Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Proposed reworking of the criteria

• User:Deckiller/Good Article criteria

• Any objections? — Deckiller 06:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I still have problems with changing the stability criteria, typically, just one person is looking at an article in a review, and might not notice that the article they just finished reading 5 minutes ago now has two more paragraphs, one which was re-written, 8 new references, and a new picture, as could easily happen while an article is being radically refactored. I also definently don't like 1 a with "there are no spelling errors", that seems a bit severe, does the criteria say that now, because I never remember that being in there. While of course an editor could fix those errors without being a major contributor, its not spelled out that someone could (or even should) fix that themselves. Homestarmy 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Implemented those changes, and I agree about the spelling thing; it should be implied that spelling is important, but a few typos shouldn't result in a fail. — Deckiller 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think once people who care alot about how inline referencing should be considered with GA's read this, they may have quite a bit more to say, but now the only thing I can think of to request is that if this refactoring of the criteria is implemented, that perhaps it might be a good idea to make a note on the GAC page recommending that articles which are unstable due to good faith editing should best be put on hold temporarily, instead of just failed. Homestarmy 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a sentence with that recommendation. I agree that all articles should use inline citations, but I was attempting to stay true with the original as much as possible. — Deckiller 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Any other objections or suggestions? — Deckiller 22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Like many large decisions of the GA system, people don't seem to notice these pages much or the discussions, and it has often created confusion. I think there needs to be a more...in your face kind of notification about this, I mean, it does shorten most of the phrasing signifigantly. Homestarmy 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a little side note saying that lists and disambiguation pages can't qualify as good articles to avoid any confusion? --Nehrams2020 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be a good idea. I'll add that under the appropriate criterion. — Deckiller 19:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it shoud say what a good article doesn't need. For example, how it is different from Featured articles. That is one thing that confuses me. Wrad 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an introduction paragraph outlining this before the criteria listing? — Deckiller 00:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just something to differentiate the two. For now, we have minimal requirements, but no ceiling. I think we should have both. Wrad 00:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Added. — Deckiller 01:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't fail articles that are obviously of featured quality; instead, we should redirect the user to the appropriate system and use the lead of the criteria as a disclaimer, which I have attempted to do. — Deckiller 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, maybe add a short list in parentheses of the major differences. Wrad 01:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That might not be necessary, since a wikilink is provided to the featured article criteria. — Deckiller 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I made a somewhat major change by rewording "improvements based on reviewers' suggestions" to "obvious improvements"; if an article writer finds a new source, he or she should not be afraid to include a couple sentences. — Deckiller 01:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about discouraging really high quality articles and trying to have them just become FA's instead, so far, the ability to become a GA reviewer isn't very prohibitive, but if a reviewer has to keep FA criteria in mind and the many, many MoS considerations that often annihilate otherwise extremely good FACs, (and often are almost compleatly invisible on the reader's end I think) I think that will make things very inconsistant across the board, as some people who may have very high FA standards may not redirect any articles, while those who aren't so well acquainted with the nuances of FA status may redirect far too many. Why not just have the line say "The good article criteria is meant to ensure that an article is of at least decent quality, thought a good article is not always at the same level of quality as a featured article"? I just don't think its a good idea to just alienate any top-quality articles from being reviewed.....Homestarmy 01:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Reworded the lead to reflect such a compromise. However, one of the major issues people have with GA is that the criteria is too close to FA criteria, so I believe the first sentence should still stand as it is. — Deckiller 01:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the first sentence, it makes sense in a way, after all, an implicit criteria to become an FA is that it should pass an FAC first, and since GA status is removed when an FA status is granted, an article with GA status literally hasn't really reached FA status in a way. Homestarmy 01:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Added another bit about how this should be a standard that all articles should be able to meet. Thoughts? Also, I'm thinking about putting this on a sandbox page to avoid edit conflicts. — Deckiller 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this change, there are probably countless stubs out there that represent the absolute maximum amount of representable sourcing there is on a notable subject, yet simply could never become GA's, probably because they could not have a lead without having more than one section of content. If the point trying to be made is that all articles which meet Notability standards should theoretically be able to meet a certain degree of quality, I don't know if GA class is that degree. Plus, it just seems off-topic to be talking about the AfDability of articles that cross our path.... Homestarmy 01:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Criterion 2 states that an article cannot be a disambiguation page or a stub. I also removed that AfD reference earlier; it was more of a rant by me :) — Deckiller 01:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It does? I don't see that in there, but i've always understood the Lead part to rule out most stubs anyway, and a Disambiguation page isn't really an article anyway. Homestarmy 01:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant criterion 3. But I see what you're saying; although there are criterion ruling out stubs, it shouldn't be necessary to mention that in the lead. Then again, most non-stub articles that pass inclusion policies can reach this level becuase of the way the criteria is drawn up. — Deckiller 01:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is mentioned so that newer editors can avoid confusion by seeing it clearly stated "no lists, disambiguation pages, or stubs" for their benefit. It would be obvious for older reviewers but newer editors and readers should know now so that they don't have similar questions as we've had down the road. --Nehrams2020 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I made some additional tweaks and cuts. I believe it's getting close to something that everyone can agree on. — Deckiller 02:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Further changes have been made; these are a bit more significant, as they consolidate all the one sentence sections into one entitled "what is not a good article?". I might be wrong, but delisted featured articles are automatically given GA status once again, correct? — Deckiller 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen delisted FA's automatically regain GA status, and because its not easily recorded which FA's were once GA's, trying to automatically relist delisted FA's which were once GA's might be problematic....And on the stub thing, I think there may be a very few stubs out there which are only labelled as such because the topic could theoretically have much more depth to it, but there's no more verifiable information that Wikipedia should use, yet such stubs do often have leads, despite being very short. (With like 2 or 3 sections) Homestarmy 16:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Further tweaks have been made. Any lingering issues? — Deckiller 23:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there's nothing explicitly citing WP:LEAD as a guideline necessary for GA status anymore, in the lead part, could that be added in? Like, "it contains a succinct lead section which complies with the MoS Lead guideline...." Homestarmy 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on the Manual of Style ruling, this was the topic of a large rant I made awhile ago, the wording there makes it sound as if an article has to be compliant with all of the MoS, a standard which, quite frankly, may be even higher than FA status, the MoS is so huge, I don't see how reviewers could possibly get everything, I think the old wording was better where it was just something that basically meant that there wern't large amounts of non-compliance with the MoS, and that the MoS guidelines specifically named are the basically mandatory ones to follow. Homestarmy 00:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead part is already mentioned (1b), and I implemented the other change. — Deckiller 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I know the guideline is wikilinked, but all it says is that it should have a lead, it doesn't say anything about the lead actually being compliant with the wikilinked guideline. Homestarmy 01:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I consolidated 1b and 1c so that emphasis is on complying with those guidelines. — Deckiller 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's about all the things I could think of to talk about then. I'm sort of concerned that nobody else besides Wrad and Nehrams decided to participate in a discussion as important as this, I mean, do people not have GA related talk pages on their watchlists? :/ Homestarmy 01:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I like what you or somebody else said before that GA's get skipped over a lot because there is a lot of emphasis on FA's. Not too many are shooting for GA status as much as the coveted FA. Wrad 02:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the NPOV criteria? I consider it among the most important and cannot support any version that does not mention this. IvoShandor 07:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah its been merged. Seems to me this is underemphasizing it, though I like what I see now, mostly. IvoShandor 07:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessarily an underemphasis, because it would still be a violation of the criteria. — Deckiller 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it is there, but previously it was much more pronounced, in that it had its own number. Any thoughts besides me and Deckiller? Not that our thoughts suck or anything. : ) IvoShandor 06:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, I made neutral its own number, and changed "verifiable" to "attributable" per the poll. I think it's all set. — Deckiller 06:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The longer than 25 kb thing needs to go in my opinion, there a huge amount of +25 kb GA's—I don't see wany reason to limit GA's to articles below 25 kb. Even if that wasn't the intention of the wording it comes off that way. Quadzilla99 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I disliked that part as well (leftover from the current criteria); removed. — Deckiller 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I think the criteria look really good.  :) Any change I'd like to suggest, would be in making it even more clear that a Good article is not "Featured article less 10%", but something substantially less than that, in order to make the standard more accessible. Here's my reasoning: Currently Wikipedia has about 2,000 Good articles, and 1,300 Featured articles. This tells me that the standards between the two are much much too similar, and the "Good" status is much too difficult to attain. I think Wikipedia would be better served if there was a 10:1 difference between Featured and Good articles. In other words, if there are 1,300 articles at Featured status, there should be about 13,000 articles at Good status (remember, we're talking about an English Wikipedia with 1.7 million articles at the moment). I'd like to see "Good" status as something that's within the reach of a typical well-meaning editor, not just a goal for those who are steeped in wiki-lore. If we can make GA status more accessible to the average editor, I think it will further incentivize more editors to try to attain it, rather than seeing it as something that's a bureaucratic hassle that's beyond their reach. Having thousands of articles rising up to GA level would be a good thing for Wikipedia. :) --Elonka 01:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The Good Article system only started in about Septemberish of 2005 with far less users looking at it or nominating articles, the system can only handle articles as fast as there are users to keep things moving. While things have gotten out of hand as of late, there's only been a semi-permanent backlog only very recently. Featured Article status, on the other hand, has been around far longer, features far more reviewers looking at one article at a time for often a week or so, can deny an article because of MoS errors which are almost impossible to know about unless you're a walking MoS encyclopedia , and when an article is sent up for an FAR, the people who look at these articles are, quite frankly, brutal to mistakes. Not that that's bad at FA class mind you, because obviously if the public is supposed to look at one class of articles first, it ought to be able to survive a brutal amount of examination, but I have noticed articles being failed or denied for less and less mistakes lately, and as far as I can tell, most people who vote there seriously expect all mistakes identified to be corrected. (Not a bad thing either) As I recall, there was even a space there for a month where there were actually less FA's than when the month started. I'm not saying that making the criteria weaker is absolutly a bad idea, but I think that at this point, the practially applied standards for GA and the practially applied standards for FA are about right when it comes to how far apart they are. Homestarmy 01:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
          • • • The backlog also doesn't help, articles can take a month to pass through. To increase the numbers significantly, you wouldn't need to just change the criteria you'd also need more candidates and reviewers. That looks unlikely. Quadzilla99 01:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Interesting points above. However, does everyone feel that the revised criteria can be implemented? — Deckiller 03:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, let's entertain the suggestions above of making the GA criteria more inclusive, so as to further distinguish between GA and FA. I was very very close (and seemed to have support momentum) earlier this year to nominating all of the GA project to MfD for this very reason. Girolamo Savonarola 03:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Which suggestions are you referring to in particular? The suggestions above Elonka's have already been implemented, and the page comparing the good versus featured criteria has been linked to. Do you recommend a paragraph further elaborating on the differences between GA and FA? The only way I could say we could make the GA criteria more inclusive without making it sub-policy would be to redo stability to only apply to edit wars, and make "broad in its coverage" weaker. I mean, it's just asking for understandable writing, basic adherence to our article policies, stability, and solid coverage of the main points. In case you haven't seen it, the link to the revised criteria is: User:Deckiller/Good Article criteria. — Deckiller 03:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't really see how the criteria as we've worked them can get weaker realistically, and if they wern't based on at least the most widely accepted standards for what makes a Wikipedia article acceptable, I think that many Good Articles won't really be good at all. Giro, do you happen to know of any articles off-hand of a particular similar kind of quality that you think ought to be considered good for GA purposes, but probably wouldn't pass with the criteria as we've worked them here? Homestarmy 04:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Like I said above the problem isn't the criteria it's the amount of the submissions and reviewers. Let's say half the candidates currently fail. Keeping delisting, submitting, advancement (onto FA), and reviewing at the same rate, if every article passed there would only be twice as many GA's as there are now. To get ten times as many GA's as FA's you would need a lot more reviewers and submitters.Quadzilla99 04:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• I added more to the lead para to illustrate basic differences between B-class, GA, and FAs, but I think it's pretty obvious from the criteria. In essense, GAs are reasonably well written and reasonably complete articles that adhere to our policies and main guidelines. Perhaps I should reintroduce the sentence saying "The criteria is designed so that any non-stub article can reach at least good article status.", because it will help seal the deal for those questioning the significant difference between GA and FA. Once these revisions are implemented into the project, then we may notice an increase in activity and production; there will be less bickering about reference formatting, addition of details, and whatnot, which means shorter (yet equally efficient) reviews and a better lubricated machine. — Deckiller 04:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: I like the revised criteria and would be happy to see them replace the existing set. Mike Christie (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It often boils down to reliability of sources

I guess that's the key thing we need to clarify: GAs should strive to use reliable sources, but this concept is much less strict at this level. Perhaps we need to say that "most sources are reliable", so that there isn't a lengthy debate of the references when one or two are on the fence (like FAC). Naturally, an article needs multiple reliable sources to exist, but for the GA level and below, not all sources have to be of maximum reliability (or, at least, reliable for the topic at hand; what's reliable for a final fantasy article will not be for a historical article). — Deckiller 04:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, if just one or two sources are really unreliable, several sections of text in an article could be a total falsehood. I think its fine as it is. I don't know many GA nominees that often use unreliable resources sometimes yet ought to be called "good" anyway, I think weakening the criteria here isn't actually going to make the list contain many more articles that are actually useful to present to the public. Homestarmy 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really talking about unreliable sources, I'm talking about those that are on the fence (for example, someone "failing" an article because they don't like one of the sources, even if it's obviously true and not an exceptional claim). — Deckiller 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather stick to a requirement that all sources are reliable, rather than inserting any ambiguous, wishy washy language or guideline concerning them. Quadzilla99 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone fails an article solely because of one reference on one unimportant thing, I think that's a very specious decision, and I haven't known anyone who fails based on such an extremely high standard since, well, more than a year ago :/. Homestarmy 20:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, basically reviewers will have to continue to use common sense, I don't think that is or will be too much of a problem regarding innocuous information. Quadzilla99 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Alright then. — Deckiller 22:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All set?

Are we clear to incorporate the revisions? I believe everything has been addressed, especially mentioning the difference between B-Class, GA, and FA. Anything else is beyond what should be included on the criteria page. — Deckiller 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like the idea of getting into relations concerning the Wikiproject ratings, because those ratings are so much more nebulous than GA and FA. "Cut above the rest" also seems a bit informal, and its always seemed to me the main realm of annoyance with the GA system in this area is FA criteria compared to GA criteria, not GA compared to B :/. Homestarmy 23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems people deseprate to axe GA will exploit this, saying "well why not just use B-class?". — Deckiller 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Because B-class articles are often not really worthy of any special recognition :/. Besides, the movement to axe GA I think really lost its chance months ago, back when people would keep radically altering the criteria, and reviews were often spotty or worthless. Homestarmy 00:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I might be nitpicking here but it says:"it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." I understand it was put this way to condense the previous wording, it could make it seem as though it only follows those sections of the MoS, how about "it complies with all of the manual of style guidelines including those for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." Or you could just say all MoS guidelines. Quadzilla99 01:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you worded it that way for some reasons I don't get, if you could explain please do. Quadzilla99 01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am to blame for making that criteria more specific in this regard. Awhile ago, there was a bit of an argument about ways to make the GA criteria less stringent, because many editors saw it as much too close to FA class criteria. I gave my part by recommending that the MoS requirement only call for certain important MoS guidelines to be followed instead of the entire MoS, primarily on the grounds that the MoS is extremely hard to keep aware of compleatly anyway, and that almost universally, every single GA review which dealt with MoS mistakes dealt primarily with the MoS articles linked now in the criteria, and nothing else. Somebody later changed it to "generally complies with the MoS, but specifically...." or something like that. Homestarmy 01:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit the MoS is an imposing beast, I guess I would just have to look over the MoS (if I have time) to see that no important guidelines are left out before I say I oppose the current wording or don't like it. I'm a little on the fence concerning this as I've stated I think lack of submissions and reviewers are holding down GA numbers more than overly strict guidelines, but the MoS is daunting. Quadzilla99 01:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The only one I missed in my opinion was WP:SELF, but when I tried getting it added into the list later, I was shot down :(. Though, most articles i've seen with self-references do tend to have other GA-breaking problems, however, I can remember at least one article up for review where the most major fault I found was heavy violation of WP:SELF, only to realize after making the comment that I forgot to list it in the MoS criteria, that was a bit of a dilemna for me, especially because the violations really did make the article look terrible. Homestarmy 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked. — Deckiller 02:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to be bold and implement the changes at midnight UTC (which is 2-3 hours from now). — Deckiller 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Revisions have been pasted into the page. — Deckiller 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I made a minor edit stating that refs should generally be in a consistent format. A reference section that's half in templates, half in manual citations, with several different formats etc. should obviously be avoided. Whatever style is chosen I would think we can agree should be consistent at the very least. I thought that was important to mention on the page. Even people who would pass with a reference section of just article titles piped into urls would probably agree with that. Quadzilla99 04:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Incidentally I know that's probably in the essay but I still think it should be mentioned here. Maybe even above the footnote. Quadzilla99 04:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't want that to be mandatory, but generally is fine. Homestarmy 13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • It says highly recommended, I wouldn't pass something like this, which has five different formats, that's what I'm referring to and trying to avoid. Quadzilla99 04:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Essay linked from WP:WIAGA

Why is an essay (in the notes section) linked to from the criteria page? Isn't the policy covered by linking to WP:CITE? Quadzilla99 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE is a guideline, not policy; and (despite the dedicated few) in-line citations aren't in any policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE is a guideline as you said, the essay is not. I'm saying the essay should be removed. I just came here in case someone could explain to me why I shouldn't remove it. Quadzilla99 05:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Length

The requirement on length is pretty vague: "For articles longer than about 25 kB, rigorous reviewing of the Wikipedia peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is often more appropriate than the process here."

"Often" needs to be clarified. Especially in light of recent disputes on the GA nominee page for the 2007 Texas Longhorn nomination. Is it yes or no? 'Often,' I think, causes more problems than it solves.

The entire page is receiving a major overhaul (see the topic two sections above this one for details and the discussion); that part in particular is getting axed as of right now. — Deckiller 04:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Should Template:FGAN be inserted into Template:GA nominee? Would this speed up the reviewing process? The current backlog seems rather large. I would like to contribute anything I can to speed up the process, but I have limited reviewing skills.Kmarinas86 17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created such a template.

It can be found at:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Kmarinas86/Template:GANominee

It appears like this when filled out:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:Kmarinas86/Test&oldid=122807420

Hope this helps.Kmarinas86 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The system I made turned out to be very helpful for me in reviewing easy to review articles. This is my first time, but I was able to check for all criteria I included in the template:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Rei_Hino#Good_by_these_standards

Kmarinas86 03:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

While this template is new, I'll list the articles in which I attempt to use the template to review:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Yoga#Testing_for_good_article_status Kmarinas86 04:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Super_Smash_Bros.#Testing_nomination Kmarinas86 04:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Mewtwo#GANominee_Reviewing Kmarinas86 05:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another comment on citations

I agree that the point about in-line citations should be changed since as it stands now an article could be failed the GA review by one editor and pass by another all because of a lack of citations. The standard should be modified to require citations or to more explicitly state that they are not necessary, since saying they are "highly desirable" for "contentious issues" leaves far too much room; anything can be a contentious issue to an editor doing a GA review who knows nothing about the subject. Let me make two comments against the in-line citation: First, while CTSWynken noted above, citations are scholarly, but Wikipedia articles are hardly written or edited by subject matter experts. Second, most encyclopedias that I know of don't have inline citations in their articles though will often have a reference section at the conclusion. Perhaps a better suggestion than saying that in-line citations are required or highly desirable under vague circumstnaces would be to drop the citation language and instead insist on a hearty references section. This would keep the distinction between GA and FA as well as having the requirement that an author at least present a way for editors and readers who are so inclined to follow up on the information. How does that sound to everybody? jackturner3 13:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to change that part; I personally don't mind. — Deckiller 14:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA award

I have proposed a WikiProject award, the Good Article Badge. Though it is a project award it is meant to be handed out to anyone for great contributions to GAs or GAC or GAR etc. See the proposal at : Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#WikiProject_Good_articles, voice your opinion and discuss there. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A Question About Notability

Looking at the criteria for a Good Article, I noticed that there is no requirement that the subject be notable in any sense. For example, I could write nice biography of Bob Aspromonte that meant all the critiria, but would never address why Bob Aspromonte should have a page in an encyclopedia. Is there a notability requirement for articles? If there is, should that be noted in the criteria for good articles? SmaleDuffin 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Like the FA criteria, it is already assumed that the topic is notable enough. — Deckiller 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Length

I've been following this debate, and I thought I recalled seeing somewhere that GA was (among other things) for articles that were too short for FA. Has that criterion been removed? Is it in place still either at FA or GA? I looked on WP:GAC and WP:WIAGA and couldn't see it, but I'm sure it was there at one time. Did the recent revision remove it? Mike Christie (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It was somewhat mentioned before the revisions; it suggested that articles longer than 25KB be nominated for FAC instead. However, GA has turned into sort of a "midpoint" in quality between bad articles and featured articles, which is why that part was removed. Also, the FA comprehensiveness standard is more strict than the GA's "broad" point, which means shorter articles in general have a much easier time meeting the GA criteria. — Deckiller 19:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We talked about it several times, I don't remember exactly when the idea of short articles specifically was removed from the actual pages in question, but if it isn't there now, then it probably was removed as a result of one of our discusssions. Homestarmy 19:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's great -- it sounds like the "midpoint" view of GA is a pretty sensible approach. I think there might be a few more things to do to bring all the project pages in line with that, though; for example I believe the FA pages give a list of "how to write an FA" somewhere that specifies PR but omits a GA step. Anyway, that answers my question; thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a mandatory midpoint though, its just that generally, a GA will be in a kind of midpoint between non-FA and FA. Homestarmy 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• We somewhat kept the idea of shorter articles in footnote 4 on the criteria page, which states "This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed". — Deckiller 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revision of 2b

I've been following this discussion at GA talk, and the idea came up of merging the footnote on 2b with the main text. Here's a possible draft.

(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles. For articles longer than about a screenful of text, unambiguous citation should be done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced. Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to that guideline, which does not require inline citations.

The footnote would be reduced to: "It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable."

I have removed "It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting". If we re-add it I suggest we make it absolute: "The article must have . . ." since I think subjectivity is undesirable given that GA reviews are done by one person. Mike Christie (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it, and it should help those who supposedly dislike 2b becuase of its "bias" against science writing. The main problem lies in incompetent reviewers who think this is mini FA, when in reality it's just a minimum standard. But a lot people — even reviewers — never read the criteria, it seems. — Deckiller 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't some monitors with higher resolution change the length of what a single page is though? Also, i'm not so sure on that logical deduction thing, in my experience, what's logical and what isn't is often quite a heated matter of debate in many articles that have controversial implications. Also, I don't think this is reading WP:SCG correctly, the last time I looked at it, it was very clear in stating that inline citations are indeed necessary, but only maybe 2 or 3 citations at the top of each section, since many references for Science and Math related areas are so general in nature, and it seemed overboard to many people to keep citing the same things over and over in every section. Homestarmy 16:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For monitors, let's set the standard at 1024x768 if we have to, but I'd rather try to avoid making it quite that specific. On logical deductions, seems like that's something that should in principle be settled on the talk page, not by GA. On citations, I was specifically thinking of this section. Mike Christie (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a general range of kilobytes of prose would be a better idea rather than the actual size of the article on screen, pictures might also make articles much longer than just the text. Some logical deduction type things can also spill over into textual accuracy things, for example, in Jesus-myth hypothesis, many editors would think it a very logical deduction that because there aren't thousands upon thousands of recorded statements by people in ancient times referring to Jesus, that therefore He couldn't possibly exist, yet editors more in tune with knowladge of historical scholarship often say that the burden of proof for somethings existance historically is much, much lower than the standards of people who support the idea that Jesus didn't exist, indeed, very few figures of history in that time period have as much recognition from various contemporary sources as Jesus did. In this situation, its so-called logical deductions vs. mainstream historical scholarship, and if GA reviewers can't even address situations like these where logical deductions conflict more important concerns, or where logical deductions for one side of an issue contradict logical deductions of another side, I think very ugly things will happen. Homestarmy 16:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the size; I'll try a few articles and come up with a suggested prose size minimum. For the logical deductions, I take your point. Would your concerns be met if that sentence was prefaced by a note restricting the scope to that of WP:SCG? Mike Christie (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Some parts of Science related articles, especially ones related to Creationism and Evolution, often have parts of them that would become very POV if the logical deductions of either side of the issue were to be inserted into the articles. What exactly are these logical deductives supposed to be used for, i've seen people suggest it before, but i've never really understood just what sort of thing articles are supposed to be allowed to logically deduce, besides mathematical deductions. Homestarmy 17:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty small fraction of the articles that would cause trouble, and in these cases wouldn't the clause about controversial statements come into play? I agree one can imagine people trying to use this rule incorrectly, but that's true of any rule. For an example deduction, take Scalar-vector-tensor decomposition, which includes the statement "Since the graviton is massless, the two polarizations are orthogonal to the direction of propagation, just like the photon." That's a deduction that is not mathematical. I'm not suggesting this particular one is sufficiently straightforward to not require referencing, just as an example deduction of the kind that might be covered. (My own physics background is too far in the past for me to actually assess the statement beyond its form.) Mike Christie (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the consistent style of footnoting, do we want to leave that out? Admittedly I added that, but I find that rather important as sloppy sections with several different styles are unprofessional and should be avoided. As in here. If everyone thinks so that's fine but, I hate to pass an article cited like that. Quadzilla99 05:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify Mike, i'm not really opposed to the idea that some logical deductions need not be referenced, its just that the concept of which types of logical deductions can go without referencing I think really needs to have a clear definition that doesn't let people do things like "Well, logically, I know the reference for this fact is out here somewhere, so I deduce that I don't need to reference this statement", and because I don't quite get exactly what kinds of deductions you have in mind, I don't know how to put the definition into words :/. Homestarmy 23:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Shortening of criteria

The shortening of the criteria makes it more difficult to judge articles according to those standards. This is because they are no longer described and important points are not, thus, emphasized. For example, the last time I looked [1] it was easy to skim the list and fail articles quickly without having to read the entire style manual to make sure the article complies. At the least we should point out the most relevant sections of the style manual without describing them. Hyacinth 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, it does name the six MoS guidelines that a GA should comply with currently... Homestarmy 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. If anything, it emphasizes the six guidelines more than before. — Deckiller 17:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How good must the prose be?

The main reason for the failure of I Not Stupid's two GA nominations was choppy prose. However, the "well written" criteria only demands that "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". When the first GA nomination was failed by ExplorerCDT on 26 December 2006, the article looked like this. The article looked like this when the second nomination was failed by NSR77 on 23 June 2007 (the nomination was premature - I originally intended to nominate it on 8 July - and placed in the "Television" section by mistake).

I understand that the GA criteria were considerably different when ExplorerCDT failed the first nomination. Furthermore, three editors (Wisekwai, Bishonen and I) agreed that several of NSR77's reasons for failing the second nomination were invalid. For example, he commented that the images did not have fair-use rationales, when they did, and requested that spoiler tags be added to the Plot section, despite recent discussion which led to a consensus that such spoiler tags were redundant in Plot sections.

Although I believe that the article already met the current "well written" criteria at the time of the first failed nomination (only failing because the criteria were different then), as the primary contributor to the article, my judgement will obviously be clouded. Hence, I would like a GA reviewer to tell me whether the article when the first nomination failed, the version when the second nomination failed and the current version of the article meet the current criteria of clear prose and correct grammar.

If even the current version of the article does not meet the "well written" criteria, how far is it from meeting said criteria? Bear in mind that I'm 15 and my English is at a near-native standard (practically everyone here uses Singlish). Despite having a good grasp of spelling and grammar, I lack the native speaker's natural feel of the language that is required to write prose which flows well. I needed the assistance of two copy-editors who are native English speakers (Haemo and E@L) to bring the prose to its current standard. If you demand prose that is "of a professional standard" (FA criteria), or something way beyond what I am capable of, I will abandon my efforts to get I Not Stupid to GA status, and leave Wikipedia.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have observed that when it comes to prose, good article reviewers often judge articles by very different standards. Also, just like the use of American English, British English, and Australian English in articles, reviewers should treat Acrolect Singlish similarly. The reviewers should not be biased against legitimate forms of English.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to good articles, the comprehensibly written article "I Not Stupid" is of similar quality to the featured article "George Washington (inventor)", when taking into account the ratio of words to sentences and characters to sentences. In prose, both are between 17.6 and 18 words per sentence and between 92.3 and 92.4 characters per sentence. Interestingly enough, the article "I Not Stupid" is longer and has more references than the article "George Washington (inventor)". So if the article "I Not Stupid" has bad grammar, then why does the article "George Washington (inventor)" have more passive sentences? I have a suspicion that people accept articles as well written if they flow smoothly in their mouth rather than whether they have the right character-word-sentence ratio as well as avoidance of passive sentences.

As for the article "Raëlian Church" which I wrote heavily for, I am trying to get it passed. I practically eliminated 100% of the passive sentences in that article several times in the process. "West Wycombe Park" is an article which has a similar character-word-sentence ratio, which apparently has more passive sentences. Ironically, the method of providing evidence for "poor" writing is poor by using mind-numbing phrases such as "doesn't sound right to me" and "poor use of English" without stating any rules that govern what "sounds nice to me" English actually is. Particular categories of mind-numbing sentences, such as passive sentences, appear in abundance in each of the many, if not most, featured articles such as "George Washington (inventor)".◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Prose quality should not be measured by measuring the number of words/characters per sentence without reading the prose itself. I hope that GA reviewers will adhere to the GA criteria for prose when reviewing I Not Stupid. Could several experienced GA reviewers evaluate the current prose quality? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Identifying good prose involves a subjective process if there isn't a prescriptive method of identifying it like there is when checking grammar and mechanics. I would prefer that the "prose" criteria be defined by what its opposite is. One must indentify the aspect of bad prose, choppy prose, strange tense, and so forth. But choppy prose may be an artifact of one's ability to read, and so may the appearance of strange or unfamiliar tense. Good diction may be a more realistic for "good" articles while good prose may be a more appropriate requirement for an A-class article. What may sound good to an American may sound weird to a Brit. Keep in mind that the criteria of good prose has an idiosyncratic component to it, though it cannot be entirely characterized as such.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

By leaving the criteria subjective like it is, eventually, a happy medium should theoretically be reached in reviews, where even if someone who grades at the far ends of what good prose is pass or fail articles in a manner someone doesn't improve of, multiple GA reviewers can pass or fail the article accordingly in a GA/R, so that good prose would be entirely up to the the community, which of course, is exemplified in the name of the system anyway, "Good Articles", I mean, "good article quality" is pretty subjective. Of course, I suppose two increadibly divisive camps could form over prose quality and grind the system to a screeching halt by having all the GA/R's be no consensus, but if that's going to happen, I don't think there's much that could stop it. Anyway, I think most people who get involved with GA reviewing are already pretty good with English skills, I mean, they had to read all the instructions before becoming a reviewer, right? I don't think the problems that have been happening with this one article really warrant major changes to the focus of the "good prose" part of WIAGA. Homestarmy 04:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy, you are assuming that all unfair reviews will be taken to GA/R. I don't think this is the case. Besides the possibility of two divisive camps forming, I am also concerned that GA may detroriate to a stage whereby whether my GA nominations meet the "well-written criteria" will depend on who reviews the article, instead of what the criteria actually say. I apologise if I'm excessively displaying the typical Singaporean trait of expecting others (in this case, the reviewers) to "Just Follow Law" (in this case, the "law" refers to the GA criteria). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you take a moment to look at the Singlish article, you will appreciate the fact that the sentences tend to be short, just as they are expected when the writers are Singaporean. Complex sentences do not appear as often. Are you willing to damn all Singaporean articles as a result of their consistently short prose sentences? Short prose isn't bad prose if you can set you mind to a time when you didn't have expect English of a college-level of complexity. Acrolect Singlish is a legitimate form of English typified by short prose, just like how British English is a legitimate form of English, typified by verbose, and oh-so-eloquent prose.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why short prose would be bad prose necessarily, but this particular article's troubles over whether the prose is bad or not in addition to being short sound like they should be handled just with this article, not by editing the GA criteria, which would affect every article, not just this one. Homestarmy 04:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Well-writtten" is already clearly defined as "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". I don't think the GA criteria need to change, as long as reviewers adhere to it. My intention in starting this thread is to get the Big Question answered: Does I Not Stupid meet the current "well-written" GA criteria? Furthermore, knowing how high the standards are set will help me should I try to get another article to GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

A month-long backlog elimination drive has started. There are several awards to be won. For details please go to Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the criteria mention the essay Wikipedia:When to cite?

