Wikipedia talk:Proposed good articles

Withdrawing

Are we allowed to withdraw proposals for articles when it is obvious that they won't pass? Razorflame 20:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, I think it's best to let all articles ride out the week unless an article was nominated as vandalism. I can't see the harm, really. Is there a particular article you are wanting to withdraw? · Tygrrr... 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Valais. It has 3 oppose votes, which under the requirements, is quite enough to make it not pass. The points brought up are indeed well placed, and I definitely agree on them. Razorflame 20:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more editors will come in with more useful suggestions. I think it's best to leave it until all possible editors have had a look over it. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 11:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GA format

I am much opposed to this format of voting (not even !voting) for GAs. Why should an article be proposed for GA and then go for that ridiculous voting system. This is a time-consuming and very odd type of format. Why should an article which is probably going to pass GA review wait for such a long amount of time before becoming a GA. Seriously, Simple's standards for GA are very odd. We have only 25 GAs and we waste a whole lot of time by this voting. I mean, look at the stats. In 2500 articles, one can find a single GA. We all must work to improve this. We all have had enough of 1 sentence stubs. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that noone writes perfect articles. Before the voting starts other should have the chance to give comments and concerns. If they are fixed the vote can start. I think the system is ok. Barras (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have come from en and while I know that this is not en, I would say that I still prefer its system. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the en system works, but this system is like the German one. First a review and later the voting. I think a review is needed. The most articles aren't perfect and need help. Otherwise, there is only one person who writes the article. Our sysem can help that other editors get involved and help to improve articles. It shouldn't be: One article is written by only one editor. Barras (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that this helps in collaboration of editors, but surely in a wiki with only 28 active editors, everyone can learn about a GAR. Basically, at en, articles are submitted (nominated, in fact) for review. They all remain in the same page until some user decides to review the article taking the help of other users. The nominator and all those who have contributed work on the issues raised before the first reviewer gives his decision. I prefer this method since this works very fluidly. There are currently 261 nominations at en, but rarely ever does it exceed, say 400. And if enough users visit WP:PGA regularly, en's system will work out very well here as well. I realize that this system will continue since I alone can't really bring about a change with so many mighty admins favouring this system. Well, I must get used to this. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 09:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Is it okay to vote in favour of your own articles? I mean, it fits all the criteria, but is it okay? Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, nothing in the current criteria prevents you voting for your own article and it is commonplace to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to be sure! ;) Mighty Wodan (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop voting

I'd like to propose that we stop voting for GAs and simply have a new section that would be used after the initial nomination. It could be called something like Election discussion. We could stop using and emboldened Supports and Opposes and simply discuss whether or not the article is now ready to be promoted to GA. It might'en be obvious but I don't like voting anywhere on wiki and am waging a one-man campaign to get us to stop. What do you think? Show of hands :) fr33kman ^talk 23:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. This has certainly been brought up before with people saying that articles were being promoted based on votes and not on comments. Perhaps rather than having a seperate section, expand the discussion to three weeks and include the "vote", sorry, consensus building comments as it should be in that. Also, not directly related, but I think we should disallow people from promoting articles that they nominated as it could be a potential COI - especially if vote counting is removed and consensus building added. Regards, Goblin 10:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Nickers! Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Proposed very good articles

I'd like to dissent. In all, I feel that eliminating voting and letting one-man decisions, which I fear is favored by Gobbledygook, is a terrible idea Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that is a borderline personal attack. I suggest you retract it or you will find yourself with a formal NPA warning. Secondly, it is no more a one-man decision than it ever was. Indeed, consensus is much harder to go against than votes where people merely say "support". That means nothing. Would you promote a one line stub, just because several people typed " Strong support", and one person said " Strong oppose"? Would you promote the same article if there were 5 support votes, but 1 oppose with reasons which were spread out across 5 paragraphs? I think the latter. Goblin 10:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw!

I agree. I have seen nominators supporting (and have myself supported) bad articles though they know that it is not GA class. Consensus, on the other hand, would get rid of this. Also as BG7 points out, there have been numerous discussions with I Strong Support, few Weak Opposes and the like. If we calculate percentages, we might have good articles failing and bad articles passing. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 10:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My point was that lone editors, in other sections, have admitted in writing that they overrule votes and close discussions early. I also feel that you need to give a much more detail to what you did, in a section marked something like "What I did and why" to make it clear. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

70% is way too much

It just is. Especially since there are people who inherently vote Oppose and stall good articles. And the 70% standard is the reason that people hate voting. Where I come from, California, supermajorities lead to gridlock. They lead to gridlock here. Lower it to something more reasonable Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No, 70% is more than adequate, furthermore it's just a guideline. Lower it all you want, but I will still not promote an article with 100% support if it's not GA material. You'll see that generally articles get "all or none" support too, so maybe it can just be ditched. Either way, 70% is more than adequate, if people are opposing it's because it's not a good article, end of. What you think is "good" and what is "good" are very different things. Go write some 'pedia. Goblin 18:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

No, it's too low. This is about creating a great, informative, accurate and well-referenced encyclopedia, not about someone's agenda to get GAs as quickly as possible regardless of all the flaws. Besides, most of the time, very few people vote so 70% means you only need five supports (for the minimum six votes). It's not gridlock, it's quality control. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

True, it should probably go up if anything. Likewise with VGA, but I think we just need to make a bold change or else we will be here for decades discussing what to do... Something like this needs a short discussion. Goblin 18:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

That's ridiculous! If you do that, nothing will ever make GA! See above as to why. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

70% is fine. We can get GAs that meet that standard. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PbP89 - Not at all. This Wikipedia depends on its top quality articles being exactly that, top notch. If you reduce the % then you'll reduce the quality control. It's already a struggle for me to make sure people actually read every sentence of a PGA before supporting it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

multi-e/c Do you seriously believe that...? I can give at least two examples that have had 100% support from about 10 editors. That throws that argument out of the window. Furthermore, you will generally see that my closes often "ignore" the criteria - i've been known to promote articles with not enough support if they are good, and not promote articles with lots of support that are crappy. Give me some hard evidence that it needs changing and i'll reconsider my current position. Goblin 20:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

1. That's two articles out of 30 good articles, hundreds of failed GA noms (some of which, IMO, should have passed), and thousands of total articles.

   It's not "your opinion" which promotes articles. And yes, we have failed noms because the articles aren't good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Why do we have rules anyway if people just go around them to favor their own ends?

   Can you expand on people who are here to "favor their own ends"? Please be very specific here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

e/c I said at least, there are many more, and this now applies to VGAs too. I fail to see how failed noms and normal articles come into the equation. Failed noms failed because the articles were not up to scratch, and normal articles, well, 'nuff said. Secondly, we have a set of GA Criteria. These are what articles should be judged on, not the stupid voting sections. If an article does not meet those criteria, it's not promoted, end of. Goblin 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Shappy!

