite style/template issues, or any other issue unrelated to verification itself. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

So all this is just about a possible future issue if an FAR is started on one of your articles and the page ranges requested are not (or cannot be) provided, just to save you a possible wait between FA demotion and a renewed GA review? It seems to me that this is a solution in search of a problem. Plus, as FAR is a multiple reviewer venue, you'd end up asking more than one person to carry out a GA review when a nomination at GA only requires one person. And what happens if people disagree whether the GA criteria are met in a former FA? Who gets the casting vote? Bencherlite 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, because it was the Emu article that gave me the idea long ago (see the talk page, I didn't know delisted FAs were also stripped of their GA status by default), but the issue about the other article (which only arose today) just made me even more puzzled about the process. But that's besides the point, and I don't care what you think my motives are; the proposal is a viable solution to some of Wikipedias problems. The Rodrigues Solitaire could be reverted straight to GA, and the Emu article could be promoted to GA during the FAR, if the GA (but not the FA) requirements were met during review. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think when Madonna (entertainer) was delisted from FA-status, it did not necessarily satisfy the GA criteria. There were several sourcing issues that had to be taken care of during the GA review. But I guess through consensus at FAR, an article can regain GA-status. —WP:PENGUIN · 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, her article would not revert to GA. And no one has proposed it should. Only if it still passed the GA requirements. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thus I agree with above comments that GA promotion should be decided through consensus at FAR. —WP:PENGUIN · 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Another possible future example could be Turkish language currently at FAR, I think it probably does meet the GA criteria, even if its current degree of sourcing is not adequate for FA anymore (although it was when the article was promoted).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• This conversation is all over the place, so god knows how someone is supposed to assess consensus. Anyway since Good articles are a one reviewer deal and FAC reviewers should theoretically know the criteria then as someone primarily involved in the GA process I don't have a problem if they decide an article is not worthy of being featured, but meets the Good criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