I found this essay Wikipedia:When to cite in connection to FA, but it could be of some assistance in GA nominations too. Can I have some opinions on whether to link this in the criteria, please? (The essay When to cite may help you to determine what needs citation.) -Malkinann 00:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote confusion

Footnote 2 says: "Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations." What does this mean? I've never seen a two-page article. I'm confused. Do we just mean a "short article"? If so, how short? Wrad 17:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This has bothered me too in the past. I guess it means something like "one page when printed out on standard (A4/US letter) paper in a standard font size (10-12pt)". However, I would favour defining "short articles" by an approximate maximum length in kilobytes (e.g. 10-15Kb). However the word "can" is crucial here: the criterion that the article really needs to meet is WP:V. Geometry guy 22:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations

I have quickly come to realize how vague criteria 2b is. In the interest of clearing up alot of debate and confusion at WP:GA/R and potentially other confusion elsewhere, I recommend we tighten the wording up a bit. Nowhere does it explicitly state that the article should have any in-line citations at all, except for contentious/debatable material. However the vague wording, specifically of the footnotes, leaves this question highly up to interpretation. It is my recommendation that we discuss whether in-line citations should or should not be required, and subsequently adjust the criteria accordingly.Drewcifer 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: My intention with this post wasn't primarily to vote on my own opinion (below) but gain a consensus on how to clarify the criteria's language, regardless of whether you agree with me or not. Drewcifer 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion - Any complete thought that is not common knowledge must come from some source. If a fact comes from a source, the criteria should require a reference to that source. This would entail an in-line citation for every sentence/paragraph/section depending on the distribution of facts and sources. I recommend that the criteria be change to reflect that, specifically in the name of WP:V. Drewcifer 20:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Inline citations should be required as above. It is the only way to ensure that an article is really of good quality, and that nothing is unsourced. Wrad 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never really taken a side in this inline citations debate, while I see how useful they are in demonstrating that sources are actually being used in an article, not demonstrating referencing doesn't mean it isn't there. However, since we're looking for "good" without the ultimate standards of FA, it seems to me that changing the criteria to mandate compleate inline citations throughout would make the referencing criteria for GA basically identical to FA, after all, once everything is cited well, all you can improve upon is standardization. (What with all the different templates and ways to cite and all that.) Such a change in our criteria would likely eliminate almost every single GA, there's bound to be a non-inline cited sentence/paragraph/section somewhere in almost every article. The WP:SCG guideline would also have to be removed, since that guideline was created specifically so that Science related articles would not have to inline cite every sentence/paragraph/section. "Well-referenced" I think is an appropriate standard for GA's, since it demonstrates that an article by and large is backed up by reliable sources. But the proposed change sounds more like "Perfectly inline cited", which isn't the same, and in fact goes beyond what the original inline citations necessary criteria said if I remember correctly. Such a change really seems like it would be raising the bar far above "Good", and would require a tremendous amount of work to implement, since so many articles would need to be speedy delisted. I can't support the proposed inline-citations criteria for these reasons. Homestarmy 20:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly disqualify some articles, but not as much as you seem to think. In sweeping through the Architecture GAs (of which there are 50) I only found 5 to be poorly referenced to my personal interpretation described above. And most of these are only a stone's throw from compliance. 1 in 10 isn't so bad, is it? And I agree with you, my only reservation is making GA too similar to FA, but if there's one thing that the Wikipedia seems to be striving for, it's verifiability. Drewcifer 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose According to WP:V, inline citations are to be used in the following fashion

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

which I think is a more appropriate and precise way of saying what you're suggesting. I think that should be our standard, as it's backed by policy. The clarification that the guideline here needs is to eliminate the "preferably" business. Any content meets the above definition must be cited, per standing policy, using an inline citation. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly one case of where citations are required, but not the only case. To quote from WP:CITE: "The purpose of citing your sources is: * To improve the overall credibility and authoritative nature of Wikipedia. * To credit a source for providing useful material and to avoid claims of plagiarism. * To show that your edit is not original research. * To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor. * To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise. * To ensure that material about living persons complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." (I removed a few bullet points that didn't seem relevant). Drewcifer 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose Nobody has forwarded any kind of reasoning why GA criteria should be some kind of special case where the requirements of WP:V are exceded.--Joopercoopers 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yawn oppose. Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. I actually agree with you in principal, and think the "challenged or likely to be challenged" shtuff in WP:V & WP:ATT does not even begin to cover the cases where citation is necessary... It is in fact explicitly designed to provide sanctuary for and buttress the arguments of the anti-cite crowd... But I disagree codifying it into law. I mostly agree with Homey, above. I also have reached an evolved position that can be summed up as "GA is not FA." Thanks, cheers, later! -- Ling.Nut 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose We should probably just copy the FA criteria "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate. because citing shouldn't be different for featured and good articles, it should be something for all articles. T Rex | talk 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually my view is that, given that the nature of wiki-policy is towards ever-increasing rule set, we should reserve the GA citation criteria simply for those aspect where we may get sued or completely ridiculed - namely WP:BLP and quotations. In the interests of maintaining a difference between FA and GA, it seems reasonable to expect all information in a GA to be provided in a reference section, but (apart from the examples above) in-line citations for all information likely to be challenged, should wait for the FA hurdle. Let's have a line in the sand.--Joopercoopers 22:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I like T.Rex's idea. As to your suggestion Jooper: Wikipedia is not writing just to avoid being sued or ridiculed. We're here to provide the absolute most accurate info as possible. While perhaps mentioning that articles that apply must pass the strictures of the BLP is good idea, we're here to improve and maintain factual accuracy in general for our readers. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose We need to have a category like the current GA where the article has a good broad coverage, and is factually correct and has sources. Most readers would be happy to know this. Only researchers or people studying the topic indepth would need to know ehre each fact was derived. Complete in-line citations greatly add to the difficulty of getting it over the bar to pass GA. The GA articles are already good quality and are trustworthy to some extent already. Graeme Bartlett 23:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Citations and general verifiability does seem like a 'apple pie and motherhood' issue: every one agrees it is a good thing. But the details! To me, the problem is "Any complete thought that is not common knowledge..." What is common knowledge? In the real world if a fact appears in all the relevant secondary sources and is clearly not in dispute, it is - de facto - common knowledge within that subject. On Wikipedia, there is a tendency - my opinion - to over cite the non-contentious. Another observation is the disputes I've seen over at the FA reviews where one reviewer dislikes one reliable source and prefers another equally reliable source and yet neither source contradicts the text as written in the article. Really weird edit disputes over this. Anyway, GA should not be FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm getting a little confused with all the Opposes. Is everyone opposing my opinion or are they opposing the fact that I think the criteria are poorly worded and should be clarified somehow? Drewcifer 23:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the criteria is poorly worded but in re-writing the text the criteria must not be more stringent. I actually think a version of the Uncontroversial knowledge should be incorporated. At the GA level, the policy should be weeding out the outrageous nonsense. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am opposing entirely. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But you agree with T.Rex's idea of rewriting the criteria to mimic the FA criteria? This seems to go along with my idea of rewriting the criteria for the sake of clarity, no? Drewcifer 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current criteria are unclear, and I also agree with T.Rex's comments. I think the way forward is to emphasise providing the reader with sources for an article, and not being unnecessarily prescriptive about how the reader is directed to the sources. See my comments below. Geometry guy 23:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments I agree with many of the comments above about being a bit more relaxed about what we expect from citation at the GA level.

"Citation" means different things to different people. For some, "inline citation" means regular footnotes (every sentence or every paragraph), while for others inline citation can be achieved by Harvard referencing, or by incorporating the source (of a quote, for example) into the text. Sometimes, the source is obvious: e.g., a Wikipedia biography based on a definitive scholarly biography listed in the references.

My view is that we should reduce the emphasis on inline citation at the GA level. It causes too much debate at nearly every review. Instead the good article criteria should be based on verifiability, or (better in my opinion) attribution. A good article does not need an inline cite for every sentence. Instead it should provide the interested reader with enough direction to find sources for the material in the article. The more controversial or "challengeable" the material, the better the sources need to be, and the more clearly they need to be indicated to the reader.

This means more than providing a list of references: it means that the article should contain enough information so that the reader knows which references to consult to check which parts of the article. However, it does not mean that an article with sections or part sections without inline cites fail GA. The scientific citation guidelines already provide a way to interpret this for scientific articles, but better guidance is needed in general. For instance, facts that only need a primary source usually do not require inline citation, as long as the primary source is clear. In contrast, controversial material needs secondary sources, and every controversial fact must be clearly attributed to a reliable secondary source. Geometry guy 23:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree that the criteria are a bit ambiguous, and a rewording may be helpful, since a somewhat recent review I did had a little controversy over my requirement of inline cites and ended up in a delisting. Personally, I think that the cites make the articles much easier to verify, but I do not necessarily support making the criteria more stringent - I would just like to see the criteria made clearer. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Drewcifer, I'm afraid you are enormously confused about WP:V. You seem to think that:-

"If a fact [that is not common knowledge] comes from a source , the criteria requires a reference to that source.[true] This would entail an in-line citation for every sentence/paragraph/section depending on the distribution of facts and sources." [not true - there is a difference between having a reference section at the end of the article and an in-line citation]

I'm not sure how to help with your muddle, but rewriting the GA criteria to suggest that every sentence/paragraph/section should have an in-line citation is clearly exceeding even the requirements of WP:V. And as such, is an instruction creep.

The GA requirement is simple:-

1. You must provide a references section - this way your information is verifiable.
2. Where it's appropriate in accordance with WP:V, inline citations are required. In practice this means we provide inline citations for a)Contentious material concerning living people b)quotations c)material that is or is likely to be challenged.

Currently the guidance says

"A good article has the following attributes:........It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;and c) contains no original research.

We then have two hefty footnotes:-

1. Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced. Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline.
2. It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable.

References

In-line citations redux

The introductory material for Wikipedia does not make it very clear about in-line citations. Any editor following the instructions at the Community portal could create an article without them entirely in good faith. Here is an example of an instruction page without in-line citations: Wikipedia:Annotated article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

GAs and Future Events

Note: Archived GA/R debate can be found here. Giggy ^Talk 00:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

An interesting debate is going on over in WP:GA/R#2007_Texas_Longhorn_football_team pertaining to, currently, criteria 3(a) and 5. For those not familiar with American college football, the article describes a college team that has yet to play out its games for the 2007 year (they will take place during the next 5 months).

The submitter has noted that as the article stands presently, it is a GA. However, there are arguments against this that

1. Because there will be a good amount information added to the article in the next several weeks, it fails the stability criteria, as one cannot guaranty that each addition is going to keep the article as a GA.
2. Because it lacks the results of the season that the article purports to talk about, it fails the broadness that would be expected for the article, which in turn can hurt its stability. An article about a collegiate football team that lacks any information about its performance that year is, to me, is not sufficiently broad in its coverage. (One can argue between broadness and completeness as per FA, but missing the results of a known future event seems to be failing broadness to start).

The general favoritism seems to suggest to not pass this as a GA, but the page maintainers are insistent about it. We're arguing that in the link above. One can point out that there will be information likely to be added after the completion of the season (such as NFL draft picks, awards, and other details) but these aren't as necessary to meet the broadness topic as the results of the season.

However, I turn here to suggest that we may want to include something about future events as GAs in the criteria. Obviously, articles that fail WP:CRYSTAL - specifically, possible but less than likely or unverifiable future events, shouldn't be GA. But if a future event article passes WP:CRYSTAL due to having verifiable sources and mets all other aspects of GACs save for 3(a) and 5, and that event has yet to occur, can such an article ever be a GA until the event is completed? If articles can't be GA before the event occurs, what is the proper reasoning - is it failure of 5, failure of 3(a), or a combination? We may want to qualify which of those points in the GA criteria. --Masem 17:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I would support any change to the GA criteria based on the above, mainly because there is a difference between an event that is to occur two weeks from now and one that is going to occur five years from now, seriously, if an article is subject to change significantly in the future how can we possibly exclude it without narrowing down what can be a GA rather noticeably? I think that any change of this nature would border on calling broadness "comprehensiveness." If that happens and the GA criteria become undiscernable from FA criteria then what's the point? Not only that but this, in my opinion, would exclude any article about a living person, since their life isn't over and many, many things are likely to happen, including the biggest event, death. IvoShandor 17:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a case of applying the GA criteria pragmatically, rather than by-the-book. It just doesn't make logical sense to promote an article when it's going to fail the criteria in a few days, few weeks, maybe even a few months. Although I know that Wikipedia editors tend to like bullet-proof policy that never requires a shred of interpretation, I think this is one example of something that could (should) be done on a case-by-case basis if necessary. I doubt that there are that many articles being nominated for GA status that are of future events anyways, so I don't think that having a discussion whenever a case like this pops up is the end of the world. The example of the Texas Longhorns article, and the discussion of it's GA status (here) is a good example. The consensus of the argument was that it didn't make logical sense to promote the article, for a number of reasons which myself and other edits spelled out. The collaborative nature of Wikipedia worked. So with that example in mind, I don't think it's necessary to change the criteria, just to expect discussions like this to pop up every once and a while. Drewcifer3000 17:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is two-fold. One, there is no proof that the article would become unstable in a few days. To the contrary, it takes only a few sentences to add the important information from an individual game into the article. Longer game descriptions would be in separate articles consistent with Wikipedia:Summary style as done in current-GA 2005 Texas Longhorn football team. Second, we have a process for delisting a GA that drops in quality. Rather than trying to predict the future, we need to judge an article on its current merits and deal with hypothetical future quality issues as they arise. If this is not the case, then Barack Obama needs to be delisted as FA since his presidential candidacy ensures that new information becomes available on a daily or weekly basis. Johntex\^talk 18:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That was not my argument at all. My argument was much simpler: in this special case, a discussion was raised on the applicability of the article for GA status. The majority of opinion was that no, the article should not be given GA status. Simple as that. Discussions such as that, in my opinion, are preferable to changing GA policy/criteria directly, since a) policy changes inevitably have unintended effects somewhere down the line, b) policy change is far less versatile and useful than discussion and consensus, c) I can't imagine cases like this one coming up often, and d) even if cases like this were more frequent (say we have this exact same problem next year in 2008, or for another team, in which case the instances multiply ad naseum), we have established a consensus which takes care of all of those other similar cases. If another editor somewhere down the line disagrees with this consensus they are welcome to bring up the issue again, but odds are the community will come to a similar conclusion. Drewcifer3000 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the only reasons stated by anyone who opposed promotion were either (a) a claim that the article is unstable - which is not true if you look at the article's history, or (b) a claim that the article is incomplete - which is not true if you compare today's article to today's body of knowledge. The people who believe that the article should not reach GA status are contradicting what the guideline says. We need to either change the guideline or ignore the majority opinion since it is inconsistent with the guideline. Johntex\^talk 20:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be missing my point. You're still worried about the fine points of the discussion, while I'm mostly concerned with the fact that there was a discussion in the first place. If we take one thing from the debate of the Longhorns article it should be this: policy, no matter how much you add to it and change it, will always be up to interpretation. And that's a good thing in gray area cases like this. To restate my point above, policy changes should be made only when they are necessary to improving a considerable gap in policy that comes up frequently. This example is a case of neither, so let's leave it up to the discussion process instead. Drewcifer3000 00:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I do understand your point, I simply disagree with it. To state that we know that there is a gap between how our guidelines are written and how we behave, and to do nothing about it, that is not the right way to run the projet, in my opinion. Johntex\^talk 03:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd say there's a gap between policy and behavior, more like a small gap that requires case-by-case analysis. Editing policy to accommodate such a rare occurance is like using an ax to remove a few splinters. It's bound to have effects greater than just removing the splinter. Why not use a tweezer to take care of each splinter at a time? Stupid analogy, I know, just work with me here. It just seems to me that you've discounted the discussion process simply because it disagrees with your opinion. Drewcifer3000 05:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is fair to say that I have discounted the discussion simply because it disagrees with my opinion. To the contrary, I believe I have considered the discussion and have not yet found anything to cause me to change my opinion. I do, however, appreciate everyone's comments. Johntex\^talk 06:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal (moved here from Wikipedia talk:Good articles)

Recently, there has been some discussion about how the stability and completeness criteria relate to ongoing and future events. The article that prompted this discussion is 2007 Texas Longhorn football team. Observers have praised the article as being "good" but the question is whether it meets GA criteria.

The first GA nomination was in April 2007 and there seemed to be a rough consensus in the discussion to come back to GA nomination once the roster was published. However, after adding the roster the article was still failed over concerns that more information will need to be added in the future, and concerns that the article might receive some unhelpful edits during the season.

I believe that it is "stable" in the sense that the article is not undergoing rapid changes, and is free from edit warring.

I also contend that the article is "complete" with respect to what is known or knowable today.

It is certainly possible to talk about future information that will need to be added to the article, but that is the case for even some of our featured articles such as Mars (new exploration missions on the way) and Barack Obama (actively pursuing the US presidency). I think we should judge an article on today's condition, not what it might hypothetically become in the future.

I propose that we clarify the GA criteria to explicitly state that all articles are to be judged on their current state and recent history. We should not hypothesize about what might happen to an article in the future. An article such as any of those mentioned above should be judged solely based upon what is knowable today and what is happening to the article today. Thanks for your consideration. Johntex\^talk 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - The topic of the article has not yet occurred. It's that simple. It's the 2007 team article with history from previous years. That doesn't qualify for GA. As far as altering the criteria. No need. As noted above, this isn't a frequent issue. Rarely do we get nominations for articles on things that have yet to occur. The criteria can definitely be improved, but I don't think amending for this is necessary. Lara♥Love 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Lara's got the gist of it, the article isn't about the 2007 Texas Longhorns season right now, it's about the past, with the current roster included. If the article was called Background to the 2007 Texas Longhorns Season it might have a better chance. This is a criteria that should not be altered to state that articles be judged on their recent history/current state. That much is a given, it's obvious and doesn't require spelling out explicitly. The fact is, that as the article you are concerned about is, at present, in its current state, is not a GA. I understand that you are upset about this but this whole proposal seems rather pointy to me, maybe not to the letter of what pointyness is but in spirit, very much so. IvoShandor 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you misread me. I'm not upset that the article has not been promoted. I simply think that people are making a mistake to look into their crystal balls and try to predict what might happen in the future. That is all. I am certainly not trying to disrupt Wikipedia. To the contrary, I am trying to improve Wikipedia to be more consistent with our claimed guidelines.

I agree with you when you say, "This is a criteria that should not be altered to state that articles be judged on their recent history/current state. That much is a given, it's obvious..." - If this is the case then we should act that way. This article is broad in coverage of what is known today. It should not be held out because of the idea that more facts will be available later. Johntex\^talk 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to suggest the pointyness then, I did misread you. But I still disagree with you. The criteria requires application of common sense by reviewers. It is completely sensible to say that an article on a future event is not GA if those events haven't happened at all. The article is about the 2007 team. The most important aspect of this team is its season, which hasn't happened yet. How can this possibly satisfy the broadness aspect of the criteria when the article's most major component is missing. Broadness means broadness of the whole topic, including its most important components, not the broadness that's possible at this instant. This would be like submitting an article on this years Super Bowl for GA right now. You could fill it with specualtion and probably find sources but that doesn't mean it can be GA. Again, the criteria doesn't need changed and most of this discussion belongs at the GA review and not here but it seems there is little support for the change and it is based on one case only. Are there any other examples as to why this is needed? If not, the discussion here should end and go back to the GA review which I would say consensus there is overwhelming to deny GA status. IvoShandor 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you that consensus at the GA review is currently not to promote. That is why we ended the discussion specific to a particular article and came here for a broader discussion about the question in general.

As to whether it could apply to other articles, I would point to: 2007 Oklahoma Sooners football team (which is about as good as the UT article) and 2007 Colorado Buffaloes football team (which could get there if game histories are added). Part of my point is that allowing GA on future events would set a good example for other articles to follow. It is logical to expect that readers will be looking to these articles during the season. Therefore, I think we should give every incentive to editors who want to write and maintain good articles on ongoing events.

You yourself mentioned Space Interferometry Mission which is also about a future event yet it is GA. Surely the actual space mission is an important part of the topic, isn't it? If an article on a future space mission can reach GA then it seems like that should apply to all cases. Johntex\^talk 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just another example is Halo (series) which is in the GAC process, and yet the 3rd game is yet to be released, and there's still the movie (though, to the article's benefit, these points are shuffled to sub-pages). I don't believe we need to change the criteria, but only clarify that when being considered as a GA, broadness will also consider was is likely going to happen to the article "in the near future". Any article can change in an instant, and then there are articles that talk about events that aren't happening for a long time, but when you can expect that something will occur in the "short term" and the article is not set up to handle that either by having subpages or lacking the details (which is where Halo (series) succeeds while the 2007 Longhorns don't), then the article fails broadness. Now, what "short term" is is a tough definition, is it a day, a week, a month, a year? I think there's a reasonable value here, but each GA candidate reviewer is going to have some differences in that. Based on the response for the 2007 Longhorns, it does suggest that "short term" is on the order of a month to half-a-year, but that's just one measuring stick. But, that's why there's the GA/R process. If, say, the Space Interferometry Mission article was up for GAC and it failed because someone was worried that the information will change "in the short term", that's quite arguable. So again, I don't think it's a matter of changing policy, just providing an additional guideline for GA reviews because I do not think the 2007 Longhorn article is an isolated incident. --Masem 20:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Doing this would simply defy common sense. How can an article written now on 2012 Summer Olympics possibly be considered complete? If it's not complete it can't be a good or featured article. I think that the current criteria are fine and have just been misinterpreted by a few people who want certain articles promoted when they clearly don't cover the topic thoroughly (and just because they can't cover the subject thoroughly doesn't mean they should be promoted). This is a perfect example of WP:SNOWBALL and should be treated as such. I propose we stop this discussion now, it's gone on at Wikipedia:Good article review, Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates and now here and is going to get us nowhere. Our time is better spent doing other things. - Shudde ^talk 23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Question - so then for consistency should we delist Space Interferometry Mission and Barack Obama? The first is about events that are years away, yet the article is GA. The second is about a man who is actively running for the presidency of the United States and where new information appears constantly, and yet this is an FA.

One of the reasons that the GA process is not more respected is because of perceived inconsistencies. Examples like this fuel that fire. Johntex\^talk 03:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No! Like I said above, let common sense rein! The point you are missing is that Barack Obama is not about a future event; it's about the man now and in the past. The reason that 2007 Texas Longhorn football team is not GA is because it's specifically about a future event. Texas Longhorn football team on the other hand is a completely different matter. Johntex you are wasting peoples time. If you can't see why people oppose 2007 Texas Longhorn football team as a GA, and how they interpreted the policy as it is now, then I don't think me trying to explain it is going to help things. You should leave it until the 2007 season is over then renominate once you know the article is complete, and in the mean time work on something else. This is just a waste of your energy and everyone else's. - Shudde ^talk 03:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am not wasting anyone's time. If you don't want to take the time to discuss the issue, then don't discuss it. Nobody is forcing you to comment. Johntex\^talk 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Here are my feelings on the Space Interferometry Mission vs 2007 Texas Longhorn football team: SIM is an article that fully details the progress that has taken place with a project that's been on-going for over a decade. It's not an article of past statistics found in other related articles. The 2007 Longhorns article is based on a season. The inclusion of basic team history, past seasons and statistics found in other Longhorn articles is not comparable to a space shuttle mission that's taking years to prepare for. It details milestones and progress. The Longhorns article has nothing specific to the topic, which is their season, which hasn't even started yet. It's comparing apples to oranges. The SIM article was not promoted to GA in 1998 when the project was just about to begin... that would be comparable. Lara♥Love 04:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting point, thank you for sharing it. Johntex\^talk 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think a change of the rules is necessary. I was more inclined to have just a friendly reminder of what can or cannot be complete at a given moment, as Lara brilliantly illustrated. While I agree that this is not overly frequent, it might well be as "wikinews" aticles take more and more place. I am not opposed to common sense at all; but when we make a formal process for something like GA, I like it to be clear to all, and not to have people disappointed and thinking their article has been taken hostage by the conservative cabal.--SidiLemine 11:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? How about a reminder saying "future events cannot have complete articles because the available information about them is, by nature, inclomplete"?--SidiLemine 11:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's too strong; no article could ever be GA because an article, even if about a long-past historical person or event could need revising if new information today is learned about them. It's the nearness and the expectation of a future event, both which unfortunately have fuzzy rules to them. The majority seems to be favoring the interpretation that a 2007 football team fails because of the nearness and certainty of the season, while a 2008 presidential candidate's (That has other notable information that is past and complete) election outcome is too far away and not yet a certain, and thus the article is complete for the time being, and a space mission in mid-2010s, whose details of the setup of the mission is well known and highly certain too occur, is way too far away.

And I will point out again, "completeness" is FA, "broadness" is GA. The degree to which the results of that event affect he article are also considered. A movie released previous whos article includes the required info for a movie article including DVD and other additional release information, all set out and is put up for GA a month before its sequel is due in theaters. I would consider passing that article for GA (assuming all other aspects of the article meet GA) because while there may be some bits in the sequel that filter back to the original movie (the revelation of a certain character, etc.), the bulk of the information in the original movie article is not going to change, and per other movie articles, I don't expect to find much about the sequel in the main article, only a pointer to it. Maybe this article would fail an FA until the sequel was released and all that information filtered back, but at that point, its fine for a GA. However, if the GA nomination was put up a month before the DVD, I would fail it because DVD extras for movies are going to provide a wealth of additional information on development and production that should make its way to the article already (depending on how much press there may have been too). --Masem 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying there is no simple way to determine if an article can be a GA or no in these situations?--SidiLemine 14:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There's obvious cases where a future event article can fail, there's obvious cases where it can pass, but the line between these is very fuzzy and gray.

But that's why this GA process is not by any strict rules. A person reviews an article for GA, and if it fails, debate on whether it meets can be discussed. Or a person could pass a GA, and then someone feels it was passed too soon, and thus there's more discussion. All the rules are open for interpretation on an article-for-article basis. --Masem 22:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is a perfect reason why we should not try to predict the future when judging articles. If we judge the article only by what it is today and what it has been, the facts are there to see and there is no grey area. It is only when we try to predict the future that we have a hard time. The reason we have a hard time is because it is impossible to predit the future. Johntex\^talk 23:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. I fail to see any valid reason why GAC is so unreliable in the first place, and why it should be kept that way even less. That's the main reason I see too for skipping this aspect and concentrating on the available information. Broad in its coverage means no important subject has been forgotten: not that the information is complete. It should be possible to detail all the available information, and advise when the rest is expected, and what is expected if that can be reliably sourced. This is, IMO, a clean way to solve the problem. The side that wants to be able to promote recent and future events articles has been taxed of recentist, when the other side seems keen to delist articles on a weekly basis.

Furthermore, I'd like to point once again, that even if all the data on a subject appear two weeks after the GA nom, the article may not be complete anymore, but it will still be broad.--SidiLemine 10:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

But this comes back directly to what the 2007 Longhorns article is. Compared to the other GA articles, which have results of the season, the 2007 Longhorn one lacks it.