(<-) I do have a set of perhaps 3-5 articles that I nominated, and that have failed GA for very specific reasons. Since I currently do not have the time or background to fix these; and that there seems to be no one else with enough interest, such articles 'rot away'. On the other hand, we do have the criteria the community agreed on, so simply promoting them because a certain editor feels like it would be wrong too. I think at the moment it is important that we gain credibility, by being predicable. GAs/VGAs are the very best articles we ought to have; they are for the community to pick, and improve to the given standard - not for a single editor. --Eptalon (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We all know that the criteria is subjective at best, and that some people interpret them differently (For example, Goblin and I do). The reason we have voting is because some people will interpret articles differently, and a 100% agreement, or even a 70% agreement one way or the other, does not occur in many instances. I consider the failed GA noms to be important because they illustrate lack of consensus and differences in interpretation, even among articles many editors consider good. I admit that there are a lot of GA noms that are clearly bad articles, but there are also some where it is a gray area. The "to own ends" was not an accusation (there are other avenues for that), but a note on where Goblin apparently said he often closed against the vote (see above). I believe that the most I can do in GAs is get other editors to agree with me, and cast my own vote. I think that even a well-written article has trouble making GA because some people question articles on subjects they are unknowledgeable about, as well as the differences in usage between real English and British English. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, how can the criteria be subjective? It's very clearly defined - for example, you will see that, for example, me, TRM and Fr33k all think pretty much the same about (V)GAs. Failed GA noms are only important if they were "nearly there", in which case someone should probably come and look at them. Rarely does a true GA, or VGA for that matter, fail,and your last sentence is completely wrong - both of my VGAs being examples to the contrary that have had overwhelming support from people who know little or nothing about the subject matter. Again, check your facts. Goblin 21:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!

There is real (British) English, and American English. British came before American. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(Response to Goblin)And you will note that me, Snake, and others call it differently than you. There are many differences in how people interpret things--for example, what's a basic word and what isn't, linking to Wikipedia vs. Wiktionary, what is "common knowledge", the length for ample coverage, prose style, the number of redlinks before an article gets axed...I could go on. And in some GA reviews, there has been discussion of factual points in the review. Can I get agreement that some people call the line differently than other people? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Many scholars believe that American English is more gramactically correct, and that was a joke anyway on Real English being American

No. Goblin 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

(<-) Just perhaps to clarify: Both Nudity and RAID failed GA; both failed for the lack of references; For nudity you probably need a background in ethnography, RAID is commonly known among computer scientists; Finding respective usable citations nevertheless means spending days at a (sufficiently equipped library). I currently do not have the time, and others don't seem to, either; therefore the articles fail.- And no, please don't tell me you find offensive images in the nudity article; I hand-picked mosr of these myself. - So in short, an article failing is usually not because it does not reach the required level of support, but it already fails with other things. In the same context, World History does not stand a chance at VGA.--Eptalon (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But you'd agree that people call the thing differently, right? I'm arguing for 70% or lower because of the differences in interpretation; Goblin seems to be arguing the opposite Purplebackpack89 (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What you're trying to do is make this Wikipedia's processes into pure voting. It shouldn't be that way. What I want to see (along with others, like BG7) is consensus to promote and a leeway to allow people to decide on whether or not articles should be promoted because of outstanding, potentially serious, issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. Here's what I don't want:

1. The vote being overruled by a single editor, especially a non-synop
2. Articles getting a majority but still not making it

Also, nobody has addressed my comment that people see things differently. Wouldn't you agree that this is a valid observation? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially a non-sysop? That is a very iffy statement. —MC8 (b · t) 22:49, Saturday August 29 2009 (UTC)

Your first point is important. Sysop's shouldn't be given authority over content quality. Why on earth should that be the case? It's up to editors to decide if an article is "good enough". If you wish to compare to en.wiki, I'm sure you'll find a number of non-sysops doing the majority of work at FA and FL. As for "getting a majority" - sorry, but this has been discussed endlessly and no-one is positive enough to actually change the voting ethos. We do not want a voting ethos, we want consensus and that involves not just people saying "yeah, looks fine" but others to scrutinise articles to check that obvious rubbish (like typos etc) should not become this Wikipedia's finest work. We all see things differently, sure, but we have criteria and standards for our GAs and VGAs. If you want a central discussion then fine, but don't focus on a % for passing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to chill dude. First and foremost, there is absolutely no difference between a sysop and a non-sysop, except that they have some extra buttons. There is also absolutely no rule to say who can and cannot close P(V)GAs. We've had this argument before. As TRM said, stop make everything a vote and work with consensus instead. If consensus (and that's the reasons people give, and your own views, not the pretty little pictures if you didn't know) determines that an article is not GA material, it won't be promoted, end of. Likewise if it is GA material but lacks the amount of votes it will get promoted. End of. And no, I wouldn't agree that's a valid observation. It's just you who is seeing things differently because you are fighting the system. Just give up and go edit or find some solid examples to back up your points. Goblin 22:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

Lack of Voting Led to Disinterest

Look at it. Ever since Goblin's change, discussion has ground to a standstill. This isn't working. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. There is currently nothing to be discussed, all of the PGAs require input from the nominating users before they can be taken any further. And PGA regularly goes through days of no comments... Goblin 10:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Yotty!

General comment regarding length of articles created solely to bump another article to (V)GA status

Is it written down anywhere that articles created solely to fill up redlinks in articles that are proposed (very) good articles should have a minimum length? If not, I really think it should be because I've noticed in the past (as well as now) that when editors create articles solely to fill red links in p(v)gas, they're often substandard stubs (I'm guilty of this myself). Any comments, thoughts, concerns, curse words directed towards me? @Lauryn (parlez) 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am guilty of it too. Anyway, if you need to add like 100 words or so, do a new article. If it's in general interest (like my habitat destruction for Future of the Earth), that's fine too. A quick meaning in the article is OK as well. —I-20the highway 20:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters, the idea is that we just don't want the red links on the GA, because that makes it look less than good or professional. The state of the articles that are linked to, don't impact if the article it self is good, because we are just trying to remove the red. Of course our goal is eventually to move every article up to top notch status, however stubs are not an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this as a two-part answer "substandard" and "stub". I would say it's fine for them to be stubs, so long as they're not substandard. You can write a pretty decent five-sentence article that would tell a Simple English speaker most of what they'd need to know Purplebackpack89 23:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Promoting

I don't think this is specified in the rules, but..are all users allowed to promote articles to GA status? I know this was something which confused me when I first came here (I thought only administrators were allowed to promote, but I wasn't sure), but it seems that administrators have usually promoted articles here. As far as I know, on the English Wikipedia, initial reviewers usually promote the article, even if they aren't administrators. Should information about this be added? —Clementina talk 05:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I know, administrators have no control over content, and thus anyone can promote good or very good articles provided there is consensus to promote. Most of the editors on this wiki are administrators, and that is a possible reason why admins usually promote (V)GAs. IMO, someone uninvolved with the nomination and the review should promote the article: that seems to be the general rule followed here. Pmlineditor ∞ 05:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean, after due discussion, can any user promote? It's a good question. On enWP the actual decision to promote to GA or VGA is always taken by an admin. (But their admins are more equivalent to our bureaucrats.) Below GA, promotes are done by established users, but can be changed with no fuss.

Any established user on enWP can propose an article for promotion. A big difference with enWP is that they have a proper ladder, and we don't. They go: Stub > Start > C > B > GA > VGA. C and B categories are very important; B contains many good articles which haven't been through the GA process. Anyone trying to buck the system by leapfrogging would get roughly handled, I suspect. They have some admins dedicated to individual projects making sure things run smoothly within the project. Also, GA proposals are almost overwhelmed by comments. So the situation there is really quite different. We could do with two steps between stub and GA, IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on enWP prevents anyone going from stub to featured article. There's absolutely no requirement to go through the intermediate stages. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Try it & find out... Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin on en, but I've reviewed and promoted a few GAs there. and by the way, TRM has great experience in that area. :) He should know. Anyway, though, I agree with PM for the most part - but I don't see why reviewers can't promote articles to GA. If they criticized an article and their concerns were satisfied, wouldn't it be rather encouraged than otherwise that they promote it? Warmly, —Clementina talk 08:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just because there are no formal limits, doesn't mean there aren't practical limits to what other users will stand. This applies more to enWP than Simple, perhaps. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think once there is consensus to promote, any (named) user can probably do so. The problem is therefore more: can a (non-admin) user judge there is consensus? - In my opinion, once there is consensus, it does not make much sense to only let admins promote the article. --Eptalon (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Practically speaking, if somebody prematurely (or outright wrongly) promotes an article, it is not at all difficult to undo. Kansan (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"Try it & find out"? Are you kidding me? I've got something like 35 featured lists and 10 featured articles on enWP and none of them went through this "incremental" nonsense. If you write a damn good article, go to VGA, go directly to VGA, do not pass go. Don't artificially stagnate the progress of decent articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we still vote?