An alternative take on GA

This discussion has gone well off-track. Resolute 04:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a sense, I think of GA as a front-line defence for FAC; an article that can't get by GA shouldn't be wasting the time of FA reviewers. But I also think of it as a minimum standard to which in ideal world all articles ought to conform, not some kind of prize. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC) That is exactly the kind of attitude that makes FAC a hell for content writers. Reviewers think they have to defend some kind of weird territory by excluding unworthy articles. What they should be thinking is that the review process is the place where articles can be improved in collaboration between reviewers and nominators. Instead you see nominators as enemies trying to sneak substandadr articles into the holiest of holies. That is a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that destroys the entire review process. Yes it gives satisfaction for the writer to have an article promoted because that means that you did a good job. In a reasonable world it should give the same kind of pleasure to the reviewer that wikipedia is now a good article richer, but apparently you see it as a defeat if you didn't manage to shoot it down.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) If it wasn't a kind of "prize", there would be no good article writers in the first place. That should be pretty obvious. As for your first sentence, I don't see what it has to do with anything. No one is talking about articles that do not even meet GA requirements; those are failed either way. A GA review is inherent in an FA review, because all GA criteria are inherent in the FA criteria. This means that the FAR reviewer wouldn't have to do an "extra" review, if that is your concern. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC) No, they're not. Have you ever been involved in an FAC? It's very, very different from the comparatively relaxed atmosphere of a GA review. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I'd have to say that FAC seems pretty easy for me. Maybe is beacause after a pair of successful FACs, you get the knowledge of how to write them, and the process becomes pretty easy from there. — ΛΧΣ 23:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I've written four FAs, have one under review, and I've written several GAs (all within the past six months), so yes, I know the difference. And whether you like it or not, most people here use them as "prizes". But this is besides the point; if you've FA reviewed an article, you've already GA reviewed it. This means that you do have the judgement to promote it to GA, without further work. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC) .. and whether you like it or not most readers couldn't care less. Which is your current FAC nomination? I'll assess it for GA if you like. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC) It currently has three supports and no opposes, so I doubt it is necessary. And yes, the readers don't care. But most readers don't write the articles either. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC) There are rather few competent reviewers around. Which is your nomination? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC) See below. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) George: I'm afraid I can't agree with the second of your initial claims. There are some topics which are notable enough for articles, but for which enough information does not exist for articles of GA quality. An obscure Olympian from decades ago, a song that just scraped the charts from not-so-famous artist and a species of nematode described in a half-paragraph in a highly-technical article are all topics worthy of articles, but which could never be more than a few lines without going off-topic. I also agree with FunkMonk that, not only do editors view GA status as a prize, but that there's not all that much wrong with that. (As an aside, you don't need to waste your time reviewing FunkMonk's Réunion Ibis for GA status; I already have done, and it was certainly worthy.) J Milburn (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I've been thinking for some time now that I've been wasting my time here, and this discussion rather reinforces my view that I really have been wasting my time. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Why exactly? I'm a very recent, yet frequent, contributor to the GA and FA processes, which means that I can look at it objectively, and not be as entrenched and subjective as you and others. I don't see why you should feel so threatened. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) What makes you think I feel threatened? I simply feel ennui. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Comments like "If you and your supporters are so set on undermining the GA process there's obviously nothing I can do to stop you" make it seem like you have high stakes in this. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you might care to elaborate, for the benefit of your audience. What "high stakes" you are alleging I might have in this? Financial? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Emotional, judging by your loaded rhetoric. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Then you are no judge at all. What exactly is your stake in this, except for a sneaky GA? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Unlike you, I am both a writer and reviewer of FAs and GAs, so my stake is simply to make it easier to manoeuvre for the actual content writers who are keeping this project afloat. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC) You assume too much Grasshopper. You have no idea of what I have done or can do. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) You have just admitted you've never done a GA review, only nominated (selfish, bad etiquette). So unless you're lying, that is a fact, not an assumption. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I'm disappointed with myself for having been drawn into this discussion. I've been here long enough to know that nothing will ever change, no matter what I think. George Ponderevo (talk) But apparently not long enough to realise that whining doesn't change a thing, good arguments do. You should rather be "disappointed in yourself" for not reviewing other peoples GANs. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC) But you are yet to make a good argument. I've never nominated an article at GAN, so why should I feel obligated to review someone else's nomination? As for your own FA nomination I think it's rather poorly written but I won't oppose its promotion, for all the obvious reasons. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Lol at the desperate cheap shots. Seriously, who do you think gives a damn? You've demonstrated you are unable to be part of a civil, rational discussion, or to bring forth valid arguments, so what do we do from here? And if you have never been involved in a GAN in any way, why the heck are you so passionate about this discussion? How does it even affect your conduct here? What experience do you have with the process that makes you entitled to judge the merits of the proposal? FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Push me just a little bit more and I guarantee you'll regret it. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Are you fecking kidding me? FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC) OK, let's be clear. The article you're talking about is Réunion Ibis, right? George Ponderevo (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Yes. Go ahead and oppose. I know exactly how to get a fourth support (by complying to Snowman's demands), so unless you can mobilise some sock puppets, your vote will be in vain, and do nothing but expose your lack of judgement and civility. Seems you've completely lost your senses, lol. FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Do you really believe that your belligerent attitude is doing you any favours? I haven't even read your article yet, but I look forward to having a look at it tomorrow. Should I decide that the article does not meet the FA criteria, and therefore oppose its promotion, I doubt that the support of whatever friends you can subsequently muster will sway the FA delegates. But the fact that you think it might speaks volumes. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Lol. Snowman's review is relatively hostile (As in not friendly) but not entirely based on FA criteria, that's why I'm hesitant to comply with all of his demands as for now. But he hasn't opposed, so I will gladly implement every one of his suggestions just to make your oppose worthless. But please, be my guest and waste your time, it will only expose yourself. I'm pretty sure revenge edits are not allowed on Misplaced Pages. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I think this might be a good time for both of you to stop interacting and go have a cup of tea. We have heard the pros and cons now, and I think there is little more to add.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC) You may think whatever you like, as may I. George Ponderevo (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I agree. This is way off tangent. See ya tomorrow, folks, I have to get up in five hours! FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you might explain why you believe that after having read your article I will oppose its promotion to FA? And you really ought to explain what you mean by "revenge edits". George Ponderevo (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Please take unrelated issues to my talk page. I'm done here for tonight. FunkMonk (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC) What about the related issues, such as your personal attacks and dishonesty? George Ponderevo (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC) After a quick read through here, the only personal attacks and dishonesty I see here are yours. You immediately follow "Push me just a little bit more and I guarantee you'll regret it." with a question on what article of his is up for review. That says to anyone with a brain that you have dishonest intentions, and I would be a moron to think otherwise. Wizardman 03:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Then you need to take the time to read a little more carefully, and search on "narrow minded". George Ponderevo (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)