Let's change this argument a bit, but still focused on broadness. When there are equivalent articles that are already GAs or FAs that are comparable to an article in question, then I'm going to use those GAs and FAs as the measuring stick for the broadness criteria. I would not put out a movie, tv, or video game-related article out to GA without including development and reception sections as these parts are contained within every GA article of these classes. If I were to write an article about a city, there's several in GA that I know what headings and sections I need. In the specific case in point, there is 2005 and 2006 Longhorn articles as GAs as well as a few other football team seasons and other professional sports. All of those, when passed as GA, has seasonal results in the article. Because the 2007 version lacks this, not due to omission, but due to not having been done yet, this article does not meet the measuring stick for broadness. In 5 months, that changes, but not today. --Masem 13:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I doubt this solves the problem. Using jurisprudence in WP has never yielded really good results, as there is always some way of pulling another refeence article to support your assertions. Keep in mind that there currently is over 2800 GAs. Anything can be pulled out of this. And what if it is in a category, or a subject, so specific no GAs have yet been admitted on it? As for your last point, thisis precisely the diff between Completeness and Broadness. Broadness is about not omitting anything. Now bear with me. I understand your method and on the whole I admit it makes a lot of sense. I'm just not so sure everyone would feel the same way, and when you face a person who spent a month in the (maybe futile) objective of having his pet article promoted, it might get harder to defend.--SidiLemine 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly in the case of an article that is being requested promotion to a GA that has absolutely no other examples (GA or FA or otherwise) to use, then the GA assessment has to be made based on the criteria. It's just that there's basically there's identical articles of the past two years up on GA, in addition to close cousins of other past single-year sports teams to compare against, so that very clearly can be used as the measuring stick. And yes, I do understand the issues of spending a lot of time on prepping an article for GA or other purpose and to have people say "no". There is a bright light to this, in that its obvious the article is one season's worth of games away from being a GA; it will take minimal work to do the additions and GA passage seems like it is virtually insured when the season is complete as long as the page is diligently maintained. --Masem 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've belatedly discovered this thread having failed 2007 Rugby World Cup on the grounds of stability. The stability criterion is about making sure that was is reviewed is likely to be, more or less, what remains for a while. Asking reviewers to consider an article that will substantially change in the near future is a waste of reviewer time. However wonderful the Rugby and Longhorns articles are now, they are not going to be the same as they are will be at the end of the season or year. Not only references to individual matches, but discussions of whether the competition or season was a success will be added, changing the lede etc. Expecting reviewers to divert themselves from the over a hundred other articles in the backlog only to have to completely reassess the article again before too much time has gone by is a selfish demand on their time. Yes, a pat on the back for those who work on the article is part of what GA review is about. But it is also about telling readers that this is one of our better articles, telling other editors that this article is a good model, etc. An article that will be unstable cannot fulfil those purposes. --Peter cohen 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style

The GA criteria state, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation". Why don't GAs have to comply with all sections of the style guide? Style issues are quite easy to spot and fix, so why can't they be fixed at GA leval rather than FA? Epbr123 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think probably because the style guide is enormous, because the line has to be drawn somewhere and because the current consensus says that is where it's at. If Style issues are quite easy to spot and fix maybe we can set up a task force to work through the GA list and do it. What ya think? --Joopercoopers 13:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason you can't comment on style points not mentioned in WIAGA. The point is, though, that articles don't need to comply with the whole of MOS to Pass GA. If they comply with everything mentioned above and have no other serious flaws, then you can pass them, leaving a note behind to improve aspect x. Ling.Nut 13:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I have raised this is that there only seems to be one or two reviewers who check for style issues at FACs. When those reviewers are inactive, FACs pass while still having style problems. It would help out FAC if more style issues were fixed at GAC. An advantage GAC has over FAC is that GAC reviewers check for a whole range of issues, whereas each FAC reviewer only checks the issues that are of interest to them. FAC therefore can't be relied on to fix these simply style issues. Epbr123 13:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that changing the GA criteria to fix a systemic problem with FAC is a good idea - Fix FAC. --Joopercoopers 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A flaw in FAC? Someone get the camera! First of all, as FAC participants strongly point out at every given opportunity, GA isn't meant to be a stepping stone to FA. If it's broke, we ain't got time to fix it. We already have a task force cleaning up GAs. If there are FA noms falling through the cracks, we don't need another GA task force to improve articles that may not even go to FAC. Create a task force to clean up the FAs and improve FAC. LARA♥LOVE 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that many of the problems you found with GAs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force/GAC backlog elimination drive#GA reviews with concerns, such as date linking, dashes and ref format, are not currently part of the GA criteria. Epbr123 18:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah there you go Epbr they're already on it. Lara can you post a link to the cleanup task force for him? By the way is you signature supposed to only display a heart? - I'm sure a few days ago I could see words either side of it. --Joopercoopers 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another note on this I have is that these five parts of the MoS seem to be the ones that popped up the most on GA/R back when, indeed, the criteria did say an article should comply with the MoS as a whole. (Though I don't think many people really looked for that, it would of been far too tedious) Nothing else ever really seems to stick out very often outside of these particular MoS guidelines, WP:SELF occasionally comes up, but leaving that out isn't a crime I suppose, generally, bad SELFish writing (Hehe, get it, SELFish....) often comes together with other writing problems. Besides, excluding list incorporation, the MoS things listed in our criteria are basically the most major of all, a bad lead makes the entire article look bad, poor layout is just plain ugly, jargon means most readers probably won't have any idea what Wikipedia is saying in some cases, words to avoid also makes articles look bad, and writing in-universe is not in keeping with the tone of an encyclopedia. Homestarmy 16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I wanna make it clear that I support the text of the current version of WIAGA with respect to MOS. --Ling.Nut 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My sig has issues. Hopefully it's fixed now. Okay, so about the task force, that'd be WP:GAPQ. As far as my nit-pickings on GA reviews, date wikification is for user preferences. That should be done in any article, regardless of aspirations for GA or FA. Ref formatting is part of the GA criteria, just no body bothers to read note 2. As far as dashes, I suppose I should try to get that into the criteria considering it's a simple fix and makes an article look so much better. LARA♥LOVE 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the criteria

I have made some changes [2] to the criteria to reflect those of WP:WIAFA. Sources should be stated in all articles so this is not a matter of GA being to similar to FA. If anyone disagrees with the changes just say so. T Rex | talk 06:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All claims need to be ultimately inline cited? The language doesn't literally suggest that, but I think it certainly could be interpreted that way since there are no qualifiers or any indication that "claims" doesn't mean all of them. This seems very far-reaching, though I only base this on my own perspective of what the wording might suggest. What does anyone else think? Homestarmy 16:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a change along the lines of the ones being discussed directly above, and the consensus seems to show that GAs should be a bit more relaxed on the whole in-line citation thing. I for one agree with T Rex, but I don't think the general consensus so far does. Either way, however, as Homestarmy has pointed out, the wording is indeed vague, and needs to change regardless. Drewcifer 18:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Citing reference sis a cognitive process rather than a mechanical one. A small amount of clarification may be useful, but as more details are added, you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns on your investment of time & trouble. So in terms of clarifying the issue, less is more. -- Ling.Nut 19:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, seems to have been reverted. T Rex | talk 16:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The reverting user apparently reverted his/herself, though I don't know why. However, unless someone can show me how this criteria can't reasonably be understood to mean "all claims should be inline cited", I definently won't support this re-wording, its quite an extreme upgrade in referencing standards, far above "well-referenced", and hovering near "perfectly referenced". Homestarmy 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted myself because I'd mis-read the changes - the new version says "2b. where inline citations are appropriate....." which to my mind reflects the requirement under WP:V, and isn't the over, above and beyond upgrade that had been mooted here previously. It's still a tightening of the requirement - and now simply mirrors the FA criteria. Again we can't agree on the difference between 'good' and 'best'. GA's are still an undemocratic, largely meaningless waste of people's time. When did someone last try and build a consensus to get rid of GA's?--Joopercoopers 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm sorry, but NO CAN DO on the requirement of either footnotes or Harvard! This is tighter/more strict than the guidelines for all of Wikipedia! There is a very good reason why any consistent formatting (including MLA, which I dislike intensely) is acceptable: because there are a lot of fields that use those methods, and we don't want to discourage their editors from contributing. No can do! I'm gonna wait while for comments then REMOVE or better yet REWORD that section. It cannot stay, I'm sorry. It can be reworded as a SUGGESTION perhaps but not as a requirement. -- Ling.Nut 19:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the changes. Ling.Nut, what groups are you referring to that use MLA that would be unwilling to use the better looking, more user friendly footnotes of Harvard referencing? If the current wording is inappropriate, I think a recommendation for those should at least be included. LARA♥LOVE 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where Ling.Nut is coming from, and I think that if the criteria was set to "ideally" be meta:cite or Harvard, but as long as a completely consistent style was used, the article should pass GA but the GA reviewer should take care to suggest that whatever style be converted to meta:cite or Harvard, which should not be a difficult task if the article follows these other formats cleanly. --Masem 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the changes are quite as extreme as to be higher than anything else on Wikipedia, it looks to be about identical to the FA criteria. That's still a humungous leap though, after all, can anyone here name an FA that has ever passed recently without having every reasonably inline-citeable sentence inline cited? Furthermore, it also disqualifies many articles which don't have general references sections, or only have small ones, and are mostly all notes. An almost fully inline-cited article can often be just as well-referenced as one with both general and inline references, but this criteria demands both. Also, some topics do not have a relevant body of published knowladge, and can only be covered by more general sources like newspaper articles, which aren't confined to one body of knowladge. I can certainly see someone taking this criteria to an extreme that would result in a very large number of good articles never actually being recognized as such. Furthermore, it removes the possibility of using embedded links, (A form of inline citation, even if not a very good one) which although seems to be sparsely relied on in most GA's these days, can result in articles being well-referenced. I don't see why this should always be avoided, some articles aren't quite finished after all, but are still pretty good.

Also, why is the title of this criteria "Factually accurate", when all it talks about are citations and OR? Cite an article as heavily as you want, that doesn't make it factually accurate, people can easily interpret sources incorrectly or just plain lie about their contents. Original reaserch can also be factually accurate, so that doesn't make much sense either. Shouldn't this criteria be named "Well-referenced"? Homestarmy 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Some more things I realized later, this change seems to compleatly remove WP:SCG from consideration. Just removing it like this seems completely overboard. What was wrong with this guideline? The original inline citations dispute with science/chemistry/mathematics editors happened right alongside the creation of this guideline, and without it, editors who create articles in accordance with SCG will almost certainly not be able to participate in GA, since the way inline citations are used according to the guideline are very different from conventional inline citation style. Furthermore, the criteria now demands that citations have to be in a consistent style, something I don't recall being there before. That's exactly the kind of nitpicking that belongs in FAC, not GA. Inconsistently formatting references doesn't do a single thing to change their reliability, or the overall referenced status of the article. Besides, simply asking for the citations to be consistent isn't the same as asking for them to be more useful, someone who wants to have their article pass and is confronted with this guideline might just delete almost all the information from their notes if they have inconsistent formatting, and according to this criteria, it would be more compliant than an article with generally more information with its references, just formatted inconsistently. Finally, it really makes more sense for this to be listed under the MoS section anyway, isn't the demand for consistent citation style an MoS thing anyway? Homestarmy 23:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Good Granny! Put the WP:SCG stuff back in there! What is the deal here? --Ling.Nut 00:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that - terrible idea, get it back in. I've also taken a bit of stand against the rather thought-free "not enough in-line citations" culture that seems to have developed at WP:GA/R. Perhaps we can discuss it over here. --Joopercoopers 12:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There's two more problems that i've discovered. First of all, the "When to cite" thing goes to an essay that clearly was written for the FA system in mind. This most certainly is a matter of making the GA criteria similar to the FA criteria, its now based on similar essays. An oft-repeated criticism in the past of GA was that its standards were too close to FA, and eventually, the criteria were changed in several key areas (The MoS criteria, and the inline citations one of course), but using specifically FA-related essays to support the GA criteria comes pretty close to reversing that. Second, this essay alone has a rather bad deficiency in it, in that it contradicts Summary Style when taken alone. About subsections, Summary Style states: "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point.", but the "when to cite" essay does not specify this, so indeed, anyone trying to comply with the GA criteria when subsections of referenced articles are involved would have to ignore this part of Summary Style, which is a guideline, to be compliant with When to Cite, which is an essay written for FA standards. The few alterations made to this inline citation criteria are not enough to remove most of the problems i've identified, and with so many problems, i'm inclined to compleatly revert the criteria soon unless someone can give me a good reason why my objections don't matter. Homestarmy 16:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No I agree with you objections. Please revert for now - the impetus for change however was various reviewers at GA/R asserting that "GA's must have a requisite (but unspecified) number of inline citations". The defence was that the GA criteria where too difficult to understand/misread/misinterpret. The trouble we have is reviewers prefer binary rules (it either is or it isn't) to having to exercise judgement or thought. The culture at GA/R is moving the defacto consensus of what a GA is towards the FA criteria (in fact they wanted to exceed even that criteria by an order of magnitude).

The difficulty with GA in some respects is that it is easier to conceive of what's 'best' than what's 'good'. To me, wikipedia has 'core policies', guidelines and essays which all point towards what is required by the 'best' articles (they simply comply). All other articles are evolving towards that standard, in various states of progress. For 'good' articles we have the more difficult task of applying judgement to 'what is important' and what we can 'let go' ie. How evolved should an article be to be considered good? But as long as we have 'sticklers for the rules' at GA/R and no firm consensus as to how a GA can be substandard (Oh my god - they techincally violate policy!), the tendancy will always be there to slide towards the FA criteria. We need to deal with this.

You make some great points there Homest and there's a few things I'd like to comment on. Your right, WP:WHEN is specifically FA related - but in it's thrust, it's just an attempt to explain how policy might be implemented in practice - there's no reason it can't be tweaked to include a mention of GA's and it's requirements appear quite modest (especially in comparison to the "cite every clause whether it needs it or not - twice" mentality.)......to be continued --Joopercoopers 16:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be having too many similar discussions in different places. I favour a relatively strict citations policy. "Likely to be challenged" is a vague term that can come down to mean "is in an article prone to edit-warring". But we should have the same standard of evidence for verifiability everywhere. A clear indication of what statements are sourced from which references is much clearer. Given wikipedia's reputation for unreliability, I think it is reasonable to expect articles which are meant to be in out top 1% to evidence their claims. There are exceptions. I've been adding plot summaries to some opera articles. Listing the libretto in the reference section is quite adequate enough without citing it repeatedly through the synopsis. But, as a rule I expect to see at least oen citation a pargraph, often several. I think the text before the recent reversion was clearer than what is here now. Given Common knowledge is linked to a technical and challenging meaning, there is effectively a demand for heavy referencing anyway.--Peter cohen 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a great number of discussions about a whole bunch of major topics going on all at once, made all the worse in that at least one discussion seems to have several major topics in it all at once :/. I'm having trouble understanding what all is going on, and I log in almost every day.... Homestarmy 19:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Support for potential GA reviewers

I've been ambivalent about GA/FA in the recent past, but I've come to accept that some kind of review process is necessary to maintain and improve the quality of the encyclopedia.

I'd be happy to help with reviewing articles where I can, but I'm a bit worried that I might be the only reviewer making the pass/fail decision, even though I might be talking bollox; it's pretty easy to post a Support or Oppose for an FAC, but a bit more challenging to take sole responsibility for a GAC. Is there a support group for new, tentative GA reviewers? :) --Malleus Fatuarum 00:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• A template has just been developed which allows less experienced GA reviewers to request second opinions during reviews. Epbr123 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much the kind of thing I was looking for. Thanks. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to train more GA reviewers. With more GA reviewers, the backlog will go down faster. --Kaypoh 03:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can start a mentoring task force or something. I've already got two task forces which are consuming me, so I'll leave this to someone else, but I'll sign up as a mentor if it happens. Lara♥Love 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of any such mentoring task force, I decided to be bold. I've done a GA review of Serpentine (lake). I'd very much appreciate any feedback – good or bad – from experienced GA reviewers on my first effort, either here or on my talk page. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your review covers most of the article, and clearly lays out problematic areas, if someone tries to GA/R this article if it is rejected in its current state, I would expect pile-on sentiment not to list it, partly because your review is so detailed, and partly because, well, it obviously isn't a GA right now :D. Homestarmy 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

To make the criteria clearer I propose the following change:-

"A good article has the following attributes:........It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to sources. ie. as a minimum it contains a References section in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) where required it provides in-line citations from reliable sources. ie. for 1. quotations 2. material that is challenged or likely to be challenged or 3. contentious material relating to living persons, (c) contains no original research.

We could then simplify the footnotes to say:-

1. It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable.
2. Where in-line citations are provided, they should use either Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article.

---

regards--Joopercoopers 10:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears most people generally agree with you, per the thread above. Is there a point to this, other than to belittle another editor? IvoShandor 09:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ivo - I've moved your post and was in the middle of making this proposal. My intention is not to belittle Drewcifer (although if his zeal for posting articles to GA/R on the basis of an erroneous interpretation is chastened, this is no bad thing IMHO). My hope, and I believe Drewcifer's reason for opening this thread, is that clearer wording of the criteria will prevent future misinterpretations. --Joopercoopers 10:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the support, Ivo. What really sucks throughout this whole thing is that people have belittled/criticized me despite the fact that I've pointed out a flaw in the system (a flaw which many have agreed with me on) and done my best to rectify the situation and to help others avoid the same pitfalls. All WP:Good faith aside, I can't do anything right with you guys. That said, I'll ignore the majority of what's been posted above since, in the end of the day, it really isn't going to get us anywhere nor is it really the topic of discussion here. Everyone is welcome to tell me what they think of me on my Talk page.

As for Jooper's proposal, I have a few more suggestions:

A good article has the following attributes:

2) It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to sources, and as a minimum it contains a References section in accordance with the guide to layout;

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for quotations, material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or contentious material relating to living persons;

(c) contains no original research.

Footnotes:

1. It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable.

2. Where in-line citations are provided, they should use either Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article.

Didn't change much, mostly I removed all the i.e.'s and replaced them with compete(r) sentences. I also took out the "where required" part, since it is vague and in an odd way self-referential. Also the 2nd footnote, as worded, is confusing. Mainly the cite.php thing, since you have to go through two links to get there and into mediaWiki. Isn't there an MoS page or something more appropriate to link to? Also, I hesitate to bring this up, since I've already been yelled at quite a bit, but should we at least mention citation templates?

Hope the above changes seem reasonable. Let me know. Drewcifer 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally ok with me. 1. I'd hesitate to make cite templates compulsory at GA (they're not compulsory at FA, frankly I'd just leave it out here). 2. "however, most sources should be reliable." is an uneccesary redundancy. 3.suggest linking to WP:FN on the footnotes and general linking as previously done in the criteria, to WP:V and WP:CITE. --Joopercoopers 22:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems okay to me, except for the first footnote. Where has a consensus on that been reached? I never allow an unreliable source to be used, and a source either meets or fails WP:RS. There is no grey area. You might say that sources "don't have to conform as strictly to WP:RS as in an FA, but sources still must pass a basic test of reliability." VanTucky ^(talk) 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot the word "all" : "...provides references to all sources used within the article" Ling.Nut 22:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with taking out the citation template requirement, but we do need to express that a citation should be a full citation, with publisher, author, etc. As much as it can have. We don't just want a url as a ref on its own. Wrad 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

First, no templates should be required, experienced editors know what to include in footnotes anyway, those who are uninitiated can be referred to templates or instructed by those who know.

Second, I have always, always been against this statement: It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable. I agree with Van Tucky, and would add that this little disclaimer is directly in conflict with WP:V, which is policy.

Third, now we just need to make sure that this is applied equally to all articles at GAC and GA/R.

Fourth, my two cents is now over. IvoShandor 00:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything that's been added. I was iffy about the first footnote as well. Also, I was careful to say "mention citation templates." Not require them. As Wrad mentioned, we should express the need to mention publisher author, etc, in references/citations. I was merely suggesting that we mention the cite templates as a means to this end. Drewcifer 00:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice it at first, but this seems like the second note is sort of saying something that the main criteria doesn't. Last I checked, inline citation was just basically putting the reference at the end of the sentence, even just putting an embedded link would work. But this isn't just inline citations, mandating Harvard referencing or cite.php footnotes means that only specifically formatted inline citations would count, and I don't think that should just be relegated in a footnote, that's kind of important. Homestarmy 01:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Could just word it differently:

Where in-line citations are provided, they should use a consistent method of formatting, providing, where available, author, title, publisher, URL, page number, and date of access (for web references), some examples of inline citation styles are Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method.

Or something like that, anyway. IvoShandor 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps just linking to Wikipedia:Footnotes instead of WP:CITE, it refers there, and gives a pretty good overview of footnoting on Wikipedia. IvoShandor 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a link to FOOTNOTES would be a good add, but this little summary will be helpful as clarification, IMHO. Wrad 02:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am all for the summary, I posted my rewrite, which might need tweaked a bit, above. I was just saying instead of saying "Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method," we could say "Harvard references or the footnotes method."

IvoShandor 02:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Some articles have a Note section as well as a reference section... Ling.Nut 03:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Which should be fine, I don't think that all references need to be provided in footnotes if all references are provided. Footnotes can be reserved for information likely to be challenged if that is what editors prefer when working on pages. Wikipedia policies and guidelines give wide leeway concerning that. Often, and this is especially true of higher quality articles, the references section elaborates on footnotes that do not have the full citation, which should be fine too. IvoShandor 04:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I long for the day when "likely to be challenged" is removed from our collective vocabulary. It's simply an excuse for Geogre-ish non-referencing. - Ling.Nut 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that spotty as well. Though getting rid of that might be overreaching for now. Drewcifer 06:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? We may as well clear up any ambiguity right here and now. I could think of better ways to word it, perhaps "extraordinary claims" (Bob is an alien needs citation) or "hard statistics and facts," or "information culled from experts" (which is highly unlikely to be common knowledge). Not that I am saying this is how we should do it, but, when I worked as a reporter we considered anything that had been published in other "reliable" mass media to be common knowledge, thus it was unnecessary for us to attribute it in text with an "According to X." Under this method, information cited from scholarly journals or studies had to be attributed. Just a thought. IvoShandor 07:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, but wouldn't that require a change to other criteria/policies beyond just this one? Drewcifer 07:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely - you'd need to raise it at WP:V I think. --Joopercoopers 13:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Not sure what exactly the relevant guidelines are, but I don't think so for GA, as long as we have consensus here. It seems to me that the requirement for WP:FA largely exceed the requirements laid out in the many guidelines and policies on Wikipedia. For instance, there is no policy that requires inline citation but FA certainly does. IvoShandor 07:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not define "common knowledge" as was done under the science guidelines. I think a version of the Uncontroversial knowledge should be incorporated. In the GA version, as IvoShandor mentions perhaps common knowledge would be anything published in other "reliable" mass media. The problem isn't just under-citation but silly over-citation. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There are wider issues here. For one, the in-line system is technically difficult to use, and even minor formatting problems can render an entire article unreadable. Until this is fixed, I generally try to avoid using them during editing. Another issue is that there is no "note" facility, something that always results in confusion when I mention it because of the confusion between references and footnotes. Footnotes are notes of any sort that appear at the bottom of the page/article. References are mentions of other words, often rendered on the page in a footnote style. I often want to use both, but the current system does not allow them to be separated. Finally the CITE mechanism is an absolute steaming pile. Using CITEs inside in-lines results in utterly uneditable source. Check out water memory for instance. For all of these technical reasons, I try to avoid in-lines if possible, and only add them when the main editing is complete. And personally, I think the demands for in-lines by "non-editors" can lead to disastrous results. Check out the article on Halo: Combat Evolved. There's a reference, a different reference, on almost every sentence. The resulting page is almost unreadable. Superscripts are not well rendered in web browsers, which breaks up rendering and makes it difficult to follow paragraphs. When I suggested many of these could be removed, I got blasted for claiming OR and other such bogosity. I think the entire in-line issue needs to be de-emphasized. Yes, the article needs to be V, but I think that's as far as it should go. There are too many technical, rendering and edit war issues, IMHO, to make this a requirement. We need to focus on the article, not the style, and certainly not the slavish following of the letter of the law! Maury 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I for one agree with you: in-line citations using the cite method can be a pain in the ass to edit. One (albeit insufficient) solution I myself have found is to use the vertical format of the cite templates rather the the horizontal. Check out The Make-Up and Year Zero alternate reality game for examples I've worked on. That makes things a little easier to digest. However, should the ease of use of in-line citations even factor into this discussion? Not to discount your completely valid points, but isn't the need for verifiability (and the degree of need for GAs in particular) a separate issue than the ease of use? Drewcifer 18:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that depends. Let's say that in order to get a GA you needed to pluck out one eye. I don't think many people would be applying. Perhaps in-line CITEs aren't that terrible, but they are definitely much more difficult than they should be. Until I see some movement, even some effort, to improve the system, I'll oppose any change to the GA requirements to include them.

But to address your point directly, I believe that V and in-lines are orthogonal issues. For instance, my application for GA on Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory was rejected partially because of in-lines. I then returned today to see someone stamped it with a Refimprove. Now here's a very important point; the article was written largely using a single source which was placed in the References section. So what would be the proper in-line ref style in this case? Place the same ref on every paragraph? How does that help V? Either the article is V or it's not. The format doesn't change that.

Maury 18:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Maury, you make some great points there. The trouble with reviews at both FAC and GA is anybody can have an opinion about style, but you need to know what you're talking about to comment on content. We are left with a situation where an inordinate amount of time is spent discussing in what way the text should be formatted and referenced, and very little time spent actually verifying the content. This is completely the wrong emphasis IMHO. The confusion of footnote, notes, references etc. is rife. My personal solution (shock horror - he's just violating MOS and all kinds) is to put footnotes in a section called 'footnotes' to put citations in a section called 'citations' and put references in a section called (wait for it)....References. I did some work for someone on an article that was peppered with over 150 different citations - ludicrous - it was almost impossible to read. My solution to that is, excepting quotations, I put them all in a little row at the end of each paragraph. I'm all for making my articles verifiable, but I just don't think we need to spoon feed our readers to the extent alot of people appear to advocate. A paragraph might consist of perhaps 10 sentences? It's not too onerous to suggest, that if you want verification of the one that appears exceptional (ie. challengable, ie. the one the man on the Clapham omnibus might take issue with), then you can have a look through the two or three citations I give at the end of the paragraph. --Joopercoopers 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) Most articles that rely heavily on one source, regardless of how it's formatted, won't achieve GA. If it were acceptable to rely for the majority of information in an article from one source, I don't think many, if any, would fail for that one source not being formatted correctly. Someone in GA would just do it. I mean, it's one source. I've gone through countless articles and formatted dozens of refs in each article for the sake of it getting done because too many custodians whine about the extra work. And the apparent difficulty of using the cite templates (which, honestly, I don't get how they are seen as hard to use) is no excuse considering the information can be added manually. [Author-Last, First (date). Title|URL. Work. Publisher, pages. Retrieved on date.] Including all available information. That shouldn't affect readability in the edit box, not that readability in the edit box should be the priority. CTRL-F helps find what you're looking for in a cluttered edit box, too. Personally, I'm not opposed to clumping refs at the end of a paragraph, but I'm not opposed to leaving them at the end of the sentence either. I do, however, particularly dislike the mid-sentence refs. Those are terrible. Lara♥Love 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A new Proposal

This discussion has brought up some good points, but it has changed from how to improve the criteria into philosophical debate on verifiability. Which is fine, but I'd like to accomplish something concrete here. So, based on some of the discussion above, below, and elsewhere, I recommend the following changes:

A good article has the following attributes:

2) It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;¹

(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;

(c) contains no original research.

Footnotes:

1. Where in-line citations are provided, they should give proper attribution using either Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the Scientific citation guidelines.

changed things a little bit based on suggestions.Drewcifer 09:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes made: added links to WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:Cite, WP:ATT, WP:HARV, WP:FOOTNOTES, etc where appropriate, took out first footnote about some sources being unreliable, added a list of information where in-line citations would be necessary based on JooperCoopers comments here, added a link to Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, and a few minor language changes. Some of the other suggested changes (such as the ease of use of in-line citations) are valid points, but would require discussion and/or change of policy elsewhere and beyond the scope of these criteria. So, I have not included such comments in my proposal. Any comments and further suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Some articles don't have a general references section, but derive all of their references from notes, typically inline citations. Ron Paul is a good example of that, while the title of the section is named "References", everything in it is pure inline citation. WP:CITE's section on a References section also only seems to be reccomending a references section to make things more clear if/when a reference is used multiple times, not requiring one, why would a mandatory general references section make an article more Good in all cases? Homestarmy 22:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I guess the desire would be to make it a requirement to have some place to display sources, whether from in-line citations or just general references. Howabout "provides references to all sources of information, and as a minimum it contains a References section for general sources and/or a Citations, Footnotes, or similar section for in-line citations, in accordance with the guide to layout". I realize that the "and/or" is a little vague, but we need to be able to plan for all instances, and some articles will have one or the other or both. Thoughts? Drewcifer 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not just have the second half say "Has at least one section with references in it, as per the Guide to Layout?" Homestarmy 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

But then that sounds like one section of the prose with a reference in it, not one section to house all the source of information. Know what I mean? Drewcifer 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Has at least one section dedicated to references...." then? Homestarmy 21:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Howabout "and as a minimum it contains at least one section dedicated to attribution of sources - Harvard-style references or in-line citations - in accordance with the guide to layout;¹" and then have a footnote down to the same footnote about in-line citations. I dunno, that's still kind of awkward, but we need to allow for the possibility of general references OR in-line citations or both. Drewcifer 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What's "hard data"? It needs an explanation or substitution with a clearer term considering that many contributors are not native English speakers. They may wonder say whether the sentence "Richard Wagner was born in 1813 and died in 1883." contains hard data.

You aslo need to remove the surplus "it" in 2(b). --22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess hard data could be a bit vague. Took it out. Also fixed the "it". Also change the references part based on Homestarmy's suggestions. Drewcifer 07:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I obviously favour a harder line on citation than is expresed here, but there is no consensus for my POV. The only other point I can see is that the "is" in 2{b) should be an "are".--Peter cohen 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, fixed it. Drewcifer 09:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a couple of minor changes: please revert if you don't agree. Geometry guy 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. LaraLove♥ 03:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the "challeneged or likely to be challenged" is Weenie-ness Incarnate. But it's wiki-wide; so apparently weeninees is as well ;-) I'd like to note that reviewers do NOT have the right to remove citations that they feel are not likely to be challenged yada yada. Let's put it explicitly in the guidelines... normally wouldn't need that but let's face it, GA is constantly over-run with Flaming N00bs -- 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling.Nut (talk • contribs)

Who's removing citations in articles they review? Homestarmy 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No one but I'm being proactive (or maybe WP:BEANS). Gotta go see you in a few days... -- Ling.Nut 16:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Making more rules for things that haven't happened yet doesn't seem to be in the interests of stopping WP:CREEP.... Homestarmy 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen that being an issue, and I can't really imagine it ever becoming one. I mean, we could have the criteria say "No explicit pictures of pink unicorns" just in case that happened at some point, but that seems overly cautious. Ok, so that's a stupid and sarcastic example that didn't really contribute anything useful, but hopefully you get my point. Drewcifer 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I found that comparison completely unnecessary, but funny all the same. :) I say we either warn against removing citation AND including explicit images of pink unicorns or we do neither on per WP:BEANS. I'm leaning closer to the latter. LaraLove 04:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably WP:BEANS. I don't think we need a mention of not removing citations.--Peter cohen 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then I guess it's settled! I'll change it now. If anyone has any further problems or changes we can still address them in the future, so let me know. Drewcifer 08:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Any thoughts?