I've been looking back through the archives, and the requirements. We seem to have moved from a clear-cut 2-stage process to one without a clear voting stage. Consequently, decisions seem to be made by individual admins with no real framework. Tell me I'm quite wrong about this, please. (I'm not saying anything about the quality of the decisions) Personally, I would like a vote, even on proposals where I have made no input. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't vote... Voting is evil. We instead form a consensus on whether to promote or not, and, therefore, your 'vote' should be why it should be promoted or not promoted with reasons and points to back yourself up. You don't have to have been involved with any of the proposals previously to make a comment, it's a wiki after all! Goblin 19:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

Yeah voting has never been part of the process, an admin just determines by the comments on if there is concensus to promote or not. -DJSasso (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw, the decision does not have to be made by an admin. Any active, trusted and knowledge editor may close P(V)GAs. -Barras (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are the procedures not rewritten to show clearly our criteria for making the decision on promotion? Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe they already have been written up (Well, I know they have, I wrote it...). In a nutshell, the article meets all criteria and a consensus has been formed to promote. As ever, if articles don't meet criteria even if there is a consensus (or vice versa) then the promoter can use discretion (WP:BOLD, WP:IAR etc). Personally I'll err on the side of caution when closing - it's easier to extend or not promote something and re-nom it than take it through WP:PAD. Goblin 11:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

"3.When the article meets all nine of the criteria, it can be voted on. For this, the article is moved to the voting section on the Proposed good articles page. Any named editor can vote. Within one week of being listed under the voting section, 70% of named editors must agree that the article is indeed good. There is a required minimum of 5 named voters." Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Where's that? We could well have missed one. WP:BOLD and change it. :-). Goblin 12:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

Section is in Requirements for Good and Very Good Articles, section How to make articles Good/Very Good. The whole of the page(s) seem to reflect the voting era. Incidentally, the archives show quite clearly that we did vote originally, until quite recently. That is what I've been talking about. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We must have forgotten to update that particular page, I'll go and do it now. It was about a year ago I think that we ditched voting, and the process has actually got quicker and promoted more articles with more users inputting and better quality since then. Anyone can still input, it just means that we're not promoting things after drive-by Strong supports and instead promoting based on the article and reasons given. Hope that makes sense? Indeed, part of the discussion to make the change happen is above. I state again, voting is evil. Goblin 16:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

• What has always troubled me is that various editors often have ignored consensus and closed discussions prematurely and arbitrarily. That shouldn't be happening. And if a vote is what's needed to stop that, so be it Purplebackpack89 16:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

General discussion on GA/VGA process

Hello all, We have come to see that the GA/VGA process has come to work differently to how it was intended originally. I therefore want to start a discussion on how this process is supposed to work. Note that the "process" in itslef is the same for GA and VGA, but that VGA's need to be comprehensive, and that they must not have red links. When thought out originally, the process in very broad terms is as follows:

1. Someone sees a candidate article that almost meets the requirements
2. The community reviews the article and fixes the outstanding issues
3. The community agrees that the issues are fixed, and promotes the article

What I have seen so far is that the fixing is mostly done by one editor (which it shouldn't be). Getting an article to GA/VGA status is a lot of work. I have done both GAs and VGAs, and I can say that the amount of work needed for GA is less, but not much less. Note that by the current standards, every VGA is also a GA. Another thing I have seen is that articles were proposed for demotion (form GA), based on length or comprehensiveness criteria. What I also see is that "GAs seem to work better than VGAs". We therefore need to find incentives on how to make VGAs more attractive. A few suggestions:

• Re-introduce length criteria for GAs and VGAs. Very short articles are unlikely to become GA or VGA
• Require that VGA nominees need to have the GA flag. This may be counterproductive though
• Finally start to see the process as something to do as a community, and not as a bunch of editors, in their different corners of the room.
• Be more clear as to when an article can be promoted, and who promotes these articles.

This is the start of the discussion; I am clearly attached to keeping both processes alive. This wikipedia needs more quality content, not more content. There are also areas where different editors work together. We have seen that the DYK process works pretty well, if we have candidate hooks. How should we change the GA/VGA process to get the same result? --Eptalon (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• The fixing should be done mostly by one editor once its been nominated. Nominating an article is you saying, I guarantee that this article already meets the criteria. And anything that needs to be fixed I will fix. There is nothing stopping anyone else from helping, but people who nominate shouldn't be expecting people to help them fix it because by nominating it they have already basically said there was nothing to fix and what there is I will take care of. If you can't make the fixes then you shouldn't be nominating. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

With much of this I agree. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And with this I adamantly disagree. Fixes should be made by the community as a whole, not just one editor doing all the articlespace work while other editors add more and more concerns on the talk page. That violates the spirit of Wikipedia. If an editor finds something that's wrong and could be fixed very easily, they should fix it themselves, not write on the talk page to have the nominator fix it. Purplebackpack89 16:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of the process when you nominate is that you stand behind the article and say its ready for VGA/GA. It's not about you making work for other people. Part of the reason people put these mistakes on the thing for you to correct, is the idea that you are supposed to learn from them. If they just fixed the problem themselves, you would again nom something with the same problems. The VGA/GA isn't a "I want people to work on this article" process. Don't waste others time if you aren't willing to put the work in yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I also think the current process already works fine. I don't think we should do what we always do and have a knee jerk reaction and think we have to fix something just because one editor had a fit. We need to stop with these knee jerk reactions to try and fix everything, it always inevitably makes things worse. -DJSasso (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And with all of this I don't agree. It's crystal clear the process is not working well, and it's our duty to examine it closely. No change to things that work well (if it ain't broke don't fix it) but if the promotions are working well, then I'm a monkey's uncle nephew. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think, as I said below, that the guidelines need to be more specific. I saw several articles that met the guidelines but were not promoted because of issues not contained in the guidelines. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think people are forgetting that guidelines are just that, guidelines. The only give you an idea on some of the things that you should look for. You can't possibly include everything. And the more you include the harder it will get. So if you are trying to make things easier, it will only get harder if you write everything down. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think promotions have been working well for awhile. It should be hard for people to get GA and VGA. People seem to think it should be easy to get those flags. People work weeks on en to get articles to those levels, just because we are simple wiki doesn't mean it should be any easier. If anything I would think it would be harder here because writing simple english is harder than writing normal english. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 (change conflict) :When I expanded an article, I assumed that the meeting of the guidelines would mean it is instantly promoted. A word to tell people that the guidelines are just guidelines would be helpful to people like me. People don't know when their article is VGA quality. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I may be late to the discussion here, but I think the process is generally fine. Some articles failed to be promoted recently, but so be it. The problem is the editors. Or, more accurately, the lack of editors. The best way to get more pages up to a level of quality to be GA or VGA is to have more editors and more engaged editors. That means more people to work on articles before nomination and more people to check them after. It also means more of a chance to take a break if somebody is bothering you. To that end, I've been spending time lately talking up Simple Wikipedia and trying to get colleagues involved. Slow going, but I'm sticking with it and at least getting some interest. Just a thought. Gotanda (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Says that right in the first sentence on the page "This page is a guideline on Wikipedia. Many editors agree with the ideas on this page. It is a good idea to follow it, but it is not policy." It's specifically called a guideline to indicate that its not the be all end all. That there might be more, or there might be less to it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

e/c x4 Agree with DJSasso. System works fine, one editor in particular is having issues with it who has always had issues with it since he has been here. No reason to change it. More (V)GAs were promoted than ever since the change, it's working just fine. Goblin 13:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!