Any thoughts on this proposal? I'd like to improve the criteria based on everyone's comments. A lack of responses tella me either everyone agrees or no one cares anymore (either way I'm inclined to just go ahead and change the criteria myself unless there's any thoughts otherwise). Drewcifer 20:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Published opinion" is a bit vague to me. What exactly is published opinion in this context? Wrad 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If an article says "This sucks" then that better come from a published source, since it's an opinion rather than fact. And saying "published" means that you can't post unpublished (ie non-notable, non-reliable, etc) opinion. I guess that's what I meant. Drewcifer 20:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that Drewcifer et al. have done a great job here. I could imagine further improvements — for example, there are cases where the source for a quote is already obvious, and so it does not need a footnote or Harvard reference. As regards formatting, I think that the consistency of the formatting of references (whether inline or not) is more important than the consistent method for citing these references in the text. But these are quibbles, and I think that the discussion here is heading in the right direction. Geometry guy 23:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

First the criteria says "It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic." Then it says "A lack of images does not disqualify the article from GA status." Do you think it's confusing? Why not just say "If the article has images, then they must meet whatever criteria (such as fair use rationales)". --Kaypoh 03:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a question, not a statement, really. It's asking is a lack of images okay for this particular article. Articles on existing architecture, for example, should have images. Other articles, like ancient history articles, may not have an available relevant images. Therefore, it would be acceptable to pass the article without images. That's my interpretation of that criteria. Lara♥Love 04:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We may want to mention WP:IUP in these guidelines. A bio of a living person may not have any true fair-use images that can be used, for example. Maybe it could be written as "It contains images, when possible and within reason, and within Wikipedia's image use policy, to illustrate the topic." (The "within reason" clause reflects the recent push to avoiding using lots of non-free images, as per User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation) But yes, as to the original question, I don't read it as a conflict, just that one begs a question. --Masem 06:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with that assertion about Fair Use Masem, some people may be in prison, a security lockdown, or a location where it would not only be difficult to get a picture, but might be illegal as well. (Since you might have to violate security procedures to get near them, or kill a large number of security people to snap a photo) However, as to the original question, I don't think the criteria as it stands is very confusing at all. Homestarmy 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording I suggested means "If the article has images, they must meet these criteria, but if the article has no images, no need to bother about the criteria". Because not every article can have images, and not everybody understands the million rules about fair use and free use. So whether the article needs images or not depends on what it is about? --Kaypoh 04:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The criteria is supposed to mean that if there are images, they must obey the criteria. There's a note at the bottom about that. Homestarmy 14:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Should the images part be changed to include all types of media. Of course we don't want to pass articles that contain copyvio media that isn't an images (sound caption, song samples etc). T Rex | talk 05:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. And in both aspects. Not only should copyvio be checked, but also appropriate use of sound samples should be pushed. In the WP:Wagner internal assessment drive, I am commenting on the absence of musical illustrations of some operas as a weakness in several articles. By GA, I would expect at least some sound samples to be provided. And for identifying a rock band, or song a sound file is more appropriate than a picture. However, many albums with iconic covers such as Dark Side of the Moon, or Sergeant Pepper should have pictures as well as sound samples; Similarly, Gorillaz ought to have pictures of a cartoon character and sound samples. Articles on birds with characteristic songs (cuckoo, nightingale, etc.), should again have sound samples or, at the least, links to samples.--Peter cohen 08:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a sound change to me (pun intended). I always just dealt with these as being inappropriate by WP policy, period. But including it in the criteria would alert potential nominators of GAs to address this before nomination, hopefully. LaraLove 17:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, no! Not every article can have useful images and sounds, and few editors understand the million rules about fair use and free use. Keep GA simple and not like FA! --Kaypoh 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The mood on WP these days is that it is better not to have images (and sounds, etc.) than to have images without clear copyright status and fair use rationales. I think the GA criteria should reflect this. Also, as an aside, the current image criteria do not match {{GAList}}. I think they should be harmonized. Geometry guy 20:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps editors should just be strongly encouraged by reviewers to include such media. Of course it won't always be available, but reviewers can at least encourage it in each of their reviews as a way to increase quality. I think a simple suggestion could go a long way. Wrad 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles should only include images and sound files where available freely or, less preferably, under fair use. Without rationales, they are against policy and will not be acceptable under our criteria simply because some editors can't comprehend that if it's copyrighted they have to justify the use.

That said, G'guy raises a valid concern. The template should match the criteria. LaraLove 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Kaypoh you misunderstood me, I don't mean for their to be some kind of media on every page, I mean that all types of media should comply to copyright law and this should be reflected in the criteria. T Rex | talk 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. See what I suggest below. :) --Kaypoh 07:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No copyright violations

I think the criteria about images is there just to make sure images in GAs have fair use rationales and don't violate copyright (it's OK if there are no images). Now T Rex wants to add criteria about sounds and other media. And I am sure we don't want paragraphs that violate copyright, even if they are well written.

So why not just change the criteria about images to "It does not have any copyright violations"? Keep GA simple.

--Kaypoh 07:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. We don't want it longer or more complicated than necessary. LaraLove 14:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I also like to KISS, but in this case I think such a change is inappropriate for two clear reasons.

1. "No copyright violations" is not in particular a good article criterion — it is a legal requirement for all Wikipedia articles! Copyright violation is a deletion issue, not a delistment issue: violations should be fixed or deleted.
2. "Having no copyright violations" is a significantly weaker requirement than "having copyright tags for images, with fair use rationales where necessary". Neither of these last two conditions are legal requirements.

Now I am generally in favour of Good article criteria which are not too demanding because I believe that the ratio of good to featured articles should be at least 10:1. But is it too demanding to ask for tags and rationales? No, because we will always be in one of the following situations:

1. It is easy to provide the tag (and rationale if necessary) - so provide it;
2. The image is a copyright violation - so remove the image and tag/nominate it for deletion;
3. The image may or may not be a violation, but it is hard to determine the copyright and/or rationale.

In this last case, the criteria should require the removal of such an image from a good article until the situation is clarified.

Copyright law is complicated, but it is precisely because of this that we should require helpful information at the GA level. The reader deserves information about whether downloading and republishing an image would risk breaking the law. Other editors need to know whether an image used in one article could be used in another. Even with 20000 GAs, we are talking about the top 1% of articles having this information. I think that is utterly reasonable.

Finally, the GA level is an excellent place to have this criterion, because it is not topic-specific. Quite often the reviewer will have more expertise on fair use rationales than previous editors of the article, and will be able to determine and fix the issue his/herself. Geometry guy 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm so glad we have an academic working in this part of the project. G'guy, you truly are invaluable. Very good points... they didn't even occur to me. LaraLove 04:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, do you agree that:

1. You do not want copyright violations in prose.
2. Images need fair use rationales (it is not enough that they are not copyright violations).

Then you can change the criteria to "It has no copyright violations" and put the rule about fair use rationales under "in this respect". If you change the criteria, copyright violations in prose means an article will fail GA. Same for sounds and other media (you can also demand fair use rationales for them).

--Kaypoh 07:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"copyright violations in prose means an article will fail GA". No: copyright violations in prose must be rewritten or deleted in any article which contains them. See the line immediately below the edit box. This has nothing to do with GA. Geometry guy 09:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Image proposal

The image question has now cropped up several times on this page. The current wording is not as clear as it could be, and there are concerns that the requirements should not be too demanding. I also believe there is some consensus that whether an article has images or not is less important than whether the images are tagged with copyright status and fair use rationales where necessary. This would certainly be in keeping with an increasing trend to nominate untagged images for deletion, and to prefer articles without images to ones with images whose copyright status is unknown.

I suggest that minor modifications to the current criteria would clarify these issues.

1. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images.^[1] In this respect:

   (a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and

   (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[2]

1. Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

2. The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if appropriate images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are readily available, then they should be used.

Geometry guy 10:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the last sentence be revised to include "appropriate images, sound clips or similar with acceptable..." I cannot see how an article on Beethoven's Fifth Symphony for example can be good without the opening V for victory rhythm being included. And there are plenty ex-copyright recordings available.--Peter cohen 12:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've turned the criteria around, and split the footnotes. This is now implicit in the first footnote, but I've added a parenthetical reminder. Will that do? Geometry guy 12:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It will, thanks.--Peter cohen 13:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Lovely work. As usual, G'guy. Lara❤Love 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, never fail a GA because it doesn't have a image or sound or whatever. No matter what it is about. --Kaypoh 10:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but disagree. Wikipedia is a multi-media project and should reflect this in its assessments. An article on the Mona Lisa without a picture of it, one on Beethoven without a sounds sample of his work, and one on the cuckoo without either cannot be complete enough to be GA. Obviously in some cases, there will be copyright and fair ue issues which may prevent a picture being available, but in many cases there ought to be one.--Peter cohen 10:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Where images/sound clips are available and appropriate, they need to be included. What would the Statue of Liberty, Great Wall of China, Sphinx, Eiffel Tower, Louvre, Saddam Hussein, Elvis Presley, or The Beatles be without images? Lara❤Love 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• What would they be? What about broad in their coverage, but not comprehensive? Which all that GAs are required to be, isn't it? --Malleus Fatuarum 11:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

GA is not FA. Stop making GA like FA. --Kaypoh 09:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we seem to be agreed that this is an improvement on the current version, so I'll modify the criteria. Would it help if "readily available" were emphasised? Would it help to say that not all articles need images? Geometry guy 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I define "readily available" as being in commons or on Wikipedia already :/. Uploading pictures requires some long, tough reading of policy to get all the tags right and figure out which ones your supposed to use, and I don't even know how to do it compleatly myself.... Sounds seem even more challenging, I don't even know how all that .ogg stuff works, are you supposed to be converting sound files before uploading? Yeesh. Homestarmy 14:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How GA and FA differ in their criteria

I'm still new to all of this, but it does seem to me that the standard for a good article is gradually closing on the standard for a featured article, and that GA is getting harder to achieve (and to keep) as a result.

Just to clarify things for me, and perhaps for some others as well, would it be correct to say that the differences between the two sets of criteria are that:

• GA asks for broad coverage; FA asks for comprehensive coverage
• GA asks that the WP:MOS be followed only in certain areas; FA asks that the entire article meets the MOS.
• GA asks that the article be well written; FA asks that it be written to a professional standard.

Is that it? Have I missed anything out? --Malleus Fatuarum 17:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See here. The requirement for inline citation is less as well: not much more than WP:V. Also the criteria are interpreted less strictly here: because FAC involves a multitude of reviewers, on each issue, the highest standard tends to prevail.

Anyway, if you can think of ways to relax the GA criteria while maintaining a respectable standard, please comment here! Geometry guy 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that necessarily follows. I forget who it was said that the majority is almost always wrong. :)

But to be serious, I'm not looking at ways to relax the GA criteria. I think they're perfectly reasonable. But it does seem, to me at least, that GA is getting less and less accessible to an increasing number of editors. Perhaps there could be some kind of buddying programme, to help new editors working on a specific article understand what's needed to get it up to an acceptable standard? --Malleus Fatuarum 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC tends to be a "highest common numerator" process, as nominators earnestly try to meet every reviewer's criticism. So it is the minority of the pickiest, not the majority, that tend to rule. Geometry guy 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to know what rules at FAR, as the whole process is so opaque. There are certainly far too many "oppose 1a)"s thrown around, but how much weight do they carry when the nomination is arbitrarily closed by one person after an arbitrary amount of time? For all the GA process's faults, it is at least transparent as to what was decided, by who, and why. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, FA requires "brilliant prose" while GA only requires "well-written" prose. Wrad 18:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it says "even brilliant", but the emphasis seems to be on professionally written. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

FAs need images, GAs don't need images. Keep GA simple and not like FA! --Kaypoh 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Just hanging around; a little late to this thread, but...

• FAs do not need images.
• FAs do not require anything more than V; in practice, people often cite more than they need to but there's no "over and above."
• "Professional," not "brilliant," is the standard.

Given that FAR lists the three people who close, has set timings (which are extended on request), and specifically lists criteria concerns for given articles, how is it less transparent about what, who, and why? Marskell 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, there are FAs without pictures? Wild. I think largely, the impression given to average editors about both GA and FA is that they aren't very transparent processes. I don't think doling out titles, such as director, helps that impression much, which is why I was so opposed to that idea here. IvoShandor 16:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, what I am trying to get at is that a lot of the editing community sees both processes as elitist, at least based upon conversations I have seen. IvoShandor 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just curious... Where are these conversations? Wrad 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The FA criteria says "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status." The GA criteria says "It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images." Both mean the same thing. But the GA criteria says "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles." Last time, it said "A lack of images does not disqualify the article from GA status." This means GAs don't need images. But FA does not say this, so FAs need images. --Kaypoh 09:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename this page

How about renaming this page to Wikipedia:Good article criteria, to follow Featured naming conventions (ex. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We could do. This page is mostly linked via the shortcut WP:WIAGA anyway. Geometry guy 09:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I also would support such a move.--SeizureDog 05:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As would I. Drewcifer 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Length not a factor

Can we have it mention somewhere how length is not a factor for becoming GA? It really annoys me when users say that an article is "too short to be a GA" when the whole GA system was created specifically for short articles. As long as the article "addresses the major aspects of the topic", the length should be of no concern. In fact, an entire section of misconnceptions of what a GA needs and how it differs from FAs might not be a bad idea. For instance, #6 tends to throw people off into thinking that images are required (since they don't read the footnote). --SeizureDog 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen people call out articles for being too short lately, but if there's really a problem, a note seems fair. However, keep in mind that articles without a lead can't be compliant with the GA criteria, so that eliminates most stubs. Homestarmy 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the above imply that an article like Megan Zheng is a viable GA candidate? (I agree that it needs to be made more explicit that images are not required for GA status.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say so. She's young and has only been in two films (yet is notable), so there's not much to cover, leading to the article being its short little self. Not much seems to be needed, except for her birthdate and perhaps a doing away with "Personal life" for now. Is which school she goes to and the fact that she likes LOTR really important? --SeizureDog 12:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Does anyone agree that the above implies that articles like Megan Zheng are viable GA candidates? To answer your question: I needed to have the article "expanded fivefold" for it to qualify for DYK, and since I thought the article would never be a viable GA candidate, I added some "filler" which I would not add if GA status was my aim. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Robin Starveling, a recent GA nom of mine (which passed). I was worried it may be too short, but received no complaint. As long as it satisfies the criteria, you should be fine. Robin is about 1000 characters shorter than Megan. Wrad 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The requirements for DYK seem to often cause people to make articles that are of GA quality, but don't nominate them as such. Every now and then I browse the DYK just to make such nominations.--SeizureDog 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am currently on Wikibreak due to my O Levels, but if Megan Zheng is a viable GA candidate, I will try to improve it to GA status once my O Levels are over. In the meantime, could somebody give an informal "peer review" of the article, suggesting how I can improve it?

SeizureDog, I agree that many DYKs are potential GAs, and that we should regularly scan the list of DYKs for potential GAs. Some editors may use DYK to prepare GAs, while others may be unfamiliar with the GA process. Sengkang, who, like me, hails from the Lion City, has written 63 DYKs, many of which are potential GAs. Perhaps you could look through them and tell WikiProject Singapore which are potential GAs, so we can nominate them for our GA drive.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why a short article should not, if it meets the criteria, also be a GA. Perhaps the GA policy needs to spell this out. I have to declare an interest (but not a WP:COI) here, since I recently nominated River Biss and the article was said to be too short. To be honest, there's not a lot you can say about a notable, but short river, even though it passes through four notable locations and flows into a notable river. But I think all that needs to be there is there. Maybe a couple more images, but those can be added. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that if there is enough information on a subject to make an article, than it should be possible for that article to be a GA. Wrad 22:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is "too many quotes" a valid reason to fail a GA nomination?

Awadewit placed Singapore Stone's GA nomination on hold, raising several minor concerns, one of which was that the article contained too many long quotations. The primary contributor to the article, Jacklee, tried to reduce the number and length of quotes used in the article, but Awadewit maintained that there were still too many long quotations in the article. As both Jacklee and Awadewit felt strongly about this issue, Awadewit decided to request a second opinion.

In my opinion, the quotes in Singapore Stone are neither too long nor excessive. Unless having too many quotes creates other problems that cause the article to not meet the GA criteria, that should not be a valid reason to fail a GA nomination. I posted on the talk page, making my stand known.

Although I am an SGpedian and would love to see the article attain GA status, I did not significantly contribute to the article. My comments could be considered an official second opinion, but I indicate that I did not want this to be the case. This issue is likely to crop up again; for example, Essjay controversy's GA nomination was passed despite more than half the article being quotes. There needs to be a consensus whether having "too many quotes" should be a valid reason to fail a GA nomination, and if so, which aspect of the GA criteria are not met by an article which has too many quotes.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The quotations seem appropriate to me. So, at least in this particular case, I don't think that it would be a valid reason to fail the GA nomination. I'm not a great fan of the {{cquote}} except in exceptional circumstances, and I'd prefer to see the {{quote}} template used instead, as that allows for attribution of the quote. But that's a personal preference. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be roughly 25% quotations. That's excessive. Consider stating basically what was said and quoting terms, for example: John believed that the moon looked like "green cheese with a man's face" and that it was "beautiful". Rather than quote entire paragraphs. Also, cquote (as pretty as it is) specifies it should be used for pullquotes only, which encyclopedias don't use... so really, it's pointless that we even have it as an option. Lara❤Love 18:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't agree with your assessment of 25% quotations, but that's by the by. I'm just wondering which of the GA criteria would have ben breached even if it had been 25% quotations. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with too many quotes is that not every reader is educated enough to understand primary sources. If they're used in the right way, then they can really help an article, but too many can confuse the reader. Hopefully the reviewer and the editors can come to some sort of agreement on what is appropriate. Wrad (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A second problem with quotes is that they fall into the fair use provision of U.S. copyright law, and are nonfree content in Wikipedia. We try to use only the amount of nonfree content necessary for understanding. The line for how much is "too much" is not clear. Free documents, on the other hand, could be added to wikisource, rather than being quoted at length here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• If I may say so, I think that comment falls into the category that over here in the rather more brusque England I might be inclined to call a red herring. Copyright law does not apply to small extracts such as those, most if not all of which would seem to be well out of copyright anyway. But the issue is not "how much is too much" from a copyright perspective – there are well-established standards for that – but how much is too much from the perspective of the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright does apply to short excerpts, which is why the fair use provision allows some short excerpts to be used. It is possible the sources in that article are old enough they are out of copyright; the cutoff would usually in the 1930s. The fair use article describes how a 400 word quote was found to be infringing in one case. We are in a different situation, because we aren't profiting from the use, but nevertheless quotes are nonfree content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree, but you raise an interesting point about "profiting from the use", and one that once again probably ought to be considered elsewhere. But in the case of this particular article I really don't see the problem. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players" This quote has a non-free use rationale that is disputed because of the following concern: invalid rationale per WP:NFCC#10c. ;) Dekkappai (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a topic to be discussed elsewhere, but I'm not infrequently amazed at the antics of the wikipedia copyright police. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, wow. Guess I'd better watch my back. Wrad (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I was merely trying to point out that those who police the law ought to understand the law. I wasn't trying to make a joke. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry for the confusion, mine was a response to Dekkapi. Although combined with your comment and my own sad experience with copyright "Nazis", your comment did have a certain "gestapo joke" feel. Wrad (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I have to say that I take strong exception to your "gestapo joke" comment. It may be that I have misunderstood what you were trying to say, that's quite possible, but I am certainly no neo-Nazi. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• That's not at all what was intended. Maybe it's just an American thing. If someone is really outrageously strict about something (e.g. the "wikipedia copyright police" are strict about copyright) they are sometimes referred to as the "gestapo" as a joke. Wrad (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To return to my original point, I took a second to look up the relevant guideline: WP:NONFREE#Acceptable_use_of_text. Failing to meet this seems to me a valid reason to delay a GA nomination. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the quotes just need to be shortened in the Appearance section. It's not great writing to have a whole section made up of quotes. Epbr123 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Epbr123. There's no big deal with the quotes, and certainly no copyright issues. Once the quotes are properly attributed this article is a definite GA. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll add another light on this discussion. This article appears to be able a real, tangible object that exists. I would expect a quote or the like on why this article is (in general) notable or important or its impact on archeology or whatever, because it is not for us WPians to state that as OR. However, as this is a real, tangible object with a well-defined history of where it was found, where its been etc., I expect those to be statements of fact, cited of course but no need for large quotations about it, especially ones that seem so... engaging?. Otherwise, it feels like the WP editors are trying to pull a sense of empathy to really understand and feel for what is basically a rock.

If this were about a non-tangible topic such as a fictional work or a political issue, I would expect more quotes than normal. But for something that is as solid (sorry, pun not intended) as this article, I really think long quotes outside of why the stone is important is really necessary, and given how we are trying to cut down on non-free fair use, I would trim them a lot. --MASEM 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We have Wikiquote to satisfy the need to write pages of quotes. Wikipedia articles should be our own work, not quotes of someone elses. Lara❤Love 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There are not "pages of quotes". There are some quotes. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an excessive amount of quotes. However, I wasn't stating this articles has pages of quotes. I'm saying, allowing an article like this to be listed as a GA would potentially set it as an example of what's acceptable. Then, we would possibly have "pages of quotes". Lara❤Love 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like all of you had a very interesting discussion. In future, articles which have many quotations may be nominated for GA status, so let the discussion continue until consensus is determined. By the way, Singapore Stone passed GA, although I'm not sure if it should set a precedent. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement here about whether copyright law applies to quotations like these. Of course it does, but short quotations are covered by fair use. Indeed, the US copyright office quotes the following examples of fair use:

“ quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported. ”

So quotations are not free content, but may be fair use if they fit the above criteria. Geometry guy 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But in this case, the quotations are over 100 years old. Epbr123 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I should have been more clear: I am referring to the general issue of using quotations, not this particular article. Copyright law clearly states that copyright has expired on such old quotations. On the other hand, some of the quotations are taken from a translation which is copyrighted, so some care is still needed, even in this article. Geometry guy 19:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a potential copyright issue with long quotes, but not with too many quotes, which was the subject of this discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a potential copyright issue with all quotes. However, I agree that short quotes are more likely to be fair use than long ones. More precisely it is the total amount of material taken from a copyrighted source which matters, so many short quotes from the same source can have the same effect as a long quote. Anyway, the point is that quotes from copyrighted sources are not free content, and, for better or worse, Wikipedia has a policy of minimizing the use of non-free content. Geometry guy 21:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're drifting away from the question that was asked, about too many quotes. But I just wanted to say that it's a commmon misconception that it's the total amount of material taken from a copyrighted source that matters; it's not, it's the importance of the material. I quote: :) "When using quotes or extracts, there is no magic figure or percentage that can be applied as each case must be viewed on its own merit. In cases that have come to trial what is clear is that it is the perceived importance of the copied content rather than simply the quantity that counts."copyright myths --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Please reinterpret my sloppy use of the term "amount" as amount by importance, rather than amount by length of text. Fair use is a grey area with many different aspects contributing to the determination. My main point does address the question though: quotes are often not free content, and so there can be too many; each non-free quote should really add value to the article for the reader to be justified. Geometry guy 22:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

infobox

Should good articles have an infobox (where one is relevant)? Snowman 20:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that should be decided on a case by case basis and not added to the criteria for GA. Wrad 20:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there are some obvious cases: if I try to GA a movie or television show article without an infobox, that should be called out. However, I agree, unless its really obvious that the infobox should exist knowing the culture of such articles, the lack of an infobox shouldn't fail the article, though the GA reviewer can certainly ask if one is appropriate.. --MASEM 20:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a better way of saying it. Wrad 20:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that answers the question. OK, so the GA reviewer either knows that an infobox is appropriate, or has asked and been told that it is. What next? Insist on the infobox or let the article through without it? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I meant to say that in the case of the non-obvious infobox, the GA reviewer can suggest as part of the review if there should be an infobox as for further consideration, but should not fail it lacking one. Given that, assuming the rest of the article is good from a GA standpoint, adding an info should be trivial. --MASEM 20:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Then if it's trivial it ought to be added, no big deal. Would I fail an article if the only problem was the lack of an infobox? No, I would't, so it probably ought not to be added to the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Article with YouTube images

An editor just promoted WrestleMania III to GA status despite my objections. The reason I object is because two of the images come straight from YouTube, which is a copyright violation since the copyright owner of the video (WWE) does not and never has allowed YouTube to host any of their material. To me, that pretty much means the images should be deleted. Is this reason enough for me to go through the de-listing process for the article? I want it to be a GA (and eventually a FA), but do not feel it is a GA right now. TJ Spyke 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The right thing to do (and I believe this has now been done) is to remove any images which are not free or fair use. Images are not required for GA if they are not available (under free or fair use), so this alone is not a reason to delist. If you feel the article does not meet the criteria for other reasons, then you can initiate the delisting process. Any disagreements can be resolved at GAR. Geometry guy 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good and featured articles named opposite of each other

I think this is awkward, but the article "WP:What is a featured article?" redirects to "WP:Featured article criteria", but "WP:Good article criteria" redirects to "WP:What is a good article?". Could we please just choose one, stick with it and move the pages accordingly? I believe both pages should be named "WP:Good article criteria" and "WP:Featured article criteria". — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before. No one objected to such a page move, but nothing happened! This time, I'll move the page unless anyone objects. Geometry guy 10:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Geometry guy 13:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 08:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of criteria

Criteria 1b reads, "[the article] complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." This sounds like it does not include the Manual of Style main page, but only the six subpages listed. Is this intentional or should 1b be worded slightly differently? --jwanders^Talk 07:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure; I believe consensus was to only include those six. — Deckiller 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone see the practical difference between 2a and 2b? 2b specifically requires inline citations, while 2a says articles must be referenced per WP:CITE. These are equivalent, as near as I can tell; can we get rid of one? --jwanders^Talk 04:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stability

There seems to be some issues relating to the interpretation of the stability clause of WIAGA. Specifically, this GAR discussion: [3] seems to show that there are differing opinions on what makes an article stable. Perhaps we need to assess where consensus lies on this. I have outlined some of what I perceive as the major interpretations below. Perhaps we can come to a consensus on one of these. Feel free to make any comments on these or propose your own interpretations as you see fit. Also, these views are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason to NOT support multiple interpretations. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation 1

Stability means that an article shows no potential for change or growth. Any article where new information may be added in the future is potentially unstable, and thus unfit for GA status under the stability guidelines.

Oppose

1. This interpretation seems far too restrictive. All wikipedia articles are expected to evolve, and this interpretation seems to stifle change. We want good articles to continue to change. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Obviously, all articles should have potential for improvement. Epbr123 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Well duh. Was this question rhetorical? VanTucky ^talk 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Nope, not a good idea. Wrad (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
5. I hope no one has this interpretation; not even FA status requires cessation of change. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Few articles are entombed in amber. Majoreditor (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Per VanTucky :-) Geometry guy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Obviously this would be a bad move. No article would qualify. - Shudde ^talk 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation 2

Stability means that an article is unlikely to show major changes in the near future. While no one can predict future developements, if new information is likely to arise in the near future (say next 2-3 months) then it cannot be stable.

Support

1. Believe it or not, I think I'm closer to this view (even though it was written by someone who opposes it). It depends what you mean by "major changes", of course. I don't think "new information is likely to arise" is a sufficient disqualifier, but "the article is going to have to be mostly or completely rewritten" should be a disqualifier. For a specific example of that, imagine trying to nominate United States presidential election, 2008 for Good article any time before 2009! That article clearly isn't stable, in the sense that even if there aren't any debates about it, its most important parts will have to be completely rewritten as the next year progresses. Marking it as any kind of quality is futile, as it will clearly be completely different in a few months. This is opposed to an article about a lower tier presidential candidate, the article about whom probably won't be affected that much. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I prefer this to Interpretation 3, per AnonEMouse. Although, it's often hard to judge what is meant by "major changes". Epbr123 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support but not the 2-3 months bit. Exact time is artificial and nonsensical. But articles need to be stable in terms of major revisions so a review can be conducted. If an article is inevitably going to be altered beyond recognition during a review or hold period (no counting requested changes of course), then there is no point in reviewing. VanTucky ^talk 01:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Support with phrasing change to "if new information is reasonably expected to arise" (not that this is going to be written into policy). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Partial support. I think there is a case to be made that GA is inappropriate for articles where the most significant or important content has not yet been written. Geometry guy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Partial Support. If it is established that the article is going to be "remodeled," we should hold off on granting GA status until the major editing is done. I don't think this should ever be used to delist an article though; as long as its quality continues to be high it should stay GA. I have a feeling that this isn't why this "interpretation" was created though. My comments here are more related to going about the nomination/confirmation process sensibly rather than the criterion of whether an article is of "good" quality. Dwr12 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This is only slightly less restrictive than #1, and there is no reason to assume that an article will become unstable if new information is added. There is no reason to think that achieving GA status is the closing of an article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Article assessment should be based solely on the article's merit, not its subject matter. --maclean 04:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
3. It's too restrictive. Plus, we should not be in the crystal ball business. Majoreditor (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Despite my partial support, I largely oppose this version. I actually beleive there may be a consensus here for something inbetween interpretations 2 and 3. I like Jayron's idea that this should be viewed as a broadness issue as much as a stability issue: I think that provides a better focus. It also ties in with Wasted Time R's distinction between the articles about a current event, and articles which may be affected by a current event. And, not surprisingly, I share Majoreditor's point of view that the crystal ball business should have no part in GA. If editors imagine an article may become unstable, it can be delisted when it does become unstable, not before. Exceptions to this need to be carefully thought through, and I think they should be limited to the kind of articles mentioned by Wasted Time R. Geometry guy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Partial Oppose. Not sure whether to side with G-Guy or G-Guy; hm. I agree largely with what the supporters said, but if we're considering, say, a November US Senate race, I think you could write a Good Article in September. In fact, people tend to be most excited about the races while they're going on; if you tell them "no soup for you, come back in November", at least half and maybe all of them might lose interest by then. But I wouldn't want to review an article on, say, the US Cabinet in December, when it's going to change completely by the end of January. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation 3

Stability means only that the article is free from edit warring, and is not the subject of a content dispute.

Support

1. The information in an article is covered by the "broadness" criterion, not stability. If an article is up to date, and relatively complete, then broadness is met, even if the article shows potential to change in the future. Stability should ONLY apply to a situation where two or more editors disagree in good faith over the content of an article (vandalism and obvious POV pushing exempted). There is no reason to assume that new additions to an article, once time passes and new information comes to light, will NOT be up to GA standards. If they are not, the article can be delisted or brought up to GAR, but as long as editors agree on the content of an article, it is stable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree here. If an article is missing a broadness aspect that is present in comparable articles and that the missing information is known to be occurring in a near-term future event, that's failing "broadness", not being unstable. --MASEM 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Conditional agree. In addition to edit wars and content disputes, there may be articles which should be excluded due to instability, such as a recently-released movie where editors are still crafting the article. Majoreditor (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Generally agree, although I think a good case has been made that some articles have an intrinsic stability/broadness issues, which should exclude them temporarily (i.e., within a definite time-frame) from GA. Geometry guy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
5. This seems to be an appropriate and succinct interpretation of stability for a good article; it definitely removes the part of the standard redundant with "broadness". I've always disagreed with the current stability practice, but was not motivated to change it when we were doing the condensing of the criteria last year. After all, it encourages users to stop improving an article for some time. Appropriate wording would be "It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of ongoing edit wars, content disputes, or current events." — Deckiller 02:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation 4

If an article is the subject of a currently unfolding event, then it is unstable. Events expected or predicted to occur have no bearing on the current stability of a GA candidate, and are not a quick-fail criteria.

Support

1. This has always been my interpretation of the stability clause. VanTucky 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   The problem is that the phrase "is the subject of" is ambiguous. It could mean that the subject of the article is a currently unfolding event, or it could mean that the article may be affected by a currently unfolding event. In the former case, I tentatively support, in the latter case I oppose. As I say below, I believe there is consensus here for an "Interpretation 2.5", which is roughly inbetween interpretations 2 and 3, with editors differing slightly on where they stand inbetween these two interpretations. I must say, I have found this discussion very productive, and have noticed many editors (including myself) moving from their initial positions in the light of good argument and commentary. Geometry guy 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, what if it said "the article is about a currently unfolding event", possibly with some kind of qualifier like "exclusively" or "primarily"? VanTucky 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

2. That second sentence is a bit dodgy, but I always though this was what it mean't (as well no edit warring). How can an article written now on the 2008 Beijing Olympics possibly be stable, even if there are not edit wars? - Shudde ^talk 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. If the article IS the unfolding event, then yes. For example, the 2007-08 NBA season would be ineligible for GA status, but not because it is unstable, it fails broadness. The full season is not complete, so it is impossible for the article to be complete. On the contrary, the National Basketball Association, which is the SUBJECT of an unfolding event (its current season is incomplete, and thus, is an unfolding event), could be a GA and reasonably meet both the broadness and stability requirements.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

   Okay, same question as I pose to Geometry Guy above. If it's changed to specify that the article is the unfolding event, then can we add it? I think that's a fair compromise. VanTucky 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

   Sounds good to me. Wrad (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

   I would add it under the broadness (not stability) criteria. Again, for me stability means that the article is alternating between competing versions. An article which is specifically about an unfolding event is not necessarily unstable, just incomplete. For me, putting this under stability stretches the definition of "stability". As a broadness issue, it is a clear thing: The event is incomplete, so the article is incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

   I think adding it to the regular criteria isn't what I'm going for. The point is to add it to the quick fails, so you can quick fail an article that is incomplete, unstable, whatever you want to call it, because it's about an unfolding event. VanTucky 04:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Agree with Jayron. Wrad (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

   Ah. Sounds good to me. I would avoid conflating it with stability, but if you were to say something like "Articles specifically about an unfolding event may be quick-failed until the event itself is complete. Articles about participants in or other articles related to unfolding events, but not about the events themselves, should undergo a more thorough review." How does that sound? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

   Sounds great to me, thanks Jayron VanTucky 05:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I think it is quite important to have a discussion section for this debate, so I've added one. My own view is that it is sometimes helpful to exclude articles from GA because they are inherently unstable, but this needs to be done with care, and we need to be clear why we are doing it. The obvious example is films which have not yet been released. The point about such articles is that the majority of the content of the article has not yet been written, so it is a bit pointless to judge whether it is a GA or not. This discussion was sparked by presidential candidates. In that case, if the candidate has a well-developed article, and the presidential issue is being absorbed into the article as current events unfold, then I see no objection to listing the article as GA. On the other hand, there is a case to made for likely candidates without well-developed articles that the article will change substantially. My own view, expressed by my joke Good articles precrime department, is that we should judge articles how they are, not by how we think they will change. However, I acknowledge that in some cases it makes sense to exclude articles from GA if there is likely to be a substantial change or addition to their content in the immediate future. Geometry guy 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• WIAGA states a stable article “does not change significantly from day to day”; perhaps we should more precisely define “change”. There seems to be an important distinction between adding content and altering existing content. Although perhaps not the case in every instance, it seems that adding content is healthy growth to be expected, and encouraged. The criterion, after all, is broadness, not comprehensiveness; an article can be broad, yet still lack content. Altering content, however, is more troublesome, as it’s indicative that the content has not reached the maturity needed to satisfy the stability requirement. I’m of the opinion, therefore, that the stability criterion kicks in only in the latter case - the broadness criterion, obviously, being applicable in the former. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the rationale behind the 'stability' criteria is to not allow the article improvement/validation process to be used as 'dispute resolution'. GA/FA should not be used to give someone an advantage by validating their preferred version (while in conflict with another version). Its not for vandalism (easily reverted) or articles subject to change (see comprehensiveness), but for prevention of gaming-the-system to validate one (contested) version. --maclean —Preceding comment was added at 23:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If the article meets the criteria, besides the ambiguous stability bit, why not just pass it? I thought that was the whole reason it was so easy to delist the article if it went wrong, anyway. Precrime indeed! Wrad (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would exclude from GA consideration (especially in proposal 3) articles about an ongoing fixed-length processes that haven't concluded. For example, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Magic Tour (Bruce Springsteen), and Dundee United F.C. season 2007-08 cannot be GA until the campaign/tour/season they describe has finished. By contrast, main articles about (unfinished and sure to have future developments) lives or histories, such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bruce Springsteen, and Dundee United F.C. all can be GA (and, in fact, currently are). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it is reasonable to expect that an article on an ongoing event with a definite "end time" wait for GA status until the end time has reached. The problem is with articles on subjects with indefinite or ill-defined "end times" such as BLPs. For example, I think that an article on John Smith, who is say a U.S. Congressman, should not be considered unstable if he is currently running for congress. He's ALWAYS going to be up for re-election in the future, and it seems unreasonable that we sumarily delist every article on every politician when them come up for re-election. It presupposes that the new information that will be added will cause the article to fail GA. It is equally likely that whoever worked on the article to get it to GA will be sure that the new info added will also be at GA standards. We should fail articles when they become bad, not when we ASSUME they will become bad in the future. If the article is up-to-date and current, and is on a subject of ill-defined or indefinite time period, then I see no reason to fail on stability grounds. If we failed every article likely to change in the future, then NO living person biography could EVER be a GA under those standards. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, Jayron. Majoreditor (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Me too. Geometry guy 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think you've all completely missed the point of my rationale for quick-failing Mike Gravel and its implications for the criteria. This only about quick-failing articles that are reasonably expected to change significantly in the immediate future, not the indefinite future. Saying articles must never change in the future to qualify for GA is not just stupid, it's in contradiction with the whole idea of Wikipedia as a constantly updatable encyclopedia. But articles up for GA must be stable enough for a review to take place. When it's a ongoing election or music tour, then it's not. There is a completely reasonable expectation that the content not only will change, but must as events unfold. This rationale doesn't apply to the indefinite future of say, a living person. The future events in the life of a person do not impede a GA review. VanTucky 20:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think other editors have missed your point. If an article is unstable from day-to-day, then it cannot be reviewed meaningfully. The guidelines already state that. There is no point in reviewing an article which will change significantly over the week or two in which a review takes place. However, that is different from predicting an article is about to become unstable without evidence. If the article is about a well-established individual rather than an unfolding current event, then most of its content is stable. This is the point where there seems to be some consensus, and I think it is a reasonable consensus. Geometry guy 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. When the article is already the subject of a currently unfolding event, such as an election, then it doesn't matter if other parts of the article are stable. It's about the part that isn't. There's no gray area here, an article either is or is not the subject of a current event. If it is then it should be failed until that event is over. VanTucky 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I partly agree, but I place the emphasis is on the word "subject". In this case the article may be affected by a current event, as all articles can be, but the subject of the article is not an evolving event, it is a biography of a person. Geometry guy 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As a further point of information, not only is Hillary Rodham Clinton is a GA, but Barack Obama is an FA. Geometry guy 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand at all. The article is not titled "Mike Gravel's 2008 Presidential campaign" which WOULD be inherently unstable. Its is titled "Mike Gravel" and THAT is the major difference. The level of new information likely for a politician running for office is akin to an Athlete competing during the season; and yet it is unreasonable to quickfail all articles on athletes currently competing under the guise of "He's got more games to play very soon, and the article will likely change, so it is unstable". If it is not significantly changing, it is not unstable. If it may change, wait to see what the changes are. A lot of really good changes does not make an article unstable. It makes it still a really good article. All change is not instability, and potential change is not always instability. In a few cases it may be, but in most cases its called "reality". --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. An article should not be shut out of GA status consideration unless it has or should have a "current" tag on top of it. Wrad (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Potential resolution of issue

Per discussion with VanTucky above, the quickfail criteria has been changed to indicate that articles specifically about incomplete events may be quickfailed. Articles about subjects related to incomplete events (such as participants) should be given their due full review, and not assumed to be either instable or non-broad for that specific reason. Given that change, is there still a need to consider changes to the stability and/or broadness criteria at WIAGA, or is the matter closed? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with it as it stands. VanTucky 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we've reached a nice consensus. I'd like to add a phrase such as "with a definite time-frame" somewhere, because there are articles about incomplete events which will never be complete, but should still be eligible for GA. To give a slightly silly example: Evolution is ongoing! Geometry guy 20:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well???? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased the new criterion to match the style of the existing criteria and added the time frame condition. While we're working on QFC, would anyone care to address this? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree with the consensus that has been reached here, but I'm not sure where it's been implemented. Can we have a link to a diff of the change in the criteria? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go (it's been reworded slightly since this edit). It's the entirety of the fifth WP:QFC. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Stability revision

Per a discussion at WP:GAC, I've revised the stability clause to:

It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

Is this acceptable? VanTucky 00:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I agree. I would even go so far as to add an AfD debate. On FA, a couple of articles were under going AfD at the exact same time as FAC. The article were kept and became FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looks good. EyeSerene^talk 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, though I would immediately fail any article on both GAC and AFD as that indicates it is part of a content dispute, unless the AFD is unquestionably frivolous and disruptive. (I immediately delisted the Denial of Soviet Occupation article, because of the OR, NPOV, and AFD tags). Will ^(talk) 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GA symbol on article page

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images

I have noticed a number of articles being submitted to FA that fail our non-free image policies. Obviously, the majority of these articles have passed GA. Whilst images are briefly discussed in the GAC, there is no requirement for the article's images to pass WP:NFCC (which, let's face it, is policy) - there is only a requirement for them to have fair use rationales. This means that articles which actually fail a major Foundation policy are being promoted to GA, which is plainly wrong. I suggest an alteration to wording of;

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images. In this respect:

(a) any fair-use images used comply with Wikipedia's fair-use policy WP:NFCC;

(b) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(c) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

This should be a non-controversial change. Black Kite 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In what way is it obvious that all of these articles have passed GA? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll rephrase that :) The vast majority have, though. Black Kite 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of it, except the first part of (c). Appropriateness to the topic is an extremely subjective matter, and if something obviously does not fit, it's mere common sense to object to it. But codifying topical appropriateness in to the criteria not only opens the door for some unnecessary battles with nominators, but adds to the complexity of the criteria unduly. People already have a hard enough time understanding that having images at all isn't a failing criterion, let's not add more to worsen the matter. I think changing (c) to just say: "the images have suitable captions" is better. Other than that, I absolutely agree with you. Just like checking the history, looking over every image description page is one of those easy to overlook practices that needs to be done every time you review an article. VanTucky 18:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it's redundant - if the images aren't appropriate, they fail WP:NFCC anyway. I have refactored (c) to reflect this. Black Kite 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

For reference, the current criteria have:

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.^[4] In this respect:

(a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[5]

Two separate changes are being proposed here, an addition to (a) by Black Kite, and a removal from (b) by VanTucky. The argument for the addition to (a) is that WP:NFCC is policy and so must be followed. However, policy and guidelines exist to reflect consensus, not to determine it. This is something which has not been taken on board at WP:NFCC, which is subject to dispute and disagreement as to precisely how restrictive Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines should be.

I believe it is entirely adequate and appropriate for the good article criteria to refer to WP:Non-free content and WP:Non-free use rationale guideline, which reflect both the policy and the consensus application of it.

Concerning the removal from (b), I would first note that it has nothing to do with (a) or WP:NFCC since it refers to the appropriateness of the image for the article, whether or not the image is free. The argument for removing it appears to rest on a misunderstanding that this is an addition: in fact it has been in the criteria for some time.

The current criteria cleanly separate the copyright issue from the issue of appropriateness of image for article. See, for example, bikini, which probably has both free inappropriate images, and non-free appropriate images.

I therefore don't support either of these changes. Geometry guy 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Articles which fail a core Wikimedia Foundation policy should never be promoted to a status which suggests they are amongst the best articles the encyclopedia has. (I am aware this is happening already, but it shouldn't be). Images which fail WP:NFCC can be removed at any time from an article, which obviously suggests that the article is unstable and shouldn't pass GAC anyway (criteria 5).Black Kite 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  GAs are not intended to be "the best articles the encyclopedia has"; they are intended to pass a basic standard of good quality indicated by these criteria. Also, please don't invoke one GA criterion to interpret another. Instability is a very specific issue.

  Emphasising again "core Wikimedia Foundation policy" does not help to endear me to your cause. I suppose that you are referring to Pillar Three. WP:NFCC is an interpretation of Pillar Three; but, being an interpretation, it is only core Wikimedia foundation policy to the extent that it is supported by consensus. I am actually a strong supporter of a robust non-free content policy, but declaring it is the GA regime by dictat is not the way to garner support for it. Instead you need to convince editors on the ground and build consensus for it. Geometry guy 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I said "amongst the best", not "the best". The reason that non-free policy is core can be seen far more easily than looking in WP:5P; one only needs to look in the top left-hand corner of every Wikipedia page, under the globe. Every article should pass WP:NFCC, not just Good or Featured ones. Thus I cannot see why there can be an objection to making sure that GA reviewers are aware of our copyright policies. Black Kite 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  That is rhetoric again. The current guidelines already make GA reviewers aware of copyright issues and images are frequently challenged by reviewers. The guidelines may not have been as clear in the past, and GA reviews have variable quality by the nature of the process. That does not mean the guidelines have to be changed again. Geometry guy 11:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is currently no requirement for images to pass our copyright policies in the criteria, just a requirement that they are tagged correctly. This is clearly not the same thing, and the number of articles arriving at FAC, having passed through GAC without this being checked, is proof of this. Black Kite 11:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  There is such a requirement: "fair use rationales [must be] provided for non-free content"; it is not possible to provide a fair use rationale per WP:FUG if the the image doesn't meet WP:NFC. Your final comment defies logic: the same argument would prove that WP:V is not a GA requirement because many GAs arrive at FAC with unreliable sources. Geometry guy 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• The issue of fair-use rationales is a red herring, though. A non-free image can have a completely correct rationale with regards to NFC, but still fail multiple parts of NFCC if it is not being used appropriately. Black Kite 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This proposal and the resulting discussion is a very good example of why I decided to leave the GA project. I never saw it as some kind of filter for FA. I simply, and now I see naively, believed that it was an effort to improve the overall quality of the encyclopedia. So what that article can sometimes get to FAC without fair-use rationales? That's a matter for the FA review to address. So long as the perception of GA as FA-lite persists it is a waste of time IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Malleus and others: It's impossible not to feel for hard-working editors who go to some trouble to prepare images for their articles. However, WP's core policy on non-free content is just too important not to take a central role in strategically including or excluding NFC. It behoves all of us to read the WP:NFC policy, including the basic rationale, which goes beyond the legal requirements of most jurisdictions, with good reason. Please support Black Kite, who is very skilled in advising and monitoring in this policy area, and has the project's interests at heart. TONY (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please. I am rather pissed off at being singled out in these disagreements. Especially given the implication that anyone who dares to disagree with the great and the good does not have the project's best interests at heart. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sure Black Kite has the project's best interests at heart and see that he/she has been helping out at FAC. However, I don't buy argument from authority. For instance, I discovered recently that one of FAC's image gurus had misunderstood a basic principle of international copyright law. Quality of argument is what matters and being very active is not the same as being very skilled.

GA takes non-free content issues seriously, and the guidelines reflect that: for instance, Tony, they already link to WP:NFC. Image use is frequently challenged by GA reviewers and is checked routinely at GAR. The current wording could be tweaked (e.g., I'd agree to adding the word "valid" before "fair use rationale" in case that is not obvious from the wikilink), but adding redundant information and linking to a disputed checklist will not improve it. Geometry guy 11:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the point, though - it's clearly not checked routinely. Linking to NFC is fine, but that's only the image guidelines - the non-free policy is not referenced at all. As an example, a couple of recently listed GA articles that fail NFCC - Reservoir Dogs (decorative album cover), Martha Logan (3rd image clearly adds nothing to understanding and is not discussed in text, and a solid argument could be made that the 2nd one doesn't either). I think it's unfair to editors that they can bring articles to GA, but when they come to FA their images are removed - they could quite reasonably say "why wasn't I told this at GA?" Black Kite 11:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the 2nd image does not fail NFCC Criterion 8. That image shows the character's opening scene, which was widely discussed in the media, that image is a screenshot from the scene. I'd gladly provide a quote from the New York Times. Additionally, I'd note NFCC Criterion 8 is under dispute as a policy, therefore applying it is, disputed. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, from the New York Times, though reading the article would show this content anyway

“ Jean Smart's first on-screen appearance as Martha Logan, perhaps the most memorable character debut in "24" history, consists of her looking into a mirror, assessing her make-up and proclaiming, "I look like a wedding cake" just before dunking her face in the bathroom sink. ”

Satisfied with image 2 now? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I'm indenting to clarify the thread: if you object, please undo my reformatting of your replies. Anyway, these comments illustrate the disputed and subjective nature of the WP:NFCC checklist, especially criterion 8. It would also be possible to argue that there is enough critical commentary on the Reservoir Dogs soundtrack to justify the album cover image. It isn't the job of GA to take sides in the non-free content debate, but to reflect consensus.

It wouldn't be possible to argue that, because the amount of critical commentary about the album cover is precisely nil. Certain points of NFCC might be arguable in some cases, but certainly not in this one. Black Kite 14:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation: regarding when covers are permitted, WP:NFC says "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Notice that it says "Cover art from various items"; here the item is clearly the album. Then notice that it says "critical commentary of that item", not "critical commentary of the cover art". There is a spectrum of views on non-free content, and many would consider it appropriate e.g. in articles on albums to use the album cover under fair use. Geometry guy 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If this was an article about that album then that argument may have merit, but it isn't. Black Kite 17:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, I did not say that reviewers check image use routinely: this is by nature variable and unreliable; GAR refers to WP:Good article reassessment. I should have Wikilinked, since you can't be expected to know about GA processes. However, you ought to know the structure of the non-free content guidelines: "Linking to NFC is fine, but that's only the image guidelines" ?! WP:NFC includes WP:NFCC as its first section! Geometry guy 13:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFC is technically a guideline. It does, however, contain a transclusion of WP:NFCC, which is policy, in order to make NFC clearer (because people were assuming that NFC, not NFCC, was the "official word" on non-free images). The problem with linking to NFC is that the first thing people see is "guideline", not "policy", which is why it is best to link straight through to NFCC. Incidentally, I looked through the GAR archives and the very first "Keep" that I found fails NFCC (Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Final Fantasy Mystic Quest/1). The images weren't even mentioned. I don't wish to appear overly critical, but do you see now why I suggested the change to the criteria? Black Kite 15:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I was not active at GAR at the time, but this actually illustrates a more general problem with GAR: reviewers concentrate on the objections raised by the nominator without considering other criteria. This is an issue I raise frequently when I am active. It is not an issue that will be solved by changing the GA criteria. I apologise for presenting a GAR ideal when the reality falls short.

If I had been active at the time I would certainly have drawn attention e.g. to the number of non-free images used in this article. However, this is subjective criterion (how many is too many?) which requires common sense and consensus to reach agreement. In the discussion above, after a tacit admission that your interpretation of the criteria for cover art was wrong, you suggest that it would be okay to use cover art for an album in an article on the album, but not in a section of another article. I don't see any such distinction being made at WP:NFCC, so you are simply applying common sense. That is what the current GA criteria support. Geometry guy 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You're misreading what I said yet again - there was no tacit admission of anything, the album cover image is clearly decorative in that article, and fails NFCC all ends up, but as I said, there appears to be some consensus that the use of album cover in their own articles may be unexceptionable. Black Kite 05:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, that's rather unfair; it's not a question of disagreeing with "the great and the good" (who are they? certainly not me!), it's a question of making sure that our policies are consistent across the article process. As I said above, it would be much easier for editors to approach the rather daunting FAC process if they didn't have to cope with numerous objections to their images; far better to get this basic tenet of policy sorted out at GA. Black Kite 12:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony and others should stop trying to make GAN an inferior cousin of the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. Since we are reviewing the criteria regarding images, could the criteria be more explicit in stating that images should never be required for an article to become a GA? This would make things easier for the anti-fair use brigade (who will have less work to do when article writers choose not to include images in GANs) and those whom they frustrate (like me; finding a free image of, for example, a Singaporean actress is difficult, if not impossible). As for the issue at hand, I agree that articles which contain blatant copyright infringements should not attain GA status and do not mind "valid" being added before "fair use rationale". --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• A good point, actually, as I suspect that sometimes images are shoehorned into articles purely because of that criteria, and of course in some articles it is difficult to find free ones, so non-free ones are used which then fail our non-free policies. Black Kite 12:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  There seems to be a lot of writing and an absense of reading going on in this thread! Which part of "It is illustrated, where possible, by images... The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles." states that images are required for GAs? Geometry guy 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Even with the "where possible", the criteria still suggests that images are a plus point for an aspiring GA. Anyway, this is off the point; which is that it is only images which are fair use violations that need to be dissuaded. Black Kite 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It may not be as obvious as you think to non-native speakers of English. I only understood the footnote after reading it thrice. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if the "not" was italicized? Geometry guy 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer something along the lines of "Images, where present, ..." I agree this can impact on the coverage criterion, but I've found myself having to advise removal of semi-relevant images that have been added under the impression they were mandatory. I don't know how many nominators read these guidelines, but that's beside the point if reviewers can still misinterpret them! EyeSerene^talk 16:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I like EyeSerene's proposed wording and shall try expanding on it. How about: "Images, if present, are appropriate to the topic, have suitable captions and are tagged with their copyright status. Fair use images should have a valid fair use rationale and comply with our fair use policy." Native speakers, feel free to tweak my proposed wording. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a significant difference between that and the current (which does emphasise that images aren't required...does it do that OK?). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a huge difference, true, but it's moving away from actively encouraging the inclusion of images to a more neutral stance. I don't believe the current emphasis is on images not being required; the italicised "where possible" comes over to me as strongly advocating image use. However, if there are concerns about broadness, perhaps we could mention images there or add a proviso to criterion 6 (eg "Although the use of images is not normally required for GA, some articles may need suitable images to provide adequate coverage of their subjects" ...? EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My proposed wording has two subtle differences from the main wording; it requires that fair use images meet the fair use criteria and states that images are never required for an article to attain GA status. In addition, it is easier for non-native speakers of English to understand. ("If the article has images, they should be appropriate..." would be even better.) I do not see how images may sometimes be needed for an article to meet the "broadness" criteria. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I support your wording, J.L.W.S.! Broadness and coverage can enter into it if an image might reaonably be expected to be integral to the article subject (for example, if an article about a painting does not include an image of that painting). We do need to be slightly careful about giving editors a change to wikilawyer their way to a GA pass ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of clarifying the wording, but not in favour of changing the criterion. The proposed changes effectively mean dropping the second part of the footnote, which states "However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then they should be used." Do we really want to drop this? Do we want to say that images are never required? Even in articles on a painting, an item of clothing, a building, or a mathematical surface? There is a suggestion that this is covered by the broadness criterion, but I find the juxtaposition of this suggestion with the idea of clarifying things for editors and reviewers decidedly odd. How will reviewers know that images can sometimes be a broadness issue? If so, when?

I also wonder what problem this is intended to solve? Are reviewers failing articles for a lack of images when none are available? If so, are editors not pointing them to the current criterion? My experience at GAR is that reviewers are asking for images to be removed, not added.

This thread started from a different proposal, for which I see no appetite, so it is probably a good idea to look back at previous discussions of images: here, here and here. The current criterion has been well discussed and thought through. Are further changes really necessary? Geometry guy 13:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

In short, yes, we should drop that part of the criteria, so that images are never required, regardless of what the article is about. That would balance the proposed new requirement that fair use images in GA must meet our fair use policies. Articles about paintings should provide external links to websites which do contain images of said paintings. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe we need a balance between advocating images where clearly required by the article subject, and not failing a GA nom because a good-faith effort on the part of editors to turn up suitable images comes up empty-handed. This is basically what the criterion is stating, but the emphasis at the moment is heavily on including images, with the 'not required' proviso tucked away in a footnote and easily missed. Perhaps we should integrate the footnote into the main text somehow? EyeSerene^talk 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hildanknight, there is no new requirement that images meet our fair use policies: it is already in the criteria. There is nothing to "balance" here: please read the previous discussions linked, which have all moved away from requiring images. EyeSerene, the "not required" proviso is already in the text as "where possible". I agree we could integrate the footnote into the text, but if we integrated the second part of the footnote into the text it would strengthen the impression that images are needed for GAs. Geometry guy 14:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously not making myself very clear ;) By stating "It is illustrated, where possible, by images.", and having the sentence emphasis where it is, it reads (to me at least) as though the use of images is almost mandatory. If instead, for example, it read "It is illustrated (where possible) by images.", that comes over as more neutral and admits the possibilty of articles achieving GA without an image. Maybe I'm reading it wrongly, or maybe the intention is to strongly prefer images, but I think clarification would be helpful. EyeSerene^talk 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We really need to reword this! I had never read it that way: I took the emphasis to mean that images are only required where possible. The intention is not to prefer images so strongly, and certainly there is no consensus here to prefer images so strongly! Shall I have a go at clarifying? Geometry guy 16:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If "it is already in the criteria", why is Black Kite complaining? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it's worded and linked at the moment in such away that it confuses editors who aren't clear with non-free image use, and thus many articles that pass GA actually fail our non-free policies. Black Kite 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I missed out on all this vigorous discussion, but Geometry Guy is correct about my proposed changes. I simply thought it was an addition, mistakenly of course. But the NFC issue aside, does any have a strong objection to removal of the "are appropriate to the topic" clause? That idea is very much common sense in my mind, and a subjective content decision that really has little or nothing to do with being GA-class. I think it bogs down the important points in our image criteria. My ideal wording would read: any images present have suitable captions. Thoughts? VanTucky 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The "appropriate to the topic" clause would keep images of ostriches out of I Not Stupid (if you get what I mean). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there that any GA nomination ever had such an absurd hypothetical situation? Completely unrelated images are a matter of common sense, not a part of a higher-quality evaluation process. The criteria doesn't need to have a contingency for every conceivable problem, especially outlandish ones like that. The more you state the vastly obvious that has nothing to do with assessing important details of quality like verification and the manual of style, the harder you make it for reviewers and nominators to understand and implement the criteria. VanTucky 02:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gguy: I certainly have no objection to rewording that bit!

VT et al: I don't see it as a huge problem if that clause stays or goes. I do think you're right to be concerned about instruction creep, but I read "appropriate" to mean "on-topic" (eg I recently reviewed a MilHist 'Battle of...' GAN where I advised that some images of weapons be cut because, although generally relevant to WWII they were not particularly pertinent to the article itself). Perhaps if it stays the word 'appropriate' could be changed - 'relevant' maybe? EyeSerene^talk 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Broadness

I see that there's a bit of a backlog at WP:GAN, and I'd like to help out with that if I can. However, I also want to make sure that I'm reviewing them well. I feel quite comfortable with my ability to evaluate all of the criteria except broadness. Would somebody be able to point me to a relatively short article that nevertheless passes the broadness criterion? If at all possible, would somebody be able to direct me to a longer article that still didn't meet the broadness criterion? I want to make sure I have a better feel for things before I dive in and maybe make the wrong call on a lot of nominations. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Replied on SI's talk page. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A trio of relatively short articles that made GA are Vinkensport, Billy (pygmy hippo), and Herdwick. I also just nominated Buckeye (chicken) which is short. It's important to remember that length and broadness are not directly analogous concepts. An article can be short in length and broad in coverage. VanTucky 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I've completed my first review here. Feedback on it would be more than welcome. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal on WP:Words to avoid

WP:WORDS is one of the 6 specifically-mentioned pages in the "well-written" criterion. I'd like to propose that we remove that, and instead explain that we want people to be careful to use words that say no more and no less than what they mean. I recently left a message at WT:WikiProject_Mathematics#Moving_the_math_section_from_WP:Words_to_avoid_to_WP:Manual_of_Style_(mathematics) asking if we really needed for language from mathematical category theory to be in an article that everyone who's writing a Good Article needs to read; they thought that it does. And I don't really think there's any way to avoid lots of discussion and argumentation in WP:WORDS; I think that page is destined to get longer rather than shorter. It might be a little more to digest than is appropriate for editors working on their first Good Article. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the sense in that, unless you're also suggesting that the GA standard is changed to match, and that phrases like "It should be noted" will in future be permissible in a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a good reason for mentioning "Words to avoid" explicitly: it helps reviewers tune into neutrality issues. If many words to avoid are being used, it suggests the article may not have a neutral point of view, and encourages reviewers to check whether this is the case. Geometry guy 20:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was disagreeing with the proposal. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, and I was agreeing with you! :-) Geometry guy 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The less GA writers (and reviewers) have to deal with the MOnSter, the better. In fact, the MOnSter is one reason why I avoid the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC (of course, there are other reasons). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Could we not mention "It should be noted" and successfully convey the neutrality issues in a tenth as many words? Perhaps we can find a way to get a summary of the page into another style guideline. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've often thought it would be useful to have a GA-specific mini-MoS that we assess against. I'm not really advocating one, for obvious reasons (repetition, instruction creep, keeping up-to-date etc), but the MoS and related pages do just seem to get longer ;) If WP:WORDS could be integrated into something else then great, but unless/until it does I don't really see any way around citing it in the criteria (if only because not everyone's a great prose writer and it's helpful to give specific examples rather than general advice). EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, I've been thinking the same, at least in the areas that I've been mostly reviewing: books, authors, and films. I do think that it might be useful to write up what our expectations are of a GA in these genres, and perhaps others. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling a GA specific mini-MoS would bear a striking resemblance to the current list of MoS pages listed on the criteria page...the only difference is that it wouldn't be affected by changes to them (which is a bad thing, as we shouldn't be holding back changes that are otherwise sitewide and significant). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Yeah, I guess I'm thinking less of a mini-MoS, than a set of expectations for particular types of articles. For instance, what sections we'd expect of an article on a book, and what kinds of sources we'd usually want to see. It'd be a paragraph or so for each type of article. I think it would be useful, so long as we emphasized that it wasn't a question of hard and fast rules. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point and like the sound of it, but I don't think putting it in the criteria is a good idea, because exceptions will inevitably show up. For instance, Pick Up the Pace would not be an album GA by what would be considered the "standards"...simply because there is no reception information on it. One of the old purposes of GA is to not have arbitrary (or seemingly arbitrary, though some could argue we've failed in this regard) depth criteria, as opposed to FA (hence the "shorter articles can be GA but not FA" motif)...I'm not sure making what you suggest official would work in favour of this. (Am I making sense?)

That said, posting these guidelines in userspace are an excellent idea. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I will post some thoughts in userspace at some point. Good idea. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

Proposed changes to assessment scale

Please see Votes on changing the assessment scale, and cast your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 5 (Stability)

There has been some discussion on clarifying stability: In general, an article is not deemed instable due to dynamic content or a future horizon of highly dynamic content. Except in the case where it is anticipated that each day the subject matter would change so much that the article would be incomplete without constant updating completeness today is judged by the article's coverage of the subject matter today. Crystal balling of potential future content is not relevant. Whereas, it has been repeatedly held that a political candidate's article is stable, it is likely that an article on his ongoing campaign might not be. Similarly, an article on the Tour De France or 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs might be considered unstable during these events because failure to update the page daily would make the article incomplete. This issue arose most recently during the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1 becasue the building is still under construction and constantly arises at WP:FAC and WP:FAR. Do we need to modify WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA for clarity on this issue?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased WP:Reviewing good articles which was the main cause of the problem in this case. I suggest editors check how it now reads, and whether it needs to be expanded or clarified. At the moment the criteria say nothing about this kind of stability issue, so the question then is whether anything like the phrasing of WP:Reviewing good articles should be added here. Issues concerning the FA criteria need to be brought up elsewhere so that all interested parties can contribute. Geometry guy 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That change draws the line in the sand somewhere where it does not affect slowly evolving building constructions, but may still encourage unduly quickfailing of political candidates, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This still leaves WP:WIAGA pretty muddled. I will address debate WP:WIAFA at its own talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's probably enough to make the point, and would have clarified things for me had it existed prior to our GAR discussion. Of course, there is still a grey area regarding how rapid 'rapid' is, but I think we need to leave some room for reviewer discretion too. EyeSerene^talk 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(To Tony). The footnote clarifies the issue re political candidates, I hope. Geometry guy 23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the more important thing to correct is WP:WIAGA because it is viewed four to five times as much as WP:RGA according to May WIAGA stats vs May RGA stats.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, what footnote are you talking about?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 4 at WP:RGA.