 (change conflict) Here are some things that I think would help:

• State under the guidelines: These are just basic guidelines. Many types of articles have more specific criteria for improvement.
• Add some more guidelines: Length guidelines and formatting guidelines (especially for references).
• State that an editor may close the nomination if the article is nominated for too long and/or has too many errors and problems.

--Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It says above the guidelines that they are guidelines. Once you start adding more information people will get confused and it overcomplicates it. The guidelines we have had have worked since the process's inception (Feb 07, I think) so why do we need to change them and over-complicating them? Unless we're making them stricter, then this is just pointless. It might be worth adding in a criteria to say that the WP:MOS should be followed, but there aren't any guidelines that are specific to GA that aren't already mentioned. And length? Well, see below; pointless. Finally, it's obvious (as it is with any community process) that WP:SNOW can be invoked if an article is sub-standard... We're not really finding any of these major problems that people are raising! Goblin 15:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

Length guidelines

Absolutely necessary.

1. Lower limit: I suggest 6,000 bytes.
2. Upper limit (generous):
   1. GA 40,000 bytes;
   2. VGA 60,000 bytes.

Something I wrote about this: There are at least three reasons why articles should not be overlong:

1. Time taken to download, as indicated by the bot guideline when editing.
2. The advice (which is widely followed in enWP) to break long content down into sub-articles. Much of the material in super-long articles can and should be put elsewhere. Just because an enWP article is overlong does not justify copying it here.
3. Most important of all: sheer volume of prose is an obstacle to users with limited English. Just because the founders of Simple concentrated on word frequency and Basic English does not mean they got it all absolutely right!

Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no, length does not equal good. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No-one has said that. What is suggested is that articles too short or too long should not be considered. However, phrased as a guideline would leave it open to candidates to justify exceptions. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Some articles are so long that it is hard for anyone to remember what they started out with by the time that they get to the end. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness should be key here, not length. History of the United States is bound to be longer than say Justin Bieber. We don't need "concrete" limits. If it covers the topic adequately, it covers the topic adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Some articles are rambling and long. I would prefer a more concise article. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles should be comprehensive. Just because you personally find it difficult to keep attention when reading articles, it doesn't mean we should arbitrarily cut an article off at a particular limit. And measuring in bytes is ludicrous in any respect, with templates, categories, infoboxes, tables etc all adding to the size. Prose is what's important here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

prosesize.js is used to measure prose... --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No - as long as it's comprehensive, then that's not a problem. Articles that are clearly (V)GAs could be not promoted over length - whether they're too small or too long. Silly. That's why we ditched it in the first place. Goblin 13:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!

I'm aware of how to measure prose, ChemicalInterest, this proposal measures the article in bytes though. Both are unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: For starters, any measure of article length needs to be clearly defined as being about prose. This proposal is not. Most GAs and VGAs can get 6KB just from refs, images, cats and interwikis. Secondly, there are many topics (like History of the United States) where there are 40+KB of things that pretty much have to be said. Indeed, articles like that could be 100KB of wikitext and still leave out some fairly important things. Imposing a length cap on articles like those is artificial and doesn't do anything for the project. Also, it makes no sense at all to have a lower threshold for GA length than for VGA length Purplebackpack89 16:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I agree with User:Purplebackpack89 that different thresholds for GA and VGA does not make sense. However I think that a cap is needed and it is up to the editor to identify the most important information. If an article does become too long, then it is appropriate to break it into two or more articles. I suggest that 40 kbytes (including refs and images) as the guideline for an upper limit is appropriate. Martinvl (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Step-wise promotion

Should be mandatory, IMHO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No point at all doing the steps if you already have a VGA level article. People should however, be aware of just how much is needed to get a VGA passed and be realistic on going straight there. -DJSasso (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It is now crystal clear that many candidates do not have this awareness. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The VGA guidelines are misleading. They make it seem simpler than it is. I think that they should be changed to indicate the more strict criteria in place now. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If an article is good enough for VGA, it's good enough. Every single one of my VGAs went straight to PVGA. No problem if the nominator is prepared to put the work in. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

100% no. Like TRM, all of my VGAs have gone straight to VGA and they all made the cut with straight support - an example of how the process works - issues fixed before nomination. This is just stupid, and again an example of people being stupid and not reading how the process works. A VGA is a lot of dedication and work. Goblin 13:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!

Guidelines on promotion decisions

1. Who makes them. I suggest, as enWP, one pre-designated person makes the decision. Must be highly experienced, trusted and mature. Could rotate between 'crats. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
2. What the procedure is. Present system is no vote, though that decision itself was taken without full participation. Obviously room for plenty of disagreement; we could use both consensus and voting, with the decider to decide on merit. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

   Voting is evil, there should be absolutely no voting in anything we do on wiki, it should always be consensus and only consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That is an assertion, not an argument. There is always a case for change when a system is seen as not performing well. The present system has led to some bad feeling amonst valuable contributors. Part of this dissatisfaction comes from a perceived vagueness about decision-making. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that there should be voting, but the voters should include concrete reasons for their vote. A sample vote would be " Support Properly formatted references, flowing prose, comprehensive lead, and no redlinks." --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

But it has been preforming well. That is my point. This is a big case of I didn't get my way so I will make a stink and get others to start also making a stink. Voting leads to people no longer discussing the issues and instead just stating yes and no which in the end will lead to worse articles getting through. Chemicalinterests's example here is my point. That would be a very bad situation if that is all we saw on these. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that you do not support a vote in that style? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, commenting in that style leads to drive by voting. Which in the end leads to lower quality articles getting through. This process should be a discussion. If anything its currently too easy to get an article promoted here. This would only make that worse. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

e/c x4 No, definitely not! Good articles were getting turned down because of a lack of votes and bad articles were getting through because they met the arbitary limits because people would simply jump on the bandwaggon instead of commenting why or why not, or, in some cases, even reading the article. Again, that's why we changed it. Votes don't work. And Chem: As much as you say that people need to give reasons why, the moment you add in !voting templates they won't. Fact. Goblin 13:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!

Exactly, what DJ has said. Agree with the part that it could actually still be too easy. Goblin 13:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Meganmccarty!

Voting may be be arbitrary, but I've seen some arbritary closes in my day, as well Purplebackpack89 16:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the nature of consensus. You aren't always going to agree with it. Something would probably be wrong if you always agreed with everything done. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

While everybody's making proposals...

There's one thing I'm questioning a bit about the GA/VGA. It concerns references. Here's what I think is wrong

a) You can get an article to GA using only a handful of sources

b) You can get an article to GA without citing a book or a journal article, even though they are much more reliable and verifiable than websites

I'm not going to lay down a proposal just yet, but I would like to see what the rest of the community thinks about this. I personally would suggest at least 5-10 different sources (depending on the milestone), at least one of which has to be a book or a journal article Purplebackpack89 18:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to proove that a book or journal is more reliable than a website. If anything academics are starting to look at it in reverse. Because websites can be updated immediately with new information whereas books go out of date. Of course some websites are more reliable than others. However, as long as a website meets the reliability criteria then there is no difference between it and a book. -DJSasso (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that books/journals are more accessible, I think there are also drawbacks:

• Most scientific journals I know require a subscription, their content is not available "for free". This makes checking references more complex, esp. when we are talking about specialised scientific literature (which you will likely also not find in the "next library around the corner")
• Checking a reference may need specialized knowledge; An article from "Nature" may be very specific (I take nature here because it is well-known, there are many other similar publications). This is the basic problem we have, we lack most specialists. Just because EnWP gives the reference does not mean that it can be trusted without checking.
• Giving an absolute number of sources is problematic. At least in theory I can almost always come up with a perfectly fine candidate that has one source less than required
• Finding good sources is an art in itself
• Accessing certain content may be a crime, in certain countries; A book that was banned in a country for racism/anti-semitism may be one of the perhaps few sources left. You need a reliable source to illustrate "Human zoo", perhaps....