At present the criteria only require that an article is stable in the sense of no edit wars. Are you making a case for strengthening this criterion to include explicitly as unstable rapidly evolving current events? Geometry guy 01:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

People tend to read edit war as an example of instability as opposed to virtually theonly type of instability. This always causes people to do things like reject/delist/nominate at GAR buildings under construction, current candidates, etc. Can we eliminate this problem by saying something about how in general dynamic subject matter does not qualify as instability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) I've footnoted the elaboration to focus on the edit war/content dispute issue and to be more consistent with the formatting of the other criteria. I've also changed the wording slightly because editors might otherwise artificially create instability via content dispute in order to obtain leverage. The footnote could perhaps be improved to mention the distinctions raised by TonyTheTiger, but without further comments, I'm inclined to leave it as it is. Geometry guy 23:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the criteria, perhaps even on this page

I've made a template {{GAC}} to make it easier for editors to quote the current criteria (apart from the footnotes). For example {{GAC|1}} produces

Well-written

and {{GAC|2b}} produces

reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).

This should be useful when producing checklists in GA reviews. I've demonstrated it by producing {{GATable}} which provides a table for a GA review in the style pioneered by Gosgood. (Many thanks to Gosgood here.)

The data this template uses (i.e., the current criteria) can be found on the subpage WP:Good article criteria/GAC. Now it occurs to me that a simple way to ensure these criteria and this page stay in sync would be to quote them on this page by transcluding them from the subpage. I checked that this works with an earlier version here.

The downside is that those of us who maintain the stability, neutrality and good style :-) of the criteria would also have to watchlist WP:Good article criteria/GAC, but I personally find the idea to separate form (how the criteria are displayed) and content (what they say) quite appealing. Comments? Geometry guy 16:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That will come in handy! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the criteria to use the subpage. Comments still welcome. Geometry guy 21:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that it's making editing the criteria a pain, because now I have to edit the templates and wait for the criteria to update on this page...for some reason, it hasn't. — Deckiller 05:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out; we have to make a dummy edit to this page after we edit the subpage with the criteria. — Deckiller 05:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

An alternative approach is to purge the server cache. Geometry guy 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

ISBN in "Further reading"

In a recent GA review the reviewer said books in "Further reading" should have ISBNs. It wasn't a problem in the particular case, but I don't think ISBN is useful "Further reading" as it will be different for different countries and times, e.g.:

• Many books are published by different publishers or subsidiaries of a publishing group, e.g. the US and UK versions of Gould's Wonderful Life.
• Different ISBNs for hardback and paperback.
• Some books go down the "food chain", e.g. Dover re-publishes a lot of chess books, e.g. Fine's The World′s Great Chess Games.

The best way for readers to get hold of a book is to Google, which will lead them to vendors.

To be honest I even doubt ISBN's values in citations, e.g . I'm Brit, so all my cites are from the UK edition (hardback) of Gould's Wonderful Life. -- Philcha (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

ISBNs are not, nor have they ever been, a GA requirement. By all means add them where they are helpful. Geometry guy 11:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure if they are helpful in an encyclopaedia. In a library, yes. --KenKt (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources with borderline reliability

The GA criteria used to have a footnote that said "It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable". This footnote was removed by Dinosaur puppy as part of "some bold changes". Perhaps the footnote should be readded to the criteria? GA was created for short articles on topics where references are scarce and article writers may have to turn to sources with borderline reliability. For example, when I helped counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by writing a GA on the Singaporean movie I Not Stupid, I used several sources with borderline reliability (such as IMDB) for uncontroversial but elusive information. Of course, there must be some exceptions; including sources with borderline reliability in biographies of living persons would be asking for trouble. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable if you asked this question at WP:RSN. Those guys are world-class experts on subtle questions of how far we can bend before we break regarding iffy sources. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that WP:RSN is the appropriate venue for the question that's being asked. "This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles [or by implication project guidelines]. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject." The question is addressing tha GA guidelines, not the reliability of any one source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Giving it a shot at WT:RS. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Since my question focuses on the GA criteria (whether it should allow some sources with borderline reliability), I think it belongs here. Dank55 and Malleus Fatuorum (and others reading this discussion), do you think that the GA criteria should allow a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to have to say that depends on what you mean by "borderline". Certainly I think that some sources which may be questioned at FAC could be acceptable for a GA candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's better to establish whether a borderline source is reliable or not, rather than to decide whether borderline sources are acceptable. Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy, so the Good article criteria doesn't have the authority to permit occassional dubious sources. Epbr123 (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The situation is more subtle than than that I believe. I think we can probably safely assume that "borderline" means that there is at least some doubt as to the reliability of the source, not that it is necessarily unreliable. My general rule of thumb for GA is to look not just at the source, but the significance of the information the source is cited in support of. I'd be perfectly happy for borderline sources to support relatively unimportant details, but not important facts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

All good and relevant answers, I think (in the sense that RSN is the place to go for info on what's reliable rather than FAC). I expect WT:RS will give us good stuff, too; this question of "I know it's not reliable as defined by Wikipedia, but it's not that bad, either" is a perennial question. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As I was suggesting above, I think it's a mistake to think of every source as either reliable or unreliable. Reliable for what information, in what context, is the real question. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it's sometimes wrong to label a particular source as either reliable or unreliable, as it depends on the context. But it is possible to decide whether a source is reliable for a specific context, eg. IMDB is considered reliable for filmography info but unreliable for biographical info. Epbr123 (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

IMDB was certainly one of the sources I was thinking of. Or, perhaps, closer to Hildanknight's heart, are all national newspapers equally reliable? Is The Singapore Times as reliable as The Times, for instance? Arguably, for Singapore-related material The Singapore Times may be more reliable, but less so for UK or international news. The question in my mind therefore isn't so much should a footnote be added back to the GA criteria stating that a small number of "borderline" sources are acceptable, but what "borderline" precisely means in the context of this discussion. If it's interpreted as meaning unreliable, then no, the GA criteria certainly ought not to be changed to allow that. If it means of undetermined, dubious, or variable reliability, then perhaps. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

← I agree completely with Malleus's point that the reliability of a source depends on how it is used and what for. The same point is coming out in the thread at WT:RS. Geometry guy 18:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my first point, if a source's reliability for a given context is undetermined or dubious, it is preferable for attempts to be made to establish whether the source is reliable, rather than for a GA reviewer to just be allowed to turn a blind eye to borderline sources. For example, if a reviewer doesn't know if IMDB is reliable in a certain context, they should try to find out, probably at WP:RSN, rather than ignore it. Epbr123 (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "borderline". If the information sourced is not significant, then what's the point in an investigation into the reliability of the source? Your use of the term "blind eye" is also revealing I think. Adopting a pragmatic and realistic approach to reliable sources at GA is not at all the same thing as turning a blind eye. For fear of opening old wounds I will make no further comment on this topic, which I have now unwatched. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds

I was being bold and added sound as an item not eligible for being a GA, unless someone opposes. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed criteria 7: Comply with content policies and guidelines

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Good Articles and WP Guidelines: I would like to add this as a criteria:

• 7. Complies with content policies and guidelines unless there is a clear reason to ignore a particular policy or guideline. Unless they are self-evident, the reasons to ignore a content guideline or policy must be spelled out on the article talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no case for doing this. Policies and guidelines apply to all articles. They surely inform the interpretation of the GA criteria, but there is no reason to make them part of the GA criteria. The Village Pump thread was started because of a single case. It is almost never a good idea to change guidelines based on a single case. Geometry guy 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It would probably make life more difficult at GAN and GAR without significantly improving articles to add this to the criteria. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

These are not under our jurisdiction. If an article violates any official policy (such as WP:BLP), they should be reported to appropriate noticeboard (in this example, the correct venue would be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good article criteria problem

In review, some articles have been denied good article status because they are thought to be insufficiently complete. Good articles should be reasonably complete, of course, but a problem occurs when there are no verifiable sources available to satisfy the reviewer's standard of comprehensiveness. This has happened in spite of footnote three in Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

In the following two cases, good article status was denied to biographies because they do not include detailed information about the subjects lives' outside of the periods for which they were famous and/or notable:

• Example: Talk:John Capper/GA1
• Example: Talk:William Howard Livens/GA1

This seems wrong to me, and the consensus regarding the required level of comprehensiveness needs to be clarified. It seems to me reasonable that a good article should be expected to cover all the main points of interest that are available from the sources and no more. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There are topics where verifiable sources are thin, and relate mostly to those actions which are most notable. I think the good article process is specifically intended to cover this type of situation - where "broad" coverage is possible, but "comprehensive" may not be - and so such nominations should not be refused simply on this basis. GreenReaper (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite so, there will always be articles like this. Can more be done to make the criteria clear on this point? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this before, and concluded that assessing "broad" coverage is very difficult. My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that bio details that do not impact on the career that made the subject notable are not a deal-breaker.

My impression of John Capper is that he was a very bright guy but totally conventional and a poor communicator - not the first time I've come across a subject that's notable but dull - so it would not surprise me if no-one ever bothered to record any of his personal life. The main problem with the William Howard Livens article is that it tries to include some bio but it's extremely thin; since it shows no impact on the man's career as an innovator, it might be better to leave it out. For me the unanswered question about Livens is why, despite all his achievements, he never rose above Captain - having known a few army staff officers, I'd have expected him to reach Colonel or at least Major on his record - but perhaps the rule then was that promotion above Captain required command of a decent-sized line unit at some time. The difficulty with people who died much before 1980 was that obits were usually governed by de mortuis nil nisi bonum so they skipped all the interesting stuff. --Philcha (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Livens' non-promotion, there is some suggestion that he was rather independently spirited and argumentative - this is both a family tradition and there is some suggestion of this in the available records. So, it may be that he just was not cut out for high rank in the army - but that would be speculation. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what to do with articles such as these. I think that an article should still meet the "good article" criteria if it omits insignificant periods altogether (as Philcha suggests), but still covers all the important points. Alternatively, an article could explicitly state that periods of a life are not be a matter of public record provided that there is a reasonable basis for such an assertion. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Using inappropriate criteria for speedy review fails

I'm very concerned about the apparent tendency of some Good article reviewers to, in effect, perform reviews using criteria more appropriate for Featured article reviews, and then speedily failing an article without providing the nominator any opportunity to revise the article or respond to criticisms.

For example, applying every last detail of form in the Manual of Style during a Good article review, when the instructions for Good article reviews specifically limit the application to a few areas, and applying MoS policy guidance suggestions for length of lead sections as if they were mandatory in every instance seems inapproptiate and unfair.

There also appears to be a tendency among some reviewers, but not all, to identify every last little detail in an article that might be changed to improve it, without saying what the minimum amount of change is that is necessary for it to pass a good article review. This does little but confuse the nominator.

It appears the guidance provided about how to apply a limited review for a decent article is too subtle for some reviewers to understand--even some experienced reviewers--resulting in some injustice to the nominator.

The result is that some reviews appear to be arbitrary, capricious, arrogant, and unreasonable. I don't think this helps build an encyclopedia.

Personally, I am now deterred from ever again nominating an article for Good article review, despite the fact I have created many new articles and have brought several of them successfully through Good article review.

The guidance needs to be improved so there is more consistency in its application from one reviewer to the next, and there should be some explicit discouragement of reviewers overdoing it. Otherwise, it merely drives good editors away, and discourages them from bringing their efforts to Good article review. The result of this is fewer Good articles than might otherwise be written if reviews were done better.

The manner in which the good article review criteria are currently stated leads to some confusion of both reviewers and nominators during its application. The criteria need to be revised to: (1) move the text of footnote [1] into the body of the criteria so it will not be overlooked, and (2) state clearly that reviewers need to clearly separate their comments into two categories, (a) changes that must be made to earn a good article pass, and (b) changes that are desirable in an article but not required to earn a good article pass.

These are not really changes in the criteria, but merely clarifications of the existing criteria which hopefully will make good article reviews more useful to the nominator and the immediate task at hand, and assist them in appearing to be fair.

A third issue should also be considered: Creating a minimum period for "holds" resulting from comprehensive reviews that will allow a nominating editor to determine if the mandated changes can be made in that period of time. This would not change the "quickfail" procedure because it would be limited to comprehensive reviews.

It's about fairness and courtesy, and there appears to be no real need to rush these things, if they are unrelated to the quickfail process. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This comment may not be what it appears to be. The editor above appears to have taken considerable offence about an article submitted for WP:GAN that was "failed". What is written above, appears to be part of a tirade that appears across Talk:Norman I. Wengert/GA1, Talk:Norman I. Wengert, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Using inappropriate criteria for quick fail reviews and now here. It seems to me that the reviewer, who is experienced in reviewing WP:GANs (and also in submitting articles to WP:GAN), made a decision which the nominator is unable to accept. The nominator then attempts to carry out an analysis of the reviewers comments (see Talk:Norman I. Wengert/GA1), rejecting them as not, in the nominator's opinion, being required under WP:MOS. The nominator then goes on to enter a long tirade across all three pages which is little more than a character assassination of the reviewer (which is not me - I hasten to add). The nominator asks for "fairness", but appears unable to extend it to fellow authors, especially WP:GAN reviewers.

Having looked at the article, it has been considerably improved since it failed GA on 11 March 2009. I, personally, would not passed it on the 11 March 2009; I probably would have put it On Hold. The WP:lead was clearly inadequate, despite what the nominator claims. However, if I had suffered the character assassination that the this nominator dishes out, I would have a very strong inclination to never ever "pass" any WP:GANs arising from that source. Having said that, I would probably pass the article as it stands now if I came across it at WP:GAN. It seems to me that the solution to the problem is for the nominator to treat any potential and actual reviewers with the same fairness that the nominator expects to receive. Changes demanded by an aggrieved WP:GAN nominator should not be considered hastily.Pyrotec (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not so. This comment is exactly what it appears to be. I'm not asking for action against any GA reviewer. I'm asking for clarification of a confusing policy. Pyrotec, did you assume good faith when you wrote the comment above? Please don't fan the flames of a separate controversy.

I treat everyone with respect who treats me with repect. If the article had been put on hold at all, the situation would be different, but it was NOT put on hold. It was immediately failed without any hold. And you appear to be saying that enough changes have been made in three days to make it GA, despite the fact the reviewer concluded those changes could not be made in a brief hold period. Thank you for recognizing at least that much of the problem. All I ask for is fundamental fairness and a little common courtesy. YES, I routinely provide the same to others who treat me the same way. Actually, I go further than that, and routinely provide edits to articles I review right alongside the nominator. This reviewer did not do either.

That reviewer did not even change a period to a comma to deal with one of his criticisms (there is a specific example of that in the list). It would have been easier to make the change than make the criticism. But apparently he would rather criticize than help out. He did not provide any assistance whatsoever, and did not allow a HOLD period for ANY changes to be made.

But that is not the point of this discussion. The point is: can the guidance be improved to avoid this kind of situation in future? I think it can, and I have made a proposal about how to do it. Please comment on the proposal, constructively if possible. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I can do so. Proposal (1) to move the text of footnote [1] could be implemented if there is evidence that reviewers have been failing articles for non-GA MOS issues alone. I haven't seen any such evidence, but would be happy to be enlightened. Proposal (2) has nothing to do with the GA criteria, but could be raised at WT:Reviewing good articles. Geometry guy 22:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, there was ample evidence on the article nominations talk page in thier comments that other reviewers had experienced or witnessed similar difficulties. But I understand you wish not to be bothered with such triffles as fundamental fairness towards other editors who act in good faith, so I will not pursue the matter further. You are judge and jury unto yourselves, and I guess that is enough for you. So what if injustices to editors who put in great effort for Wikipedia continues? We are all expendable, right? You will do as you wish, no matter the consequences to others. Farewell. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, regarding proposal (1) to move the footnote up - I think this would be helpful. I nominated Nancy Drew for a GA review (review is still in progress) and was confused by the reviewer's first comment that the citation style needed to be changed, as my first citation style is listed on WP:CITE. After thinking about it I decided that this was a suggestion to make the article better, rather than a pass/fail criterion, as it seemed to be phrased. Which leads me to proposal (2), about making more clear which criteria are pass/fail and which are to make the article better - I am happy to make all suggested changes, but I am curious as to which ones take priority - especially as my Spring Break is now over and I'll have less time to devote to this or any other article. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

GA = sourced with primary sources???

Hi, I just came across DeviantArt, and noticed that (1) it is sourced almost entirely with sources from deviantart.com and (2) it is classed as GA. Is this appropriate? It doesn't seem so. If not, where should I suggest a GAReview? Aleta ^Sing 14:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In the case of this particular article, I am surprised it was promoted. I would supper putting it up for review. There's problems that go beyond the primary source issue (a GA can't use primary sources that often) Wizardman 16:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've created a community reassessment page at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/DeviantArt/1. Aleta ^Sing 17:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so a combination of primary and secondary sources should be used — certainly not primary only. — Deckiller 22:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to amend criteria

I think that point 3 of the GAR criteria defeats the object of encouraging the nomination of short articles. The criterion presently states:

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Although the footnote clarifies that short articles are welcome, it is a footnote and these are not always read. The main problem is the title "broad in its coverage". It is clear that some people who undertake reviews think this means the article must be lengthy. At the same time, broadness contradicts the stated aim of focus. If you are focused, you are not looking at the big picture.

I would replace "broad in its coverage" with something like "focused upon the subject" and bring the salient points in the footnote up into the criterion itself.

The criteria must make clear that GAR caters for short articles. At present, the process fails miserably. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I disagree with your use of the word "scope". I have never seen a GA reviewer criticise an article because of its limited scope. But whatever an article's scope is, its major topics must be covered; focus has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Take a look at Space Science Fiction Magazine for instance, an article that has failed to reach FA, but would, in my opinion easily pass at GAN. Or, to put it another way, if an article like that one couldn't pass at GAN, then the GA vision has gone horribly wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed my reference to scope as it is misleading. An article should cover all of its scope topics but, if the scope is limited by lack of surviving or available data, then there will be few topics and a reviewer must not expect to read a long article. The criterion must express the idea that the subject's major topics, as you say, have been covered in full. There is a big difference between sufficient coverage and broad coverage. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much interest in this although I could take the silence to mean that no one objects to the proposal. If there is no opposition by next weekend, I will make the proposed change. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Note. The discussion to this point was on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles but I think it is more appropriate to this page so I have copied it here. I haven't yet edited criterion #3 as I would like to see more comments by GA reviewers. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus: the current broadness criterion is fine. It's long-standing and most experienced reviewers know what it means by now. If there are editors who misunderstand it, they should be politely corrected. Geometry guy 11:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This contradicts the site's disambiguation policy. We should not be reactively correcting editors who misunderstand something, we should be proactively seeking to disambiguate so that the risk of misunderstanding is reduced. And just because something is "long-standing" does not mean it is right. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No, disambiguation policy refers to the main article space, not project space, where consensus is the modus vivendi. Geometry guy 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The ambiguity in the criterion is sometimes troublesome, but (1) I don't think "Focused upon the subject" is any "better" than the current verbiage in addressing issues of article length, and (2) the problem exists because some reviewers pass judgment by only reading the criterion title ("Broad in its coverage") without reading what that means (i.e., "(1) it addresses the main aspects of the topic, and (2) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, and (footnote) This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." Best regards --Eustress (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC) (note: copied from WT:GA).

Okay, I'll put it to the test but I'm not convinced. I've re-nominated an article that was failed previously simply because it was deemed too short. I don't mind if it fails because it needs more citations or, indeed, if it does not cover something that clearly is in scope; but the GAR process is supposed to welcome articles that are short by necessity because of unavailable data. I still think that some reviewers will be misled by a phrase like "(a good article is) broad in its coverage" to expect a lengthy article. I accept that the wording of points (a) and (b) within the criterion are adequate but I believe the title of the criterion needs to be amended. I agree with Malleus' statement that "its major topics must be covered" and I think we should reword the title of the criterion along those lines: e.g., "(a good article is) sufficient in its coverage". ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read this topic with interest as I have just been reading the criteria page and it occurred to me then that the word "broad" is somewhat dubious. I would change it to "sufficient" in its sense of "ample" or "adequate". An article that is narrow in coverage can have ample content and meet the requirements of addressing all main topics and remaining focused. I should point out that I'm a new member and so not up to speed yet, but it does seem sensible to me to make this change. --KenKt (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ample content is what I was trying to get across. We need to ensure that the article covers its scope, which may be very narrow, without bringing in unnecessary padding. Hence a short article will have as much chance at GA review as a long one. The other point I made was that the bit in the footnote ought to be part of the criterion, perhaps as a sub-section (c). Any thoughts on that? ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the footnote does make clear that length does not disqualify any article. The problem is the word "broad", in my opinion. By the way, which is the article that you have re-nominated? Although I am a new member I am not without review experience and I will look at it if you will permit me. But I am reviewing another article and that must take priority. --KenKt (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll have to nominate that article again so I'll let you know about it, but thanks for your offer. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the difficulties with the term "broad" - though "ample" holds pretty much the same meaning. Perhaps "appropriate" is a more helpful term? I tend to feel that the more narrow the intersection of the topic, the greater the specifics of the details should be. When contestants for Mastermind (TV series) select broad topics (World War 1), they get broad questions ("What date did the USA declare war on Germany?"), but if they select a narrow topic (The 369th Infantry Regiment in World War 1) they get more specific questions (what colour were the regiments belts?).

Narrow topics demand greater focus on small details. It is a different type of coverage, and both the editors and the reviewers should be paying attention to that.

I am not convinced that selecting a narrow intersection for which there is not much available material, and then producing a very short article and saying "There is no more information to be found so this is broad enough," is a genuine rationale for a Good Article. If there is not enough material to create a detailed article that satisfies the interest of the general reader, then perhaps the article will never become a Good Article - and if the article is very short, it might be more appropriate for it to be taken back into the most appropriate parent article. I'm not against short articles, but I am against flimsy articles that don't answer the basic questions of What and Why and When and How and Where and Who. The example given above of Space Science Fiction Magazine is interesting as it is certainly quite borderline in that it barely manages to answer all these questions, and fails in some respects. I would expect from such a narrow topic to be at least told in which of the two issues Clarke's "Critical Mass" was published. If you image somebody doing some research on Clarke and wishing to find out the first American publication of the story, they might expect to discover that fact in a Wikipedia article on the magazine in which the story appeared (regardless of the article being GA status or not). I don't think it is clear that Space Science Fiction Magazine is a GA, and is perhaps not a good example to use of a short article fulfilling the requirements of "broad coverage" (or "appropriate coverage"). SilkTork *^YES! 13:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What and Why and When and How and Where and Who is appropriate for a newpaper article, but not necessarily for an encyclopedia article, at least in my opinion. It's very easy to imagine unanswered questions after reading any article, but it's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to answer every conceivable question. I still think that "broad" is clear enough, but interestingly the FA criteria were recently changed slightly to include "... and places the subject in context", which I think is maybe at the heart of what you're saying Silktork. That might make a useful addition to the GA criteria as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that an encyclopedia is a general reference work and does not seek to be a textbook on a subject. However, definitions of encyclopedia generally use the word "comprehensive". It would normally be considered that an encyclopedia article on a topic would answer more questions than a newspaper article, and would aim to give a rounded knowledge. The actual depth of detail would depend on the exact focus of the article. History of the world would have a broader less detailed focus than S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897, which is a very specific topic, and the article goes into admirable detail and answers all the questions in What and Why and When and How and Where and Who. I wouldn't expect a GA article to have that level of coverage, but I would expect a GA article to deliver a bit.

I like "places the subject in context", but that is perhaps a demand too far for a GA article. That requires a higher level of writing, research and organisation. I wouldn't wish to add more demands on GA. I paused to consider that perhaps "shows an awareness of context" might be less demanding, and would add value, but I think it is already demanding enough that we are asking people to address the main aspects of the topic. And I don't think that people are understanding the demands of that requirement. Some people are interpreting "main aspects of the topic" as "what can be found during a Google search on a wet Wednesday afternoon" - such as a search for information on Matchbooks for a new article History of match books, and being pleased that so little can be found, as that means that all the main aspects of the topic are covered! A lack of information is simply a lack of information, it's not a free punt into the end zone. SilkTork *^YES! 23:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"Comprehensive" for encyclopedias refers to the coverage of every branch of knowledge, not the comprehensive nature of each article. However, I agree with you that "addresses the main aspects of the topic" is a demanding requirement. However, the main requirement that GA reviewers miss is that the material in the article can be attributed to a reliable source. That isn't a matter of looking for uncited sentences, but checking (oh my god) that the sources actually say the same things as the article. That is really hard work. I'd welcome any proposal to improve the criteria to encourage it. Geometry guy 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As the one who "reframed" another editor's suggestions for modification of the FA criteria into "places the subject in context", my meaning was to present the major aspects of a topic and not spend major article space on "offshoots". I actually got the idea for the FA modification from the GA criteria which I thought were clear in a way that the FA criteria were not. How it is interpreted by FA evaluators is another issue. I personally thing the GA criteria are fine when followed. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: criticism and controversies sections

Let me just express my personal belief that the criticism and controversies sections that pervade Wikipedia (especially biographies) are unencyclopedic. Try reading Britannica, Encarta, or World Book sometime. They never have criticism and controversies sections. Only Wikipedia does. Why? I believe they exist in Wikipedia because they attract editors who either (a) love scandal, or (b) have an agenda (often political) they want to push in an encyclopedia. Quite often, criticism and controversies sections take up a disproportionate portion of an article. I propose minimal or non-existent criticism and controversies sections as a criteria for good article status. By having minimal or non-existent criticism and controversies sections as a criteria, it would allow such sections to exist in those rare articles where they are truly warranted, but would give editors a strong incentive to remove frivolous criticism. Note that this proposal goes beyond just having WP:RS and WP:NPOV as criteria. Frivolous criticism and controversies are often backed up by reliable sources. That's because frivolity and reliability are entirely different concepts. NPOV, meanwhile, is often used as an excuse to add a criticism and controversy section. The existence of the section then entices editors to expand it, in order to fill in any missing criticism and controversies. Discouraging, but not banning, these sections are a great way to trim the fat. --JHP (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Using an old book as a reference

We're working on wikipedia-spotlight on Marco Polo but we don't have many reliable source on the web. We have however access to the 1947 edition of Venetian adventurer By Henry Hersch Hart which describes Marco's life in a very scientific and scholarly level. It has also received a good review and is cited by many other books. The problem is that the book was written in 1947 and I was wondering if that would pose a problem when nominating the article for GA or FA, thank you.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For a subject like that, I wouldn't think so. The question is essentially how much scholarship on a given subject has advanced in the intervening years. If you were using a 1947 book to write an article on, say, homosexuality, you'd probably be in some trouble. But without knowing much about Marco Polo, my initial reaction is that it shouldn't be a problem there. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt tags

FA and FL have gone to requiring alt tag use for images. GA may as well too. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? As opposed to encouraging them? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The alt tags show up as a jumble of too much information on my browser (Firefox 3). I am hoping that it will be considered unnecessary to "require" them for GAs. For one thing, I will be unable to review that aspect when I review articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox as well. You don't see the alt text unless you go to your preferences and switch off Load images automatically, which is what I do if I want to check it. I agree with you that I don't think it should be added as a requirement though. GA is not FA. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Switch of "Load images"? Ok. Didn't know about that. Thanks. (Where is "Load images"?) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On my version, 3.0.11, it's under Edit/Preferences. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

One easy way to review alt text, which should work with any graphical browser, is Altviewer. This is a Wikimedia Toolserver application that displays all the images in a Wikipedia page, next to their alt text. I've found it much better than IE or Firefox to review alt text. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think alt text should be a criterion for GA; GAs aren't held to the same standards as FAs. Though it should be encouraged in as much much as all articles are encouraged to be better and to aspire to FA standards. Perhaps it would be helpful to add a note to reviews about alt text to raise awareness about it. It is after all intended to help the readers. Nev1 (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, if we can make them better, why not? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That GAs can always better is self-evident, as they are not FAs, and are not held to the same standard. Adding a note during the review is something that is often done anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We just started checking alt text for FAs and FLs within the past few weeks. It would be helpful, I think, to debug the process there a while more, before inflicting it on GAs. Often we still run into templates that aren't alt text aware, for example. But once things settle down I don't think it'd be onerous to require alt text for GAs, any more than it's onerous to require captions. Alt text isn't that hard; it's easier than captions, in my experience. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it goes to accessibility I think it should probably be encouraged as good article-writing practice. However, I'd be wary of introducing it as a requirement per Mattisse, Malleus and Nev1. EyeSerene^talk 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with EyeSerene, Mattisse, Malleus and Nev1. Even if Alt text isn't that hard, there are hundreds of similar fine points that would improve articles, and the GA process doesn't cover them: it does not need to duplicate the role of FA and peer review; those processes do a fine job. Instead it aims to focus editors' attentions on the most important issues of verifiability, neutrality and coverage. With perhaps over 2 million articles not meeting basic policy, we need at least one review process that concentrates on this major issue. Geometry guy 21:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For me, alt text seems useless in many diagrams, particularly where it is telling blind people what the arbitrary colors of a diagram are, or describing things in abstract and uninformative terms. I agree this shouldn't be a requirement but might be a suggestion for those diagrams that can be usefully described in words. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose adding alt text to GA requirements:

• WP's current recommended approach, a literal, physical description, is useless for many subjects - including technical diagrams and portraits.
• As G'guy says, GA should focus on "the most important issues of verifiability, neutrality and coverage".
• Along with his sensible comments about the need to "debug the process there [FA, FL] a while more", Eubulides produced an interesting Freudian slip - "before inflicting it on GAs" (my emph). --Philcha (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to 2b

GAC2b currently says:

it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons

I think that this would be better expressed as a list, and with slightly different wording:

it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for:

• direct quotations,
• statistics,
• published opinion,
• counter-intuitive or controversial statements whose factual accuracy is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious material relating to living persons

The point behind making this a list is to emphasize that WP:V -- and therefore WP:GA -- does not actually require an "ideal" level of sourcing, and certainly not a one-to-one ratio between inline sources and sentences. We have five specific kinds of statements that require citations, and everything else is technically optional.

The point behind the change in the wording is to emphasize that {{fact}} is about factual accuracy, not "let's make editors find sources to support that the Earth is basically round, despite the fact that it's not required by any policy" WP:OVERTAGGING. Additionally, it seems kind of stupid to specifically name the need for sources to support a claim that the reviewer believes is false. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"... whose factual accuracy is likely to be challenged". Sloppy. What other kind of accuracy is there? Non-factual accuracy? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's the "I'm challenging this unsourced statement because I'm being WP:POINTy or want to disrupt work on the article" kind of challenge. Although you should assume good faith initially, bad faith does happen, and GA shouldn't hinge on resolving challenges of agreed-to-be-accurate facts that were done merely for the sake of "forcing" someone to add a ref, or to push the mainstream POV out of an article. Accidental idiocy also happens: Last month, someone actually fact-tagged a statement that said that people that cannot pass a practical driver's license test cannot legally drive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to compare and contrast this, here is the featured article criterion pertaining to citations: "(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;"

It seems to me like the proposed list above for GA is meant to basically cover the critical stuff, like major issues in BLP articles, quotes, and other things. But it leaves it open that GAs don't necessarily have to have every little item cited. It might increase the number of math & science articles, which have a lot of good general information that is well accepted and pretty obvious that any possible vandalism on it would be caught rather quickly. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

More proposed changes

While the two-sentence GAR story is unfolding, let's fix that problem quickly by adding Wikipedia:SCG to 1(b). It only targets Mathematics, Physics, Molecular and cellular biology and Chemistry articles, which arguably requires a higher degree of precision yet without going over the edge on references. (P.S. For those who're lost, read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Mathematics GA status) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to modify long-standing guidelines in the heat of the moment. WP:SCG is already in footnote 2 to 2b, and that is where it is needed. It isn't primarily a MoS issue, but a verifiability issue. Geometry guy 20:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern is often ensuring that there is no original research. However, editors can stage citations in such a way that the result is OR. Only by actually checking the sources can this be discovered. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that some reviewers have not heard of WP:SCG, so presumably they have not noticed it in its footnote. I support giving it more visibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

While I think highlighting this further is a good idea, and will probably help in the long run, I am still concerned that this isn't really addressing the problem, and might be kind of like putting a band-aid on a gushing flesh wound. Part of the problem is that GA (and to some extent, FA) is not really accepted and/or used by wikiprojects in the more scientific articles -- e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals doesn't support GA, either. And if you look at the vast majority of where GA activity is, it's more in the pop culture and non-scientific articles. We really need to look deeper at ways to make GA work better with science articles in general, and listen to those involved in particular wikiprojects of how to make GA work better for their project. After all, in the end, the main goal of GA, FA, and all of the wikiprojects, is to produce the best article content possible. Right? Dr. Cash (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% with this statement. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The only problem I see with "science articles in general", and this also applies to maths articles, is the citation requirement. It does appear to me that too many reviewers demand citations on a pound-for-pound basis, without looking at whether the material actually needs to be cited. My favourite example (can't find the link right now) was a request for citation that "most human beings have five fingers". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You bring up that example every time this issue comes up. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that invalidate my point in some way? Or does it just make me boring? To be clear, I have a science degree myself, and the issue I see here is the distinction between what is accepted as being almost axiomatic to those working in, or familiar with, the field, and mysteriously unexplained to those who aren't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If after all these years you can only come up with the same example over and over (and no link). —Mattisse (Talk) 02:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is a particularly appealing example. On a different note, thanks very much for your feedback on the character GAN I'd posted about, Malleus. I did notice it, and genuinely appreciated your improvements and views. I'm still catching up with wikitasks, so hadn't quite replied yet. So, merci. –Whitehorse1 02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO in science articles we should not interpret "obvious" any differently from in other subjects - i.e. "obvious" should mean "... to non-specialist readers". I'd accept "most human beings have five fingers" without a citation, but e.g. I'd expect citations for most of the deductions in Exponential growth. Reducing the citation requirement for science topics assumes that the editor adding / changing the unsourced content has got it right, has correctly judged what is common knowledge in the field and is not POV-pushing. If we relax the citation requirements for science, we'll get an increase in errors (to be publicised in Nature), WP:FRINGE "science" and POV-pushing. I understand that finding citations for "basics" can be harder than finding them for advanced concepts, because the journals take basics for granted so Google is not so helpful in finding refs for basics. But there's a simple solution - get a couple of 101-level textbooks from a library. --Philcha (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring

I would like to propose a slight restructuring of criteria 6 and 1. At the moment criterion 6 combines two logically distinct notions: that an article should have interesting images, and that it should be free (e.g. of copyright violations). The first point is really a readability issue: it is often the case that without images, an article is opaque. We should encourage editors to create articles which convey their concept not only using prose, but also images. This is all part of criterion 1.

The second point is a serious problem. Many of our articles, including some GAs, contain copyright violations. The GA criteria are explicit about this in terms of images, but not in terms of prose. If the encouragement of images is adopted into criterion 1, then criterion 6 can be more clearly defined as the requirement that GAs do not contain copyright violations. Such a restructuring will be easier for new editors to understand, and for experienced editors to quote. Geometry guy 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that #6 needs to stay focused on the specific issue of images. (IMO, the major point to be made here is that images are not required for GA.)

I also worry about dramatically changing the contents of a long-standing numbering scheme: Old comments like "GA6 does not require [the presence of images]" will make no sense if GA6 becomes "Copyright violations are evil" instead of "You may not fail a GA nomination simply because no images are present."

If we want to directly address the issue of WP:COPYVIO in text, then perhaps it should be part of "well-written" -- or perhaps we just need to have seven criteria instead of six. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just change it to something like "The article should be free of any issues related to copyright violation. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I share your desire to maintain stability in the criteria and their numbering, so I am reluctant to propose changes. However, in this case, I believe there is a good case, with minimal drawbacks. As you point out, criterion 6 is often quoted for what GA doesn't require, i.e., images. This is actually footnote 6, which could be attached both to criteria 1 and 6, and quotes of GA6 would still make sense in that context. Criterion 6 is rarely quoted for the use of captions. It is this aspect of the criterion which sits more naturally with criterion 1. Geometry guy 10:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to changing what is currently footnote #6 to anything that you like, as I doubt that anyone would expect those numbers to remain consistent indefinitely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

C'mon guys, real reviewers don't use the criteria numbers :-) --Philcha (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

They often use {{GAList}} and its relatives.

Let me be plain here. The concern which prompted this suggestion is that GA doesn't have a clear focus. Many view it as a stepping stone, a poor man's FA, or just an unreliable check by an independent editor. By and large the criteria are not to blame for this, but if you look through them, you will find that the obvious wet blanket is the part of criterion 6 which says "images are nice, but not required". My view on this is similar to my view on the idea that "MoS compliance is recommended but required for GA": it is wishy-washy. Each criterion should have a clear mission to improve the encyclopedia by eradicating a problem, one article at a time. No time should be given to things which are recommended but not required: that destroys focus. Criterion 6 does have a mission (eliminate image copyright violations) embedded in it, but by confusing this with a separate half-hearted mission (make Wikipedia articles interesting, easy to read) it loses its focus. My proposal is that the mission to make Wikipedia articles interesting for readers should be part of criterion 1. Geometry guy 20:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I like your concept. My reaction to the "recommended but not required" bits is that it's an effort to raise the bar against consensus. No experienced editor would (e.g.,) oppose compliance with MoS, so everyone more or less agrees that it's nice and "recommended", and then it turns into "Well, yes, the article technically meets the criteria, but I expect you to jump through these extra hoops, because I personally don't pass articles that don't comply with my pet sections of the MoS -- and it's 'recommended', after all..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree and am against raising the bar for GAs. In regard to the criteria, for me the key is to articulate the bare minimum requirements for GAs in a way that every editor and reviewer can easily relate to, so that substandard articles are not listed and acceptable articles are, with much more consistency (and fewer iterations) than at present. The criteria should be summarizable in single adjectives, along the lines of "Is it readable, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and free?" (these may not be the best adjectives, but you get the idea), so that new editors and reviewers pick up the idea quickly. Geometry guy 21:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We got slightly distracted. In order to take the discussion forward, per WP:BRD I'd like to make some edits to the criteria in the next few days to reflect this thinking, hoping that other interested editors will help me to stay on track, and not take the criteria to a place that is unlikely to meet with consensus. This is probably the easiest way to indicate the (relatively minor) changes I have in mind, and allay concerns about them. Geometry guy 22:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Separate discussion on MEDRS/V issues

It turns out that the citation requirements for FAC are exactly the same as for GA. Just whatever it takes to satisfy WP:V. So that should be good enough for GA also. Plus, medical articles should follow Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) in addition to Scientific citation guidelines. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:V is open to interpretation, especially when it comes to inline citations (what does "challenged or likely to be challenged" mean in practice? Should a frivolous or ill-informed challenge count and what is a "likely" challenge?). GA2 attempts to capture the bare minimum acceptable (but still strict and non-negotiable) interpretation of verifiability. WP:MEDRS isn't explicitly part of the GA criteria, although it no doubt contains good advice. However, the message in criterion 2 has been strong and stable for nearly 2 years, and I'm happy with it. I'd like all the criteria to be similarly compelling. Geometry guy 22:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that article like Münchausen by Internet can get passed as legitimate psychiatric diagnoses. This type of thing is the ban of the related projects seeking to remove the trash under Psychology and Psychiatry projects. A long time ago I stuck WP:MEDRS under GAN. It did prevent Homosexual transexual from passing. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what "stuck WP:MEDRS under GAN" involved? Thanks. Geometry guy 23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, FAC requires every citation to be written out in full, in a perfectly consistent format, down the the last bit of punctuation -- literally: the warning at WP:CITE about not mixing {{Cite}} with {{Citation}} is entirely due a difference of a single period between the two templates, and the number of FACs that were failed over it. WP:V does not require such perfection of form. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am going to bow out of this whole discussion. I have struck out my views. I don't have any more to say on any GA matter. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Five thoughts about the criteria

Notwithstanding small refinements, the core criteria haven't changed for a long time. Consistent criteria is important though if we are to maintain confidence in the project among the community. We balance adapting the criteria to fit current practices with avoiding instruction creep and increasing use of clauses or small print quite well I think. I've jotted down some thoughts about possible tweaks:

Intro: A good article is a satisfactory article that has not met the criteria for featured articles. The good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles.

Explaining what something is by saying it's not some other probably unfamiliar thing, is partially useful at best. Additionally, decent is a positive term implying quality; satisfactory is less positive, implying mediocrity. The first sentence could be replaced by something like "Good articles are those assessed to be of good quality against a set of defined criteria." That's still tautological though.

2) (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

We can trim this. Instead of "...that are challenged or likely to be challenged", I suggest "...that are likely to be challenged". If a statement is challenged, then it was probably not unlikely that it would be so. It's worth considering the audience of the scientific citation guidelines notice recently moved out of footnoting. It's largely those writing science-oriented articles under a WikiProject, or those who have decided to approach such articles to review. For me, that raises a question mark over the merits of the move. Actually, the list of what must carry in-line citations is long. Even guidelines within the featured article sphere don't extend that far.

See also: Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles: this is a detailed treatment on the mechanics of reviewing an article for GA status.

I can't think of better wording at the moment, but '[a] detailed treatment on the mechanics of reviewing' strikes me as wrong for that document. It's more a gentle and helpful introduction for new and potential new reviewers.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day ... Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. ...

Although I agree with the rest of the sentence, stability is in question with proposals to split or merge content. Reviewing in the midst of announced & pending total rewrites/splits/merges that might happen at any time is not practical, particularly worthwhile, nor fair on the reviewer. Contributors should resolve the proposals by acting or removing the tags, then proceed with the nomination.

What is not a good article? (lists, stubs and the like)

Should this heading be changed to "What cannot be a g..."? Oh, I see it complements the earlier heading. Still. –Whitehorse1 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

About the "proposed" splits and merges: Sometimes a proposed merge has only trivial effects on the merge target. I've done several "merges" that look like "delete all the content on this new stub, and redirect it to this much better article", with -- at most -- the introduction of an alternate name at the top of the target article.

Also, it's unfair to the nominator to say "Ooops, some troll just proposed splitting this article, and while it's obvious that everyone opposes it, we're going to punish you for his decision to propose a split by quick-failing the article."

A rational reviewer should certainly look at any proposals. If they look like to be accepted, the reviewer should encourage the noms to withdraw the article. If the reviewer thinks it's a waste of time, then s/he is always free to choose some other article to review instead. We only say here that the existence of a suggestion about major changes is not grounds for failing the article. Normal editing, which includes merges, should never stop during the review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There are some useful thoughts here. I had planned to return to this topic and the above proposed minor restructuring this weekend, but got, erm, distracted by real life. I will try to find time early next week. Geometry guy 21:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations for living persons: contentious material, or all material? (Criterion 2b)

Criterion 2b includes "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for ... contentious material relating to living persons". I suggest that per WP:BLP the qualification "contentious" be removed and this criterion should apply to any material relating to living persons. WP:BLP does not require inline citations, but it does require that all biographical material about a living person be verifiable. The only distinction that WP:BLP makes for contentious material is "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Comments? --Uncia (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that any and all biographical material require in-line citation. That will quickly lead to annoying over-citation. Majoreditor (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That would imply that every sentence in a BLP should be cited. I don't support that. Geometry guy 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How does availability of sources affect GA criteria?

Does the availability of sources have an effect on how an article is being evaluated with regard to GA status? For example, if a section of an article cannot be improved because there are no additional reliable sources, would the article still possibly be a GA even if there is some content "missing"?  Cs32en  12:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how significant the missing content is. GAs are not required to be comprehensive, simply to adequately cover the main topics of their subject. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My basic question is however: Does GA mean "good work, given the circumstances" or does it not take into account these circumstance, implying that some articles (where few reliable information is available) will very likely never become GAs? In many such cases, it is not easy to say how significant the missing content is, precisely because reliable sources on such content do not exist.  Cs32en  13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that an egregious gap may well prevent an article meeting criterion 3a. Sometimes one solution can be for the article itself to state that information is scant in a particular area (though that statement should of course come from a reliable source too). Another solution can be to narrow the focus of the article, avoiding the problem. As Malleus says, it depends on the article. EyeSerene^talk 16:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Moni. I'd go even further and say that if there really are few reliable sources then I'd be questioning whether there ought to be an article at all, not whether it could ever be a GA. If there are few reliable sources for one aspect of a topic, then the scope of the article would have to be carefully defined to exclude what can't be known. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the details, but, speaking generally, if the article covers all of the territory that the reliable sources do, then it is "complete", even if you are left wishing that human knowledge were more advanced than it is. For example: The cause of a particular cancer may be entirely unknown. An article about that cancer is not permanently incomplete (until -- or if -- they figure out the cause). Articles are never incomplete simply because information that a reader would hope (or even expect) to discover there is not yet known. "Contains all the information that can be verified by a reliable source" really is the definition of completeness as far as Wikipedia is concerned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider it complete if it did not mention "causes" or made vagues statements regarding "causes" with no attribution? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If I (as a reviewer) were aware that no information about "causes" were known, I would consider the article complete despite an absence of a statement like "The cause is unknown." I have no objection to including such a lack-of-information statement, but I would not consider it necessary -- unless the absence of an identified cause were a big deal in the reliable sources. (Think AIDS, before they isolated HIV.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that completeness does depend on the current state of knowledge - no-one would expect to find the cure for cancer here, but they should expect a sourced treatment of the current state of research in the field. If (hypothetically) we are dealing with a medical article, and it lacked some (or maybe even one, if it's important) of the sections that WP:MOSMED suggests, I'd want to know why. It's ultimately the reader we're trying to serve, so I think we need to consider how they'd react to an obvious gap. If a section is missing, is it because no information exists? Or is the author's research insufficient? If the former, why is there no information? The last question would certainly cause me to look again at the article as a whole - as Mal points out it may be an indication of notability or OR issues; the subject could be too recent for sufficient reliable sources to exist. EyeSerene^talk 09:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, "treatment" is a better example of what I was getting at. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability

After the absolute farce that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who campfire trailer, there should be a notability clause added to the criteria similar to one for FAs. It's a no-brainer, actually: GAs are supposed to pass all of our policies and guidelines, including notability. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt texts part of WP:WIAGA?

WP:CAPTIONS and WP:IMAGES, both of which are linked from WP:WIAGA, mention alt texts; WP:CAPTIONS expressly asks for them. Is there currently a clear consensus to what extent the presence and condition of alt texts form part of the GA criteria? --JN466 00:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to articles of any kind are always encouraged, but alt texts are not required by the GA criteria. Geometry guy 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Aargh, no! I don't even think alt text ought to be part of the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, --JN466 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

wp:quote

A proposal to promote this essay is underway.174.3.113.245 (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Jargon and MOSDEF

Criterion 1(b) says that the article must comply with the manual of style guidelines for [...] jargon. "Jargon" links to WP:MOSDEF, which has been recently marked as "inactive and is retained for historical reference".

This page should be updated accordingly. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an adequate replacement, so I've removed it. The GA criteria are intended to focus on the basics, rather than the minutiae of the MOS, and jargon has not been a significant issue in my experience: where jargon is a problem, I think it can be handled well by criterion 1a (as unnecessarily incomprehensible prose). Geometry guy 20:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What about linking the word "clear" in criterion 1(a) to the "Clarity" subsection on the main page of the MOS? That seems to be what happened to the MOS stuff on jargon-- it got elevated to the main page. Perhaps it would be better to add some text after "clear", and link to it:

(a) the prose is clear as described in the MOS, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

I have found unnecessary jargon to be a significant issue for articles in science and technology. Even in articles broadly construed as science or technology there are instances of it (for example, in articles on animals or weather phenomena). Jargon is not a problem for the article's author or their scholarly peers, but for the average users of Wikipedia. I believe complaints have been made outside of Wikipedia in the press about articles being too technical. That Good and Featured Articles minimize jargon is fundamental to the purpose of encyclopedia-- a free encyclopedia for everyone. So I think we need to be more explicit to encourage reviewers to check for it.

Respectfully, Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a link is a good idea and added one. Geometry guy 21:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Are images marked with a "Personality rights warning" acceptable in a Good Article?

I don't really find anything in the ga criteria about that specifically. Thx.- Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The GA criteria do not address directly the issue of personality rights, so it is not a GA issue per se. However, you can ask whether images are appropriate to the content. For instance, if the role of the image is simply to identify the subject, is it the best free image available to do so? Or is such identification important within the context of the article? Advice from Commons about personality rights may also be helpful. Geometry guy 22:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:IUP#Privacy_rights for the English Wikipedia's rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not Notable GA? Proposal to Amend GA Criteria

I need some guidance. I'm reviewing a BLP for GA right now. I have raised concerns that the person is not notable. The nominator came back with "that's not one of the GA criteria." I'm fine with placing a hold until he comes up with more sources that show it is notable, but what do I tell him regarding his charge that it isn't one of the criteria? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You tell him that one of the wikipedia criteria is notability, nothing to do with GA. Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's seems true that notability is not a GA criteria. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, no, notability is not a criteria for WP. It's a guideline. Which is why it is not mentioned at either WIAGA/WIAFA. One can argue if the topic is covered comprehensively, or if it's adequately sourced, but notability probably cannot be a direct cause to prevent an article from reaching GA. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So I could promote this article to GA and then MfD it? Something seems inherently wrong with that. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

AFD, not MFD (minor matter). If it is notable, it can be a GA; if it is not notable, it shouldn't be an article at all and should be sent to AFD. If you're uncertain about its notability, you can take it to AFD to assess whether or not it is notable. GA criteria have nothing to do with it. Ucucha 02:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the GA criteria be amended to stop such objections in the future. I'd like to add a 7th criteria: A good article is notable. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles on topics that are not notable should not exist at all; it is redundant to add that to the GA criteria. Ucucha 03:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that these criteria need to be expanded. Editors should normally send non-notable subjects (especially BLPs) for deletion whenever they are encountered. There's nothing about listing an article at GA that is supposed to stop normal, everyday editing -- including AfDs when necessary, as well as more common editing tasks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If everyone did what they should do we wouldn't need guidelines or policies at all. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(I also believe that a subject that isn't notable will always result in an article that fails GAC's sourcing requirements.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. I went over the sourcing requirements carefully, and there is nothing in there. None of the policies they point to, point to WP:N. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of criteria 2 and 3 of WP:GACR it is de facto presumed that the article meets the notability standards when it comes before a GA nomination, and it should be considered notable if it is a GA. And no, being a GA doesn't exempt the article from not being notable, but I don't exactly think that's what the situation reflects.

— GA's Don't Need to be Notable?, MuZemike 03:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone agree or disagree with the above? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The criteria does not need to include requirements about notability, this is already a cornerstone of article inclusion on Wikipedia (elements in the criteria such as sourcing, acceptable grammar, being broad, etc. are not requirements for all articles on Wikipedia to be included, although they are beneficial). If articles are determined to be notable, then they will remain on Wikipedia, and if it then meets the criteria, it can become a GA. We don't need to expand the criteria to cover what should already be expected of an article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Expectations should be explicit, not implicit. If we expect GAs to be notable, we should say so. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability is an inclusion guideline for WP, but it is not the inclusion guideline; the only constant requirement for inclusion is 1) information is not indiscriminate (per WP:FIVE), makes no original claims (WP:NOR) or biases (WP:NPOV) and that it is sourced to reliable third-party sources (WP:V). Meeting notability solves most of these, and why it's a good standard but it doesn't cover everything could be included, which is why WIAGA and WIAFA should avoid mentioning it and focus on what are standards are. Now, based on histories, I'm guessing that the article that brought this up was Jason Jones (programmer), which you can argue doesn't meet WP:N well (there's not a lot of secondary sources about the person), but certainly is not a failure of V, NPOV, or NOR; the only question is whether this is indiscriminate inclusion. Being the co-founder of one of the more successful game developers out there probably is a good enough line to say "ok, if we can write enough about this person, we should probably have an article on him". So, really, he is wikt:notable but not notable per our WP definition. This is in part why WP:N is such a contested standard because of cases like this where it doesn't fall easily into such classifications, and why Good Articles should avoid mentioning anything about this. GA Reviewers should consider the appropriate and discriminate nature of the topic within WP if notability is not obviously shown, but if the question persists during the review, it is probably best to seek a second opinion to resolve that. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That was a well-reasoned post, and you're right about what spurred my inquiry. It seems you're saying that the criteria should not be amended to include WP:N. What do you think I should do in the particular case of this GA review? What I've arrived at is: WP:GA states that: "Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality." An article which is not notable degrades the quality of the entire encyclopedia. Therefore, non-notable articles are de facto not good quality. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 16:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of this has to do with the use of the word "notable", as our WP-definition is not exactly the same as the english language definition, and this is one of the difficulties with notability in general. Not to necessary focus on one specific article, but I would argue that Jason Jones is wikt:notable ("worthy of note" due to his position and contributions to video gaming) but that he is not notable (there is a lack of secondary sources about him, and otherwise fails the other possible criteria at WP:BIO). The problem is, due to this whole inclusionist vs deletionist thing that is still there - not active but definitely at a simmer on a back burner, is that people will implicitly treat any use of the word "notable" as the WP definition - thus requiring it to meet the WP:general notability guideline or one of the specific sub-guidelines, even if the context is meant to be the english-language definition. It is a tempest in a teapot if "notability" is forced in GA criteria, which is unfortunately, in part, how WP:N came to be named. I would certainly agree that GA's should be topics that are wikt:notable, which is a much vaguer definition but is more accurate of WP's inclusion standards.

That said, understand what's trying to be done here, I would probably consider language that says that topics should meet WP's "inclusion guidelines". What those inclusion guidelines exactly are, well, WP:N's part of that, but by far not the extent of it. We also have WP:NOT which is sort of the inverse of inclusion guidelines, so that's part of it to. However, it is far less contestable language than anything surrounding "notability". --MASEM (t) 16:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try this again:

Noraft, if you think this article is about a non-notable person, then you do not need permission from this page to pursue deletion. Nominating a page as a GA does not interfere with your ability to pursue deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for permission to pursue deletion. I'm interested in fixing what I see as an inconsistency in the system. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no inconsistency in the system.

I see an absence of needless redundancy.

In this instance, I think that the lack of redundancy is desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't think a Good Article that fails WP:N is inconsistent? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that I do not believe that rehashing the deletion policy (i.e., that articles on non-notable subjects should be deleted) is within the scope of this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's not what I'm asking you: Do you think a Good Article that fails WP:N is inconsistent? Yes or no? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is not yet a GA. It only becomes a GA if you award it GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention a specific article, because I'm not talking about a specific article. WhatamIdoing has said that notability should not be a criterion for GA. So I'm asking: Does he think that a Good Article (which became one because it met the criteria) that doesn't meet WP:N is inconsistent? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 09:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a she, not a he.

I think it is entirely possible to write an article that meets GAC and that also does not happen to belong on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Because this page doesn't interfere with normal editing (including deletion), this page does not need to change a single jot or tittle for you to pursue deletion of a non-notable article (should you decide, of course, that it's actually non-notable. Personally, with 15 refs, I think you'd have some trouble getting it deleted at AfD).

What we don't want is a single GA reviewer to deny GA status because s/he individually and personally decides that the article "shouldn't" be notable -- and then leaving it there. If it's not notable, then get thee to WP:DEL and deal with it. Don't just say, "Well, it failed GA because I personally don't think it's a notable subject." That's as bad as someone denying GA because they think that there are too many GAs in a given topic area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I didn't mention which article it was, was so that we could argue the concept, and not have people get distracted by the details of the particular case. But since the cat's out of the bag, let's deal with it: Of the 15 refs, about 8 or 9 of them are primary sources (self-published), one doesn't mention the guy at all, and the rest mention the guy in one line, but none are about the article subject, which means the article subject is not notable, as WP:N says that a person must be the "subject of significant coverage," and he isn't the subject of a single article. All the articles are about HALO, and as Masen said above, he is wikt:notable ("worthy of note" due to his position and contributions to video gaming) but that he is not notable (there is a lack of secondary sources about him, and otherwise fails the other possible criteria at WP:BIO). Now can we please get back to the concept and drop the specific case? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The first question has to be is the article needed/necessary, if the answer to that is a definite "no" then why bother with rating it for quality. In a "black and white case", its irrelevant whether an article that is not needed is stub, start, GA, etc. However, sometimes its not entirely clear in the early stages of an article whether it is needed or not; and in this case looking at the "quality" aspects, particularly citations and references, as the article is developed can help decide whether any article is need or not, but that should have been decided long before such an article is considered for GA. For that reason, I'm against modifying the GA assessment criteria to include a specific decision whether an article should be submitted for deletion or not - which is really what this proposal is all about. Pyrotec (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is about amending the criteria to say an article must be notable to be a GA, not submitting it for deletion. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 14:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

N.B. that I made no claim about whether the specific BLP is notable or not: I said only that you might have trouble getting it deleted at AfD.

The quality of source review that one typically sees from certain active editors at AfD does not give me confidence that the relevant details about these sources would even be noticed before the nom was swamped with responses of "there are 15 sources!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In my view, Masem, Nehrams and WhatamIdoing have presented a clear case as to why notability should not be part of the GA criteria. While most reviews and reviewers do an excellent job, basing their reviews purely on the criteria, "I don't like it" is still a frequent issue. Notability, and hence deletion, is a matter for community discussion, not GA reviews. A lack of reliable secondary sources is very likely to be a GA problem, as such sources are needed to satisfy criterion 2(b) for all but the blandest of articles. Bios are rarely bland in this sense, as they almost always contain statements for which primary sources cannot be considered reliable. Geometry guy 20:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Masem, Nehrams and WhatamIdoing's clear case allows for a Good Article to be promoted that fails WP:N. Am I the only person that sees something wrong with this? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There are two different sets of criteria, applied in different ways by different processes. "Does this article satisfy criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia?" is a question settled in various places, but for your notability concerns is best dealt with at AFD. "Does this article pass certain quality standards that would entitle it to GA status?" is a question dealt with using the GA processes (here GAN and GAR). Just like FAC and FAR, neither the GAN nor GAR processes contain provisions to delete an article, even if consensus exists in discussion there that an article should be removed. Deletion decisions have to be handled via AFD and "notability" is a deletion criterion, not a GA criterion. No article is "notable enough to avoid deletion, but not notable enough to satify the good article criteria" - but if an article actually is determined to be non-notable at AFD, it should be turned into a non-article, and there is no such process as Wikipedia:Good Non-articles :) Which is why Masem, Nehrams and WhatamIdoing are not producing a contradictory conclusion. If when writing a good article review you conclude that the article may not be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, that is only your personal perspective - you don't have the right to make the final determination on the article's fate, because the appropriate process with that responsibility is AFD, which is consensus-driven. You do however have the right to nominate, or argue for, the deletion of the article if you feel it fails the notability criteria. You can always put the GA review "on hold" while AFD makes a determination on notability for inclusion; given how long a GA review takes, and the relative efficiency of AFD, this wouldn't set the review process back too severely! TheGrappler (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good, clear response. I understand completely. I wonder if how these two processes intersect shouldn't be mentioned somewhere. Maybe an essay? Then if this comes up again, someone can just point the person to the essay. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably it doesn't deserve a full essay, but it might be worth ensuring it's written somewhere. Maybe in a FAQ? "It's not notable" a common objection at WP:FAC too, and is always brushed aside there. TheGrappler (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we add a catch-all criterium for GA, as well as all other assessments, which basically reads "The article meets all relevant criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia." If the GA assessment concludes that it does not, it should be sent to AfD, where the actual decision about a deletion is being made.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have come up against the lack of a reference to WP:N among the WP:GACR issue, too. I have read the above discussion. However, I think I have some arguments to add.

Many made the point that GA review and notability can be handled separately, with an AFD taking care of the latter. However, in my (admittedly short) experience with the two processes, an AFD is a community process that doesn't require the constuctive participation of the article's author (not even his being an active user anymore), while a GA review is a more interactive and "friendly" matter. That is, if WP:N would be a GA criterion, as a GA reviewer, I wouldn't have to pass judgement on notability outright, but could assume an active and willing editor who is out to improve his/her article to look for and (if finding any) add RS that satisfy notability, before resorting to forcing his/her hand with the threat of deletion. (If the author and reviewer dispute whether sources already used fulfil the notability requirements, that will have to end up in AFD anyway; but Noraft's case wasn't like that.)

The point was also made that GA criteria 2 and 3 sort of implicitely cover notability. This however is not the case: notability requirements on sources are more strict. In particular, the multiple source and independent of the subject criteria. We even have an explicit WP:NNC to protect article content from the application of the more strict criteria.

Finally, the point was made that WP:GACR shouldn't re-hash other guidelines. I don't get that point, because most WP:GACR points, especially 1.b, do nothing but.

In conclusion, I emphasize again that it's for the sake of the constructive atmosphere of the GA review that I wish WP:N was among the criteria. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A good article should have good enough sourcing to pass the notability criteria. Diderot's dreams (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Having enough sourcing is covered by WP:V, criterion 2. Geometry guy 19:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out, "good enough" for WP:N is more strong than enough for WP:V. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing is covered by WP:V. WP:N conflates sourcing with other subjective criteria such as "significant coverage" in "generally multiple" reliable secondary sources "independent of the subject". Further, it discusses notability for a "stand-alone article" and hence ties notability to other editorial decisions such as spin-outs and mergers. The GA process deals with one article at a time.