What I say next may be problematic, because it is difficult to get: In general, there should be an age limit on sources. We cannot fix this as a policy, because there will always be good sources that are older, but for the "common case", I think the source shouldn't be older than 25 years. The problem is that as outlined above, some older sources are worth keeping, but judging if they are worthwile may need (very) specialized knowledge. Freely accessible sources should be preferred too. These are just ideas, and they may not be relevant to our case. --Eptalon (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the substance, I'll just add some facts. Both Nature and Science have news, reviews and original articles. It's the original articles that may not qualify, because they are primary sources. The reviews certainly do qualify as secondary sources (which is what we want).

With websites, few are reliable except for those which have a supervising body, and that body has to be active. On a previous occasion I've mentioned the websites hosted by the University of California at Berkeley, or those of the Natural History Museum. In other areas one looks for some supervising body: FIFA, for example. These are certainly reliable, as are websites of an individual whose credentials are impeccable.
Otherwise print tends to score highly because so many academic areas give credit to print publication but not to web publications. Academic print publications which have a refereeing system are by definition reliable. That will not change in a hurry. There are special problems with areas which do not have any reliable sources or which deal with very contentious content. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Many websites are reliable. All that is required of a website to be considered reliable is for it to either post its sources/bibliography or to be run by an organization that has a history for fact checking. People often write off websites, but these days its extremely easy to find reliable websites for most subject areas. (There are of course millions of unreliable ones as well). -DJSasso (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

GA reviewers guide?

I am a new user here on Simple and had been reviewing GA articles on the English Wikipedia. However, here its quite different and I have not been kindly warned. Since there is not a reviewers guide on how to review an article, do you think we should have one? People here are voting while others just leave comments. Some say voting is "evil" however, I still see people voting as support or equivalent. I based my voting on how the English Wikipedia does theirs, but I still get warned even though one user voted similar to the way I did. Also on my talk page I had to ask several questions that I would like to know about the process of GA reviewing. So I would like to discuss a proposal of a GA reviewers guide. This can help users learn about the way Simple users review GA nominations. Reason why, because the main page of this project does not state any rules except that we should read the article in question and explain the reasons for your comments. BTW, we should also kindly warn a newbie next time, if the main page does not backup your rules then how is it our fault? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Because we are simple wiki we try to have less written bureaucracy. We are a lot less formal here than en. The warning was a bit harsh but it shouldn't surprise you when you have a history as you do. That being said we should probably indicate somewhere if we don't that it is a group process rather than a single editor. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

History? on here? If you are talking about the so called "copy-vios" in January 2010, then alright; however, I did not know the rules here and was new to Wikipedia, even English Wikipedia. However, its been a year now and I have not engage in that anymore. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No on en. Your history doesn't disappear as soon as you switch wikis, it follows you here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that but I still think that there should be a reviewers guide. Users tell me that I can't vote with "support" but yet they do it. The main page of this project doesn't really state it clearly enough either. AJona1992 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Renomination time frame

At the discussion on Selena's nomination, the time frame from renomination was brought up. BG7 insists that there is a consensus that an article must wait "a full nomination cycle" of 3 weeks before it can be renominated. I cannot find this in any archive. Where was this discussed and a consensus reached? If someone can find it, please link it here and then add to the guidelines. If none is found, let's please discuss it here to determine the time frame one must wait before re-nominating a failed nomination. Only (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support 3 week timeframe and recommend speedy close to move on from all this unnecessary bureaucracy and tiresome debating. Normandy ^(talk) 21:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support 3 week timeframe - It's needed not just for this nomination, but for nearly all rejected nominations so that they're not constantly nominated. Definite support. Orashmatash 21:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support as this is not a big deal. If the article is anywhere close to GA or VGA then three weeks spent making it better is not wasted time. If these are to be our "showcase" articles, then they need to be good. There is also no hurry.--Peterdownunder (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• I Support 2 week time frame. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why? Goblin 10:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda!

Because taking a 3 week break is way too long in my opinion. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• My !vote (as that's clearly how we're doing this) is to keep things as they already are and as have already been agreed; three weeks between re-nominations. Goblin 10:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda!

• Support I thought this was already the case as well but I have no idea if it was discussed or not...but since it is being so now I support. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any links, so apparently it hasn't been agreed upon that there should be three weeks between renominations. And it's not "unnecessary bureaucracy" to ask that a major requirement not be unilaterally added under the guise of consensus. That said, I support this proposal. It's not about whether I like the proposal or not—it's about propriety and not claiming there is consensus when there is not. Goodvac (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• (ec)Not totally true however, there is a term known as consensus by silence. If it is the way something has been happening for a long time and no one has objected to it, its considered to have consensus by silence even if it has never been discussed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• But where has this requirement been invoked, thus indicating consensus by silence? Goodvac (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am not sure if it has in this specific case. I was just pointing out that things aren't always black and white, consensus or no consensus based on it having been discussed or not as your last sentence had implied. In other words that you can't just assume it has no consensus because it hadn't been discussed. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. But I'd like some evidence of this requirement being used in the past before it can be considered accepted through silence. Goodvac (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, and we should look at a change to the nomination statement indicating a certain "minimal" level of quality to the article. While PR was never working here, PGA isn't the place to send clearly sub-standard articles for line-by-line review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree to three weeks minimum, and to TRM's comment. The system has been misused recently, with proposed pages not even of average quality. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• If I look at the criteria, the article must meet at least 5 of the 9 criteria, before it can be nominated (6/10 for VGAs). In my opinion, we should change the criteria in such a way that articles that do not meet these can be "archived" fairly quickly. As to "re-nomination", rather than specifing a given time (3 weeks), I'd prefer that the nominator demonstrate that the article has changed substantially since it failed. --Eptalon (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Eptalon. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Having it say "changed substantially" is far too open for interpretation and gaming of the system. -DJSasso (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well what about evidence and diffs (or even maybe a consensus from the community that agree) that the article changed drastically. Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus from the community would take too long. Perhaps a list of changes with diffs (as you said): sourcing, prose, any concerns raised in the previous PGA. Goodvac (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Two weeks. Let us not penalize editors who have interest on working on a particular article. We need to maintain interest. Racepacket (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm, this isn't supposed to penalise anyone, it's just to stop the same articles being constantly re-nominated, I believe. Orashmatash 18:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Any renomination time frame is silly and doesn't necessarily mean you're getting a better product. It's just more unneeded bureaucray. Same with the three week "cycle". On most other Wikipedias, you let the GA run until it's done or it's blatently clear it won't be. This proposal just adds more red tape, when the GA process should have less red tape Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 13:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS

I understand that Amazon is not a high quality reliable source, however, is there an exception when it comes to retrieving release dates for singles/albums that are going to be nominated for GA? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Goblin 21:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

Should lists be allowed to be nominated?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since this discussion has not been addressed within the community I'll start one. Should lists be nominated for WP:GA? The argument is that users believe lists are boring and are not articles so therefore they shouldn't be allowed to be nominated. The other side of this is that lists are no exception from an article itself. Also can we not confused DYK with this discussion? Articles are not meant to be "interesting" as everyone has a different taste, articles on any Wikipedia can stay just as long as they are notable. For an example, I'm not a fan of rap music and wouldn't care to even click on an article about it or its affiliations (even if its at DYK). I believe that lists that meets the requirements (well-written and sourced) should be allowed to be nominated at WP:GA (at least). But of course the community will have the last say-so about this. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Busy right now but just recording my views; will be back later with a larger argument. Goblin 22:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky!

Don't en.wiki have 'good lists'? I'm not really sure why a list is all that interesting, but if we found one that was then by all means. Basically, each on its own merits, but generally no is my opinion. Normandy ^(talk) 09:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, en.wiki doesn't have "good" lists, but it does have "featured lists" (of which I am one of the directors...!) so I can say without doubt that lists can be interesting and well-crafted. Whether that concept can be replicated here is another matter and a matter for the community to decide. My opinion is that we could have lists at GA, but they'd need to be damned good. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured! Thats the word I was looking for... Normandy ^(talk) 09:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Process

I want to be more involved, but I'm intimidated because the process is complex to me. Is there a way to document the workflow here and the criteria into one project page? Jon@talk:~$ 21:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I used to review articles here but decided to leave because it was too complex for me as well. But if I'm not mistaken, I believe as a reviewer you need to review the article and decide weather or not it meets the criteria WP:GA?. If not, explain why and some improvements that could be made on the talk page. Then come back here and write if it does meet criteria or not by saying "yes, it meets criteria" or "No, it needs more improvements", or something similar. But no one is allowed to !vote a support or oppose, though some users have ignored it. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 21:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The criteria are clear, the process perhaps not so. But getting involved is a good start rather than just infrequently popping round and making big decisions. Talking is good. What do you want to know? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The process. I want to know if there is a simple guide to it? If there is, please point me to it, then I can navigate this process.. If there is not, we are doing something wrong, and I'll continue doing DYK nominations. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 23:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the picture here. There are problems, yes, but I don't think they are as big as perceived. As TRM points out, the criteria are clear but the process is muddled, though I'd take this one step further and argue that we have around three iterations of the PGA process in operation due to the piecemeal updates made over the years, rather than unilateral updates as changes are made. This was largely due to the fact that, when these changes were made, the only people participating in the process were the regulars, whilst the entire community (Which was somewhat smaller) also witnessed the discussion. Thus there was no pressing need to alter them - efforts were focussed on content and throughput was high, or, at least, higher than they are now. The small amount of new users to the process could easily pick up how it worked such was the high traffic. As it is, things have now died down considerably, the process being slower and there being many new users involved - and it doesn't help by not having these vital bits of information written down coherently. It's something I've been meaning to do 9And have referenced) for some time, but I've just not had the free time to be able to sit down and do it, and Uni commitments also suggest that this may not happen in the near future. Therefore, I think it would be a good move to pen a guide such as that suggested by NVS, and at the same time we can also tidy up the rest of the process pages. Or, at least - that's one option.
I doubt I will be popular for saying this, and it may also come as a surprise to many considering how big an advocate of P(V)GA I am: the process is no longer fit for purpose. Spinning off from what I have said above, times have changed and it has only ever received piecemeal updates here and there, giving something that is quite confusing to newer users - the digits tell us this. Promotions are coming from those who have watched the process evolve and know it inside-out, not new users, who are seemingly more willing to get involved over at DYK due to it being much more laid out and easier to follow. I see two ways at which we can resolve this problem at P(V)GA, though realistically I think I know which one I prefer and would be better all round.
Option 1: Streamline. Basically what we have already discussed above - streamline the criteria and process together and explain it better to new users, applying the updates unilaterally and, if need be, updating things again where there might be any ambiguity over the rules. This in itself would not be a major task - just something that a few of us would need to tackle to get right, and ensure that we are picky and change everything that needs changing. However, at the same time, I feel that - ultimately - this won't fix or solve the problem: it's still an outdated process that was conceived for a very different wiki and hasn't completely changed with the times as the wiki has, and, unlike DYK, it's not foolproof either. Which leads me to...
Option 2: Start again. And this is my preferred option. I doubt that it will go down majorly well with everyone, and I agree that it is somewhat radical and will require a lot of work from everyone, as well as possibly causing some people to get a little angry. However, the advantage of this means that we can create a new process, a new set of criteria and more that are tailored exactly to what this wiki needs, removing any ambiguity at all and allowing all current users to get involved and shape the process - which I feel could also alleviate some of the ill-feeling about the removal of Peer Review. This need not be an immediate switch, and I would suggest that we work on a new process in 'sandbox mode', releasing it to the wider community for discussion once it's largely completed, and hopefully getting it 'approved' to replace the present system. Of course, the big question is what would we do with the 'old' good and very good articles. Again, there are a couple of options, though, again, there is one that I favour the most, though I fear it may ruffle some feathers! Simply, we give any existing (V)GAs 'grandfather rights' into the new system. They remain promoted and as good articles, but are expected to be improved over time and would, after a certain time period, say 6 months, be open to PAD. This will give us a split standard, though, so isn't something I'm keen on. The second option is to demote everything and quite literally start from scratch - which I would recommend. It allows every article to get on a level playing field with no variance in quality - as many will no doubt agree, we already have a wide variation in existing articles, with many of the oldest (V)GAs being of sub-standard quality to the newer ones. In many cases, it would not take much to get the articles re-promoted, and this could also be done as part of the creation of the process, a handful of existing (V)GAs are brought in line with any new criteria so that they can remain 'promoted' upon launch. As I say - this is the option I would support, and that is knowing that I would need to put quite a lot of work into my numerous (V)GAs to allow them to retain their statuses.
So... what do people think? Feel free to shoot me down entirely - it's just my thoughts on how to move forwards more than anything else. If people like it, we can get started on something, otherwise if not we should definitely look to fix-up the current process. And, regardless, I will probably start working on an updated process to present to the community at a later date; there is no reason we have to use it though.
One thing is for certain though - this needs careful discussion and not something to be sped through - again not like me as I normally advocated getting it over and done with due to the slow pace of the wiki. However, in this case, this is something much more sweeping and needs to be a lot more considered - in my opinion, at least! But, of course, let's not all get too caught up in it and remember that we are here to write articles too... Goblin 16:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

So one of your options that you support is demoting all current (V)GAs. That one is kind of a shock because how would the main page function if there is no daily update for main page promotion? If they are all in need of an update maybe have a team effort project (like the collaboration effort I started) might seem to work! I'll be willing to join to help out and work with everyone on board and like you said it won't be too much of a hassle because they should be of good quality, just need an update. Aside from this, I support a reviewers guide (as I asked for one before, which is still on this talk page) and an update, which you said you will be doing once you have time. I would opt a '(V)GA mentor' who can assist others with their articles, but there aren't enough people here for that so I wouldn't want to "add" too much work on what we already have or going to have. I think this is a great start, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The main page functions quite easily - either you temporarily remove or replace the section with something else (Shift DYK up, for example), or, as I suggested, you get a small amount of the best current VGAs and get them up to the new standards before the change goes live, with those being 'promoted' on that day and all others demoted. As good as it would be to do this for every (V)GA, the manpower is not sufficient at all so we really should focus on the best if that's something we want to do, after we've written the criteria. Furthermore, as I mentioned, standards vary even in the current process, and I know for a fact that there are articles out there that are extremely sub-standard. This effort does not need to be done through any formalised project, either - though of course it can be if required (But stop spamming yours everywhere, it's not appropriate and if people want to join they know where to find it by now). Personally speaking I'd prefer to update all mine by myself, just because it's my specialist subject and a lot of them the information contained can be put across incorrectly to those without experience, which isn't helpful to our audience.

Anyway - on with your reply. We're not suggesting a reviewers guide here as, frankly, that's what the criteria says - so we have one. The suggestion here is (or was, initially) for a guide as to how the process works (Which does, potentially, include a reviewer's guide, I guess) which is desperately needed. As an aside, the best advice I can give for wanting to learn how to review is to go through the archives and read the reviews given for the promoted articles on their talk pages, as that'll show how in depth they are.

I can only continue to apologise for the lack of an update to the rules as my "Real Life" just isn't allowing me the time I need to sit down, read through the archives, collate exactly what was agreed and write it down - I don't want to introduce anything into the process that isn't community agreed which means that it needs to be done meticulously! I'll get there, hopefully soon, unless this discussion presents a better solution.

I like the suggestion of a (V)GA Mentor, but as you rightly identify we just haven't got the manpower to make this something that is formalised. However, it does already happen informally, and you'd be best contacting one of our content creators (And I include myself in this) to ask if they would like to help fix any issues that were raised. More often than not people will say yes, but as I say it just requires a little bit of effort on the nominator's part to go out and ask people, rather than waiting for others to get involved.

Anyway, I like where this is going a lot... let's keep going! Goblin 20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24!

Any objections to adding == Requests for peer review == to this page? --Orashmatash (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: no. It's not appropriate and completely undoes the steps we took forward by removing PR, in my opinion. PGA is a process to get Good Articles, not Peer Reviews that lead to nothing. Nearly every article that gets nominated gets the in depth peer review that leads to the articles becoming a good standard, though there are exceptions to this though it's probably not appropriate to go into these. Adding such a header would either be completely redundant or completely misused, in my opinion. Though, as ever, more views are welcomed. Goblin 05:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!

Well since we decided to redirect PR to here instead of deleting it, wouldn't it be a bit confusing to newer editors who think that PGA is the place to get a peer review? Orashmatash (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, the decision was not to redirect PR, it was to remove it. Redirecting it was what some believed to be the best option, I disagree, strongly, and would happily have just stuck archive tags on it. Peer Review is gone and isn't come back, can everyone please now get over this fact and move on. Goblin 00:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Orashmatash!

Good points, agreed. --Orashmatash (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Years?

Can years such as 1990, 2001, 2007, etc, can be good articles? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently they can... Though, I think (at least with more recent years) you'll have a lot of redlinks to deal with. Osiris (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of that :) Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 16:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on future GA/VGA process

The following was brought up as a result of the closure and promotion of Shabbat. It was actually moved based on the text in green bold below. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

A note for the future: Proposals cannot be closed by users who have commented in them, especially when it is an early close of just three comments, as in this case. The early archival as well is also a no-no, and could be seen as being a bit fishy. In this case, I'm not going to revert the promotion and make it last an extra three days, just highlight that this closure would otherwise be 'illegal'. Thanks, Goblin 10:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!

Unless I've missed it, that isn't written anywhere in the guideline, nor is it the current consensus by practice. Glancing through the latest archive, at least three other editors as well as myself have closed PGA nominations they've commented on - including all of the nominations that resulted in promotions. If it was ever part of the guideline, it's no longer the procedure used. We had a lengthy discussion last year in which it was demonstrated that most of the written guidelines about PGA/PVGA procedures are outdated when considering how things are actually done and are no longer supported by consensus. This is a good article nomination that has been thoroughly reviewed and approved by two administrators. On most other versions of Wikipedia, all it requires is one editor to have a look, fill out a checklist and then add the template to the page. Keeping outdated practises is why we have so few of these being promoted. Osiris (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep it brief as it's off-topic here but, in short, PGA (and PVGA) are a mess, as you point out. There are many different rules - written and unwritten - flying around which makes it near impossible for anyone to fully know what's what. If I have got this one wrong then my apologies, although I will briefly point out that it makes no difference whether a user is an administrator or otherwise when commenting here; all users have the same amount of 'weight' attached to their comments. There are numerous reasons why so few articles are promoted (and yes, outdated practices is almost certainly one of them) although I think most people will agree that we don't want to go down the route of just one editor filling in a checklist - I think that, here, that is almost doomed to failure. I've been working on some ideas to completely overhaul both PGA and PVGA (And a couple of other bits to boot) over the last few months and these will be appearing on-wiki soon, hopefully to allow us to come up with a much more workable and easy-to-use system all round. Anyway, this had probably best move somewhere else before I drag a nomination OT. :-) Goblin 12:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman!

I would actually love to see a system where we get a one-on-one review process happening, like on enwiki. In fact, Eptalon and Macdonald-ross and myself worked recently on a proposal for exactly that. With such a small editorial base, we'd have to have safeguards to ensure that the procedures aren't abused. But overall I think it would be much less intimidating a process. Osiris (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I agree - in theory it would be perfect and should see our number of 'better' articles rocket, however I don't think that in practice it would work - particularly a few months/years down the line. DYK is a pretty good example of this - until recently it had degenerated into pretty much a two man show with the guidelines being very liberally applied and lots of 'less quality' articles appearing on our main page. All it takes is for that oversight to be lost from P(V)GA and we're at the same situation. By all means the actual improvement of articles can be done on a one-to-one scale (indeed, that's the form that I favour because it has proven results to a promotion over the 'Oh I'll nominate an article and just expect people to see it' mindset), but I really do have concerns about removing the consensus aspect of the processes, which does work extremely well in terms of oversight and safeguarding. We're not enwiki (and never will be) and again it's proven that many things there just don't work here primarily due to the different nature of the userbase. A one-on-one process, in my eyes, isn't going to work with this editor base. It's a bit of a catch 22 to be honest! Anyway - as mentioned above, I have a couple of ideas that I'm drawing up into something that could be workable - give me a few days and then I'll get them posted. Goblin 12:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!

I'd venture that de facto there needs to be some one-on-one mentoring. My thanks to both Osiris and Eptalon, who really helped me get Shabbat cleaned up and in shape. (Side note: Since you did not revert, Goblin, I assume you feel that article reasonably qualified. Still, please let me know if you think there are things I should do. I may well push this for VGA down the road.)

My own question on the process is about the need to reduce or eliminate red links in transcluded navboxes. And let me emphasize that I am referring to navboxes, not infoboxes nor transcluded text.

• As an example, have a look at the article Passover. (Obviously, the article isn't (V)GA ready in the slightest, but I want to focus on the navboxes, so pretend the article is otherwise ready.) There are three navboxes: one on Passover topics, one on Jewish holidays, one on holidays in the US.

In my view, you can argue whether any or all of these navboxes need to be there. But assuming it is reasonable for them to be there, my feeling would be that

(1) The navbox on Passover topics should be all blue (VGA) or on the way there (GA). After all, Passover itself is the lead article, and every single thing listed in the navbox is related to Passover. A reader wanting more information should be able to find it.

(2) The navbox on US Holidays does not need to be all blue, even for VGA. At most, Passover is peripherally mentioned, and having red links doesn't really affect the article at all. This navbox merely shows Passover in context of a number of other observed holidays.

(3) The navbox on Jewish holidays falls somewhere in between, but I'd probably treat it more like (2).

It takes plenty of work to get an article to (V)GA status anyway, and I already agree with the comment above that too many substandard stubs are created solely to turn red links blue. Adding the pressure of turning navbox links blue only increases the pressure to turn out substandard stubs. And I'd argue that in the case of the US Holidays box, the editor might not even be very expert on the topic of US Holidays in order to address them even in stub form.

I'm not sure what to recommend on this going forward, because it feels like every case will be a little different. But I thought I'd put it out there for discussion. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts - all useful stuff! I agree with the need to have some one-on-one improvement on articles, and certainly that's how all of my own articles have been promoted. As I mentioned above, articles that go through that stage are almost certain to pass - articles that don't have, more often than not, failed. I'm a big advocate of this happening and it's always what I will suggest that people do when they first table an article for (V)GA. My concern is formalising this and making it part of the process. All it takes is for a less-experienced user to 'take' a nomination and pass it with numerous problems in place. As such I feel that maybe this should be introduced as a recommended guideline, but not made part of the process proper. This wiki also has a habit of going down the route that if only one person has to approve of something then everyone else will shy away - again to use my own nominations as an example they are only in the state they are in from multiple eyes. Human nature is such that people will miss things when looking at something, and arguably articles will be of a better quality after several people looking at it - even at a 'one-to-one' stage - than just one person reading through, assessing it (subjectively) against a ticklist and then giving it the yay or the nay. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if we could reduce the process down to make it quicker and more streamlined in this way, I just don't feel that it will work when I think back to the cyclical nature of this wiki, and how things have gone in the past. Hopefully this dialogue can show other ways in which this could happen.

To move to your point about red links, I completely agree. People have been known to remove perfectly legitimate navboxes or infoboxes from articles purely because they don't believe in creating a swathe of sub-stubs, and that's something that I feel needs to change. Where links are relevant to the article or topic - particularly at VGA - I feel that they must be blue. After all, we are going for comprehensiveness in the subject at hand, and those links are going to be giving further information for the user. As in your example, though, both the US and Jewish holidays boxes are more broad - although they might be interesting for the reader, and would be useful to have as blue at some point, they shouldn't, imo, be an obstacle to that article getting promoted. Who knows - the reader themselves might even be able to turn them blue, and that article could be better than whatever stub article would have been placed by the original proposer. The hard part here, though, is going to be writing this into policy - it's again something that could be highly subjective however addressed, and again is a reason why I still advocate having P(V)GA as an 'open' forum for all. As a related note, other reviewers have also been known in the past to help with red links, so certainly is not a completely bad idea... Goblin 14:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ TCN7JM!

Thanks for your thoughts. That said, it does make sense to pare down navboxes sometimes. People bring them straight from enwiki, but it's really clear that some things are not going to happen even in the mid-term future. As an example, see here. The question of importing vs. modifying navboxes is a separate discussion from this one, but it's probably fair to encourage that as part of the P(V)GA process. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Spot on. I completely agree. :-) Goblin 14:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Auntof6!

Copying from other Wikipedias

Is it okay if a good article has content copied from another Wikipedia and simplified down? Eurodyne (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it meets the requirements for good articles. Are you thinking that it might not qualify because it wasn't original here? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Yeah I was worried. I haven't started working on the article to make it good yet. Going to use a whole lot of info from enwiki. Eurodyne (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That's what did for Ronald Reagan and for Nelson Mandela. It takes a lot of simplifying, but yes it is okay as long as you simplify it to the fullest extent. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks wish me luck! Eurodyne (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Example

Nice example of what Simple is about:

• News headline: Humans turning forests into carbon emitters
• Translation: People cutting down forests.
• Possible: People cut down forests to make land for farming. The loss of forests, and the increase in farming, raises CO₂ in the air.

The latter is more complex, but it shows why cutting down forests has such far-reaching effects. Because it answers an unasked (but very relevant) question, it is the best of the three versions.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Re-wording to avoid controversial statements

Mainly it comes done to the proposals page instructing that it is not a vote, but the requirements page instructing TO vote. Applies to the vg stuff as well. For the lazy doofs that can't type out 1 word: click this for the requirements page. 💠Ely - Talk💠 02:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Concrete

This is a pretty good page IMO. Have a look! Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Good Simple English, easy to follow and informative for a short article. Quality over quantity! Hockeycatcat (talk) (changes) 07:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• OK, I've proposed it. The big benefits are:

1. It's an interesting topic to read
2. Many editors have contributed: it's not an ego trip!
3. It's quite long-standing, with no serious issues against it.
4. It is a bit shorter than some articles, but I don't think that really counts against it.

Anyway, have a look and see what you think. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Drop VGAs?

Sometimes a person is actually criticised by name for giving negative votes or even being slow to appreciate how wonderful a pet creation really is.

I want to put a stop to the constant pleading by contributors that "their" article should be starred. I think there should be a ban on users promoting articles they have largely written. It has lead to articles being promoted, followed by being demoted after a longish period. En wiki is much the better for being so long-winded about it. Right from the start it was possible to see that for instance, the Jackie Kennedy article had defects, but what the heck, she was popular and it got the tick. I'd be happy to see us drop VGAs entirely. We were just a copy of En wiki. We can't really sustain the supervision of two levels of excellence. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on closing

Hi! I recently closed a GAN here but was reverted, with the comments being that it was an admins job to close GANs. After this, we noted that sometimes closures had happened by non-admins anyway. Personally, I'd be happy to help out closing discussions (as they can linger longer than they need too) but wouldn't want to do so if it's not suitable.

I'd like to open it to the floor to check if people are happy with any non-involved user closing a GAN, or if there is a specific requirement. I see three possible requirements:

• Option A Admins should close all GAN discussions

• Option B - non-involved users can close discussions and promote/archive the GAN, however, they need to have a specific perm (I'm thinking autoconfirmed or extended confirmed).*

• Option C - all users can close discussions provided they have not taken part in the discussion.

The note* about non-involved is that the user must not have cast a !vote in the discussion, or be a major contributor to the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

At the moment,I am pretty much the only one closing (as promoted/not promoted). We do have enough admins to judge consensus, so closing these once it has become clear the article is ready shouldn't be a big deal. As to archiving: I think anyone can do that. Note: some pages need to be updated too if the article is promoted. Eptalon (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'd agree with doing so (I'd like to help out - I've promoted well over 200 GAs on enwiki), just wouldn't want to do so if it were to be an admin-only task. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Eptalon @Lee Vilenski, I am of the opinion that anyone should be able to do it as long as they do it right. If we come across a problem in any of such case, then it can be reverted. And in those complex cases, admins will need to step in. We do not have to be admin-only if tools are not involved.--BRP ^ever 13:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The processes as we have them (GA/VGA...) aren't used very much any more, partly because getting something to that level is a lot of work, by many people. So, we should lower the barriers: In clear cases, likely anyone can close a discussion (that has been running for a sufficiently long time). If they aren't admins, I would expect the people to not close discussions they were involved in, and where thery have a strong opinion. If something goes wrong, the respective article can always be listed 'for demotion'. So no, no toolset should be required to close a discussion. Eptalon (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I am pretty sure @TDKR Chicago 101 closed Christopher Plummer one. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 13:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I did close the Christopher Plummer one after discussing it w/ several other editors and I asked if it was okay for me, as the nominator, to close it. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes ofc, Editors who are uninvolved will also apply here. BRP ^ever 13:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

With places like DRV and RfD, there are clear reasons why those discussions can only be closed by admins. But with GA, it's quite literally a top icon and a talk page banner. That's it. Granted with VGA there is slightly more stuff done, with the VGA featured page thing on the main page, but no reason why these discussions can only be closed and acted upon by admins.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I would nevertheless expect that the editor closing is a named editor, who ideally is not completely new to the wiki. This Wiki is different from EnWP in many ways, and people need some time to realize that: so, autoconfirmed, named editor Eptalon (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 06:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)