I sympathise with your request, because GA is a very successful project, which encourages a collegiate atmosphere to foster article improvement. By all means make use of that atmosphere to encourage better sourcing of articles. However, if there is a genuine problem with the implementation of notability guidelines and a lack of collegiate atmosphere at AfD or related areas of the encyclopedia, then those issues should be addressed directly, not dumped at the door of GA to sort out. GA generally only sees articles once they have reached a certain level of preparedness, and is neither tasked with nor competent to handle the encyclopedia-wide question of notability, mergers, spinouts, or deletions. Geometry guy 22:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The general notability criterion is a very specific one, even defining each of its terms such as "significant coverage" and "independent coverage". It has been carefully specified because of the debates and scrutiny at AfD. The general notabliity criterion decides if a specific article can exist by how well it is sourced, specifically by the quality of its overall sourcing, not just for a few specific facts that the GA requirement requires a reliable source (and for some information, the source can be a primary one). We need something that judges the article's sourcing as a whole, and specifically requires some independent, secondary sourcing. The general notability criterion does just that. Even if it may be a bit weak, it is better than nothing, which is what we technically have now. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"The general notability criterion decides if a specific article can exist". I wish you well improving practice in that area, but it is not the business of GA. Geometry guy 00:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

On-topic comment: I agree with Geometry guy. If an article is probably non-notable, then don't volunteer to review it. Instead, take it to AFD and find out whether it's actually notable. If that seems too harsh, then tag it with {{Notability}} or leave a note about your concerns for any editors who may be working on the article.

Slightly off-topic comment: The GNG does not determine whether an article may exist. Notability—the whole thing, spread across multiple pages, of which GNG is only one (important) fraction of one page—determines whether an article may exist. In particular, something that meets GNG but fails NOT is non-notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The situation prompting my questions is not that I'd think the article is probably non-notable, but the opposite: that I think the article is probably notable, and the necessary additional sources which the author could add likely exist. (Geometry guy seems to have found it already, but for full disclosure, my case is this.) I may miss something because of lack of experience, but I don't get why it should be a problem to just include a note on notability in a GA review, where a positive reaction can be expected, and how that would be the dumping of a problem at GA's door. It just seems less bother, rather than more bother. If a positive reply isn't forthcoming, then there is a problem, and then I would tag with {{Notability}}, leave notes on Discussion pages, or slap an AfD on the article anyway. --Rontombontom (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Single-sourcing?

I'm looking at a potential GA candidate at the moment, and mulling over the sourcing. Currently, it's almost entirely drawn from a single source - it's a respectably scholarly secondary source, and it's scrupulously footnoted, so the reliability isn't an issue, but it doesn't feel quite right that something could go to GA without multiple sources; it's something I'd certainly pick up on myself when reviewing. On the other hand, it's not in the criteria. Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 17:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in principle with a GA being primarily based on a single reliable secondary source. However if other sources are available on the topic then the article could easily fail for lack of broadness or neutral point of view, as the single source may approach the topic from a particular perspective. If instead other sources are not available then the "secondary" nature of the source falls into question; this is not automatically a problem for obscure topics. A good reviewer will be alert to all of these issues and I think that is reflected in your own uneasiness concerning the article you have in mind. Geometry guy 23:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Material likely to be challenged

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:What the Good article criteria are not, I feel that this statement:

2b=it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

should be changed to:

2b=it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, and any material challenged or likely to be challenged, particularly material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

Thoughts? SilkTork *^YES! 10:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Shorter than the previous wording without really removing anything, and encapsulating site-wide consensus. I like it. —WFC— 11:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll give this 2 more days so that the discussion has been open for seven days, and if there are no objections I will make the amendment. SilkTork *^YES! 14:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I support this change, as the GA criteria should reflect the policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure about this. Unlike WFC I do think this removes something important, and opens the floodgates to those who'll demand that every single sentence is cited no matter how uncontroversial or self-evident its contents. On balance I'd say that this would be a retrograde step. Malleus Fatuorum 14:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Malleus. As I've said at Wikipedia talk:What the Good article criteria are not, I think the current GA guidance provides a working definition of WP:V which enables writers and reviewers to adopt a sensible position midway between this sort of nonsense and a complete absence of verification. A strict interpretation of WP:V would force us to require every article to have in-line cites approaching FA-standard; although this is probably an ideal we should work towards, for purely pragmatic reasons I don't believe it's desirable (outside WP:BLP articles) to enforce such a requirement at GA. EyeSerene^talk 15:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Malleus and EyeSerene (and likely also Whatamidoing) that this would be a retrograde step. I have already commented here and here on my reasoning. The GA criteria are neither official policy nor guidelines concerning mainspace content. They are addressed instead at optimizing an important behind-the-scenes reviewing process. Confusing the roles of content policies with process guidelines is fallacious. Whereas "challenged or likely to be challenged" is an acceptable compromise of multiple views as a content policy, it is unacceptably vague for a one nominator, one reviewer process such as GA. As EyeSerene and others articulate very well here and elsewhere, the current guidelines encourage verifiability without encouraging reviewers to impose personal standards on inline citations. The proposed change would be harmful to that balance. Geometry guy 21:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable to read an article or make some small edits without feeling that one has to implement policy, but if one is to make any sort of standardised deliberate audit of an article then policy shouldn't be ignored, especially if there is to be a quasi-official stamp of approval placed on that article afterwards in the form of a green tag. Individual perspectives regarding policy wording should be discussed on the appropriate policy page, and until such policy wording is changed, guidelines, including those of WikiProjects, should not contradict policy or encourage people to ignore policy. We aim to work together in harmony, and if we disagree, then there are appropriate routes to voice our disagreement.

I had always assumed that GA criteria followed policy, and it was only when Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not was written with the wording: "If an article contains none of these five types of statements, then Wikipedia:Citing sources#General references may be used," which was encouraging people to ignore the policy wording of "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" and substitute instead "counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" which is a weaker directive. Encouraging people to ignore policy and to allow challengable material to remain uncited is against the ethos of Wikipedia and the rigorous academic standards a general encyclopedia needs if it is to gain and retain the trust of the general reader.

Material doesn't need to be controversial or counter-intuitive to justify sourcing. "Highclere Castle was designed by J. M. Barrie" appears to be a straightforward statement. Not controversial or counter-intuitive. Somebody designed the place. Yet someone who either knows architecture or literature might question that statement and wish to have a source. The person who entered the statement made a small slip, and it should read "Highclere Castle was designed by Charles Barry". Such slips are common, and should be challenged. I would ask for a cite for any statement which names somebody as having done something - this avoids mistakes being perpetuated.

"Barbara Cartland was a qualified pilot" Cartland has a close association with aviation and has been given awards for her contributions to gliding, so it would be reasonable to assume she was a pilot. Not controversial or counterintuitive, though I would like a cite for any claim that somebody can do something.

"Barbara Cartland's ashes were scattered in the back garden of Buckingham Palace", "Barbara Cartland was buried in a cardboard box", "Barbara Cartland was buried under a tree planted by Queen Elizabeth I." None of those statements are controversial or counterintuitive, yet one is incorrect. Rather than attempt to narrow down and define what material is likely to be challenged (as it would depend on circumstances) it seems more reasonable to leave the policy wording as it. The wording is quite useful.

Not everything needs citing, but if it is likely to be challenged then it does make sense to cite it - after all, the information came from somewhere. I agree with the notion that it should be made clear to reviewers that they should not be asking for a cite for every paragraph or a certain number of cites for the size of the article, but it seems quite appropriate to direct reviewers to the actual policy wording rather than a localised interpretation.

• If there's a problem with the policy wording, then address concerns to the policy page. It is not appropriate for WikiiProjects, groups, individuals or GA criteria to encourage users to undermine policy.

• Encouraging reviewers to employ GA criteria rather than imposing their own views is an excellent aim, and using the policy wording will not impede this - indeed, the GA criteria could set a good example by showing that it follows the policy wording.

I didn't think this proposal would be controversial. I have read the above objections, and I don't quite understand them. I don't think the example of somebody asking for a cite for the fact that humans have five fingers is reasonable. We can't legislate against vandalism or stupidity! I have faith that most users use common sense, and when in doubt will consult guidelines and policy. It seems appropriate that when they do consult, that they don't see confusing conflicts of advise. SilkTork *^YES! 09:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you describe very well the approach a good reviewer would adopt, and fortunately there are many of these working at GA. However, as I've mentioned elsewhere, interpreting "challenged or likely to be challenged" essentially boils down to "I know it when I see it", which is a subjective approach that sets a worthy aspirational goal for all articles but I don't believe is of much practical assistance to editors. Admittedly my example of the fingers is extreme, but the fact is that the statement was challenged and should therefore be cited by a strict interpretation of WP:V. You're absolutely correct to point out that in reality we take a decision about the reasonableness of the challenge... but in doing so, we accept that in practice there are exceptions to the policy as written, even if they aren't enumerated on the policy page.

This is where I believe the GA guidance comes in. At some point between "cite everything" and "cite nothing" we have to decide what constitutes an acceptable level of verification that neither demotivates article writers nor damages article credibility, and define this in a way that leads to consistent, reproducible standards. Over time we've established Wikipedia-wide community norms that answer questions like "what is a valid challenge?" and "how 'likely' is 'likely'?"; in my view the current GA guidance quite successfully attempts to set out these norms in a way consistent with other GA standards. I'll happily accept that the guidance could be better written - your Barbara Cartland example might indicate a need for further thought, though perhaps not every reviewer would ask for a cite there - but I can't agree that there is a fundamental contradiction here between WP policy and GA practice. EyeSerene^talk 14:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why so many templates on the actual criteria page?

I was looking to remove some list redundancy (images: ...(a) images are...(b) images are...), but I guess everything is automated by bots and so forth so I can't actually edit the criteria. Why don't we just have actual prose on this page? Reviewers and bots can link to the templates as necessary, clarifying the "images are..." part if the article in question violates only a single subdivision. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 15:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You can make changes at Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC. Keeping everything in one template has the virtue of synchronizing all of the pages automatically.

Do you want to remove the subject and verb from 6a and 6b? I'm not sure that's appropriate, because they were written in that style to be parallel with the first three criteria's sub-points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple years ago, my rewrite created parallelism in a different form. I see that form was changed so each sub-criteria could be viewed as individual during reviews and so forth. That's fine, since, unlike FACs, the criteria are broken down point-by-point on talkpages. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 23:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Good articles and inline citations

In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#On_citing_every_sentence I make a claim that modern day GAs require that all sentences (barring obvious case) require an inline citation. Some editors disagree. Perhaps some GA reviewers would like to chip in there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See criterion 2b. Such intense/prescriptive inline citation is not even required at FA level. Geometry guy 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to amend Stability criteria

At present, the age of an article is not an explicit criteria although it is an implicit stability criteria. As you know it takes time to allow a number of interested editors to discover an article and to vet it. I just reviewed an article that was nominated less than a day and a half after it was created. I don't even know if the new page patrol has finished reviewing it before it became a GA nominee. The article also had a merger proposal tag on it. This should be grounds for a quick fail, if it is not expressly so already. Accordingly, I propose to amend criteria 5 to read:

5. Stable:

(a) it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5]
(b) it has been created at least 60 days prior to its nomination, and

(c) it is not the subject of a pending merger or renaming request.

I welcome the guidance and thoughts of others. By way of reference to some examples, please see La Stazione and Netball at the Olympics. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket, I would feel more comfortable about this if you had disclosed that you have been heavily involved in a contentious collection of GA nominations relating to this, and that you were the editor who added the merge proposal you mentioned above. I think it would be best to save substantial proposals like this one until some time when you are less embedded in related content disputes. -Pete (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I add that (c) seems ill-advised to me. We don't want to let a strongly opposed merge (or split) proposal, or a trivial re-naming ("Alice Jones (doctor)" to "Alice Jones (physician)"), to interfere with GA work. Establishing such a rule basically means that any thoughtless or bad-faith editor can sabotage a nomination at will, merely by proposing a merger or renaming. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would add that (b) runs counter to experience with articles. We have had articles pass FAC without 60 days' existence. Good content is good content regardless of purported age; the converse is also true where bad content will be bad content regardless of age. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO not mentioned in WIAGA

• I've been here just days short of five years, and never noticed that WP:COPYVIO, a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations, is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in WIAGA. It is mentioned in Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, but buried at the bottom, and as a minuscule exception in the "Beyond the Scope" section.
• Read that last bit again, please, mentally underlining the words "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations". I urge the addition of 2(d): It contains no copyright violations.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's never going to possible to guarantee that an article has no copyright violations, so I'm not sure I see the value of such an addition. The best one can ever say is that no copyright violations have been found. Malleus Fatuorum 15:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, quite. Maybe some woolly wording like "no readily apparent copyright violations". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• If no wording is included, no one will even bother to check. The point of WIAGA is not to say that the resulting GA is free of copyvio; it is to say that the reviewer has looked and did not find any. I think that is understood. I don't even think any "no readily apparent" hedging is necessary.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• But your wording is quite explicit: "It [the article] contains no copyright violations", a guarantee that's impossible to give. The GA reviewing guidelines already say that "The article should not copy text from sources without quotation or in text attribution"; that not all reviewers always at least do a spot-check, examine the sources for suspicious phrasings, or have even read the guidelines at all, is not likely to be addressed by adding anything to the GA citeria. Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Agree with Malleus here. re: If no wording is included, no one will even bother to check.; while I understand the great desire here to always ensure that we produce the very best article(s) we can, I can't agree with that. MANY of those at GA and FA do extensive reviewing before making a determination. Naturally there's going to be a higher level of "eyes on" in FA than GA (I won't even get into DYK), but that doesn't mean that GA just gives a "free pass" on COPYVIO or PLAG. — Ched :  ?  16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• The "except copyvios" language was added by Geometry guy about a year ago. I have no objection to mentioning copyright issues, although I think it's more an issue of "Well-written" than "Factually accurate and verifiable". I'd also be willing to make it a separate, seventh criteria. Perhaps something like "it contains no obvious copyright violations" would be adequate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• The first comment is not entirely accurate: Copyright/Copyvio can refer to both text and images. Copyright of images is specifically covered by 6 (a) and that is grounds for not "listing" an GAN; copyvios in text is (partially) covered by the 2 (a)/(b) verifiability checks, but these checks do not necessary go as far as finding & "proving" Copyvios, which is what the DYKers have started doing on existing GAs. Don't forget that these checks would cover both electronic and printed sources; so if implemented reviewers would not be able to check any text that was covered by book and accademic journal (both printed and electronic on subscription-only sites) citations unless they had access. How many reveiwers have to hand, for instance any or all of the books cited in the nominations they review, and unless you have a readers ticket for a university library many journals are unaccessible; also what about foreign language texts, I've taken on trust Crilic font references since I can't translate them (Norwegian, Spanish, etc, for instance I can check with a combination of Google and a dictionary, even if I can't say the words out loud). Pyrotec (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• My first comment was entirely accurate. Copyright of images is in an entirely different mental space (apples and oranges) than copyvio of text when the reader processes that section of WIAGA. Your argument that one covers the other is abstruse and unrealistic.As for the second argument, "Who has journals?", that is a dodgy tack as well. Just because something is difficult to do doesn't give us license to say "F*ck it, it's too darn difficult. Screw WP:COPYVIO." That is just an irresponsible attitude. Moreover, I have also addressed this concern from another direction in an earlier post (above): no one should thiink that aa GAN is guaranteed to be free from copyvio, but GAN reviewers should be required to make a Good faith full effort to check for it. It's policy, after all... Let's be clear: no one is forcing anyone to do anything, but if you do nothing about copyvio, then you shout "Meh!" at the heart of the 5 Pillars.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ling Nut, you are writting Bullshit and deliberately misrepresenting what I have stated above and selectively using Good faith when to suits your purposes. Images are covered by copyright (it's also made explict in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, 3) and they are covered in WP:WIAGA 6(a), so that leaves text. As Malleus has already pointed out your proposal is requiring a guarantee of no copyright violation - nowhere does your proposal mention Good faith full effort. I was merely expanding on Malleus' comment that your proposed 2(d) requirement in practice means that everyone reviewing a GAN has to have access to the full set of references used in that nomination. You've obvious had little or no experience of GAs with a comment like "Who has journals?", but you use big words such as abstruse and unrealistic. What is " "Meh!", is this some of the bullshit that you routinely use. Pyrotec (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• There's a big difference between doing nothing and doing what can reasonably be done. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• That is one of my points. You recall that you and I have talked about "eating my own dog food" with respect to the comment on my user page that GA is the place where writers should be trained. Well, GA is not FA, and FA is not dissertation, and dissertation is not publication by CUP or OUP. But even at the GA level (the bottom rung of that ladder, if everyone will forgive me for putting it that way), academic values need to be taught and propagated and supported, even if they are not perfected. I think we need to codify the idea that GA reviewers need to make a full and good faith effort to verify that there is no copyvio. The only place to codify such an idea is WIAGA.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with this. I think spotchecking is adequate - a lot can be learned, both by the person doing the spotchecking and the person whose work is checked. But on a more fundamental level, the problem is that many editors don't seem to understand that plopping in a copy/paste bit of work and slapping a ref tag after it constitutes copyvio. This kind of writing is propagated in schools in the US, though with antiplagiarism software that's beginning to change, but defining the mere existence of copyvio seems to be a big hurdle, in my view. Many either don't want to hear, don't believe it, or simply don't understand - this applies to reviewers as well as nominators. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• You may well be right, but I hope you aren't. When I was at primary school many, many years ago, we had regular lessons in what was then called English comprehension. Basically it consisted of either listening to a piece of text or reading it and then coming up with a precis in your own words. Malleus Fatuorum 05:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm an English as a Foreign Language teacher in a university in an Asian country, so this particular problem is my daily breakfast of toad (when school is in session). But that's neither here nor there. I think GA can be a training ground for academic values, and I think we owe it Wikipedia's readership (and by extension, our collective reputation) to at least make good faith efforts in this direction.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• No argument from me there. Malleus Fatuorum 05:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek has made some constructive comments on User talk:SandyGeorgia#Misallocation of effort on how Duplication detector might be used on online sources to find "duplicated texts" an how visual comparison is needed for Amazon and PFD files. Howwever that is not the full story, those on this page who selective use WP:AFG when it suits them need to recognise that not all such copyright violation is on wikipedia (wikipeida text and/or text on mirror sites) can appear in electronic and printed form and the false postive results can be obtained. Pyrotec (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
• There is still much "holier than thou" attitude on this page: having done two Masters in this decade: respecting copyright, avoiding pliagarism (putting short quotations in "quotes"), summarising and quoting sources were taught to me. I also have to assume (WP:AGF) that graduate students working on wikipedia have had similar training. I recognise that things can go wrong through no fault of the editor: perhaps the short quote was quoted in "quotes", but the next editor along removes the "quotes", someone else tries to use a longer quotation but forgets the "quotes",etc, etc. I've reviewed wikipedia educational assignments at GA (in 2009): my university lecturers did day-courses on copyvio and all student submission had to be through a anti-copyright violation package. Nevertheless, as a GAN reviewer, when initial evidence of copyright violations comes to light it can be quite difficult to know what to do with it. Various editors have and do assist in reveiwing educational assignment GANs. Ling.Nut (a teacher) makes the valid point "I think GA can be a training ground for academic values, and I think we owe it Wikipedia's readership (and by extension, our collective reputation) to at least make good faith efforts in this direction". Yes certainly, but I've not seen any evidence of these teachers, apart from one, making any constuctive effort in providing training and instruction to GAN reviewers, let alone GAN reviewers reviewing education assignment GANs particularly on instructing their students. They also seem entirely detached from reality: In one place it is being said by Ling in defence of DYK: "Copyvio/plagiarism is occasionally easy to spot (e.g., a sudden gem of brilliant prose parachuted into general mass of crap). However, more often than not, copyvio is quite difficult to catch. As we have discussed ad nauseum, downstream Wikifluvia makes determining "who said what, when" a very, very time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Given that, missing instances of copyvio is simply to be expected from any one reviewer, and even (to a lesser degree) from a group of reviewers. Simply put, it is a cost of doing information business on the Internet." and later at GAN is selectively feeding misquotations to SilkTork (who can't be bother to check the source) and comes up with I think Ling has a point. Awareness of copyvio is already implicit in criteria 2, and only poor reviewers will pass a GAN without looking at sources, in which an ordinary copyright violation would be observed. For someone who has done 87 GAN reviews that is somewhat a cavalier attitude: I very much doubt that he has checked all the sources, printed as well as electronic for copyright violations. Pyrotec (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) Adding 2(d): It contains no copyright violations is easy enough; a second question is, do we consider whether to add something about "full and good faith efforts of the reviewer" in the introductory text, or do we just let it remain unspoken but assumed?  – Ling.Nut (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think Ling has a point. Awareness of copyvio is already implicit in criteria 2, and only poor reviewers will pass a GAN without looking at sources, in which an ordinary copyright violation would be observed. However, some violations are hard to judge, and it would take an expert to make a decision, or even to spot the violation. Copying data from lists is typically done. While we accept that copying map data is a violation, copying financial data such as sales of films or albums, or the assets of a businessman, is routinely done, and even defended because "you can't copyright facts"! Wikipedia's approach to lists that might be intellectual property, is to only use a sample of the list (I think that 10% may be standard - and that is usually the top 10 of a list of "100 Best Foo"). Because of the intricacies and difficulties of identifying some cases of copyvio, the phrase "contains no copyright violations" might be a bit too ambitious for a GAN. The 5 pillars says: "Respect copyright laws", and that is a more reasonable expectation. I also agree with WhatamIdoing that copyvio is part of "Well written" - as Malleus says, summarising text or data in your own words is a precis exercise. And precis is the heart of what writing a good Wikipedia article is about. Perhaps there could be an addition to criteria 1 (a): "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;". This also skips around the tricky area of data copyright violations, dealing with the easy to spot cut and paste jobs. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 06:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• (ec) That was waffle. Try again. Agree with Ling that looking for obvious copyvio is already implicit in criteria, and is done by all but the poorest reviewers. Making it explicit will be helpful to new reviewers and a reminder to all, including those nominating, to check for duplicated text. Agree with WhatamIdoing that copyvio is part of "Well written", and placing it there avoids the more tricky data copyvio situations. Suggest amending criteria 1 (a): "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Dude, you rock – despite losing style points, because the painting on your user page makes me mildly seasick.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well considering this thread [4] its somewhat of an improvement, but in response to your answered question Ling is deliberably selectively taking Pyrotec's statement out of context under the label "poor reviewers". I will try and correct your prosse: "That was waffle. Try again. Agree with Ling that looking for obvious copyvio is already implicit in criteria, and is done by all but the poorest reviewers. Looking for obvious copyvio is already implicit in criteria, and is relatively easy to do when websites are being used as citations, but is far more difficult for off-line sources. Making it explicit will be helpful to new reviewers and a reminder to all, including those nominating, to check for duplicated text. Agree with WhatamIdoing that copyvio is part of "Well written", and placing it there avoids the more tricky data copyvio situations. Suggest amending criteria 1 (a): "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;". Pyrotec (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) 1. A new clause 2 (d) was suggested with good indentions but it was badly drafted with little appreciation of reviewing at GAN and is at worst "box ticking". Adding a new clause 2(d): It contains no copyright violations is easy enough to write on the page but it is entirely unenforceable, where any editor with a username can review any GAnomination, (see below), so anyone putting a tick in that box has probably not carried out sufficient checks that would stand up in a court of law. Let's be clear here Ling Nut specifically states: Read that last bit again, please, mentally underlining the words "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations". On the other hand, making a "good faith effort" to check for copyvio is to be welcomed. That could be considered an adduct of the checks that are carried out to try and verify that what is claimed in the article is supported by the citations, but it could also be covered seperately. Perhaps SilkTork's suggestion above is a better way forward than the 2(d) clause.

2. Unfortunately, Copyright violation is not such a simple subject as some editors are trying to present it here. Practically, Copyvio can be carried out electonically against sources in those article such as websites, journals that are on open access in electronic form, some books that are out of copyright and on googlebooks and extracts of books that are visible via Googlebooks and/or Amazon. So those checks could be done by any reviewer in any part of the world. It cannot be done in that manner when books and journals are used as citations. Checks can only be done on these when the books and journals are available to the reviewer. A copyvio check will provide a list of lines or phrases of text where those in the wikpedia article and those in, say, "web X" match; but that is only part of the story - who wrote the text first needs to be considered, it not unknown for websites (and newspapers) to copy wholesale from wikipedia and not acknowledge that fact. If and when wikipedia articles are shown to have breached the copyrights of valid copyright owners, the article should be handled in accordance with wikipedia copyvio procedures, and that could/should include failing the GAN nomination. In some cases, the wikipeida editor might not have breach the copyright: but I'm not sure that good faith is being consider and/or extend to them.

• I suppect that, this will be dismissed by those that have no real interest in improving wikipedia; and are therefore unwilling to discuss it. At the very worst, we have editors doing GAN reviews (as they are entitled to do) with no concept of doing reviews and certainly none of copyright. I'm not against adding another box, per se, but what difference does it make to those reviews that don't review against WP:WIAGA and/or use {{GAList}}, {{GAList2}}. At the other end of the scale there are good reviewers who will make an effort to chech the article against copying and pasting for the web-based sources, but may not go much beyond that. I did find what I suspected to be serious copyvios in two out of the three educational assignments I reviewed concurrently at Wikipedia:School and university projects/User:Piotrus/Fall 2009 and those three rewiews took over one month to complete and I needed the assistance of a wikipeida Copyright expert. That was an educational assignement and "copyright training", to summarise a phrase used above, came from wikipedia (me, and an expert): I don't remember signing up to do that when I started doing GAN reviews; and I not been trained to teach it or detect it. Over the weekend, I got a DYK reviewer to run a copyvio check on one of the articles that I am currently reviewing at GAN: the check for matches against the "electonic" soures took less that 13 minutes; none were found. The books and the (non-electronic) journals have not been checked, yet. So "good faith effort" checks appears to be a realistic option. Pyrotec (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

3. Finally, I would caution SilkTork (but more importantly Ling) to stop making disparaging remarks about reviewers not finding copyvios, as yet none appear to have been found in nominations that editor has reviewed. DYK has been under attack for copyright violations and as a matter of interest they were/are doing copyvio checks on Geography and places GAs. So far copyvios have been found in two GA articles reviewed by me (one of which was already a DYK and had those copyvios present at that stage) and in other several other GAs passed by editor(s) who I regard as outstanding reviewers. Pyrotec (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

During my many years as a professional software developer I learned one lesson that's very relevant to this discussion, one that FAC has already largely adopted. When you're developing a piece of software it's literally impossible to test everything, so you have to target your tests to areas of potential vulnerability. That may be particularly complex bits of code or unusual constructions, but it may equally well be code written by developers of unknown or dubious ability. FAC has an institutional memory in its delegates, so it has an advantage over DYK and GA, but I'm quite sure that you, Pyrotec, at least sometimes do what I often do; look for articles nominated by editors you're come to trust. I wouldn't dream, for instance, of checking every single source used by Ealdgyth in one of her bishop articles even if I had access to them. It would be a misapplication of effort. On the other hand, if I'm looking at a nomination by an editor I'm unfamiliar with on some kind of pop culture article largely backed up by online sources, for instance, I'll certainly check out at least a few of them. But to return to my software analogy, no company would claim that its software contains no bugs, just as we can't claim that no GA contains copyright violations, which is why I object to Ling's proposed addition in the form he suggests it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well put Malleus. SilkTork's suggestion does have some merit. But for someone who has done 87 GA reviews (according to his userpage) he is somewhat out of touch to come up with a statement "Awareness of copyvio is already implicit in criteria 2, and only poor reviewers will pass a GAN without looking at sources, in which an ordinary copyright violation would be observed.". It is made clear that I am the "poor reviewer", by reference to his talkpage: selective misquoting by Ling.nut and too lazy to check the source. Well he (ST) is an Admin and presummably is getting round no Personal Attacks that way (so I might be banned, but you can guarantee that he will not be). Perhaps I aught to check for copyvios on his 87 GAN reviews. I could do that as an IP user during my ban - that would be fun. Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to make a small bet that you'd be certain to find copyright violations among those 87 articles. But I really don't think we (at GA) need to beat ourselves up too much over this. When problems are brought to our attention we have processes in place to deal with them. What does DYK have? Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I found this Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Helpful tools to identify plagiarism/copyvios, so new DYKs could be better, but like GA there will be skeletons in the cupboards; and I've had some training (see below). Secondly: I have no wish to beat myself up: I'd much rather do it to another(s). There are 10/11/12/13 year-olds doing GAN reviews; a typical review: Yes, cool!!! Really Great!!! GA. (P.S. can you done one for me now) and no mention of WP:WIAGA - there is some poetic licence here but not too much. They will not do these checks: and some people are shouting: you've got a GA now do one review yourself (if the GA was awarded by a child editor then the awardee will also do a "child review"). Jez gets a barnstar for 500 reviews, which is really great I've only done 401 (& 46 GA sweeps); but having done 58 reviews myself in one month during the April 2010 GAN backlog drive and another editor (hate, hate) does twice that in 2011 I can guarantee that Copyright was not checked in any detail during the various backlog drives. I'll quite happily run DD on "free to air" web sources to check for copyvios on all current and future GANs I review (I've had a training session, see User talk:Pyrotec#Nibiru collision) but I can't see any practical way of doing it on printed sources without having the sources to hand. My local library changes money for an inter library loan (70p, not a lot, but why should I pay), buying a photocopy of a journal article from the British Library is daylight robbery for an individual, and I have access to a university library (hard copies only) but that is a three-hour trip by car and "170 miles of fuel" for each trip. Even SikTork states (on his talkpage) I also have no interest in doing any form of copyvio check that would involve having a copy of Hansard's Copyright Law Essentials, a magnifying glass, and a sheet of litmus paper by my side. We are talking about the basic "material copied from sources", where the sources have a copyright claim. If the Wikipedia text says "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua", and the copyrighted source text says "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua", then that would be flagged as a concern with the nominator. If the issue is not resolved after reasonable time has been given, then the article is not listed as a GA, which is not fully compliant with the Wikipedia process for Copyvios Wikipedia:Copyright violations; but he comes out on this page with inuendo about poor reviewers/poorest of reviewers (two revisions). So far the GA copyvios were found (in my case) in two 2009 GAN reviews, those of us still doing GA reviews are (I hope) much better at reviewing: but I supect the standard goes downhill sharply everytime there is a backlog drive. Also, some of us are/were doing education GAN reviews which can take month(s): and there is more bullshit about journals ("no one uses journals") and books (see above). I don't see how GAN reviewers can be expected to provide free lessions on copyright during GAN unless those teachers who are slagging us off provide practical support as opposed to character assassination. As a student I was taught how to avoid (legally) potential claims of copyright violation and plagiarism but training in how to detect it (them) in students/editors GANs was never given. It can take me upto a month to do a GAN on a long article (for WP:WIAGA) but I have done (as you state) Ealdgyth's bishop articles in half an hour, in my last MSc we had some classes of 80 students (joint MSc/MBA classes), the professor's turnround on assignments was about one week or so for the course as a whole (I've never done 80 GANs in one/two week(s), neither has Jez, yet). So, "Assuming Good Faith" is easiest, "making reasonable efforts" is acheived and giving a "written guarantee (even a tick in the box and a digital signature)" is probbaly only possible by teachers (who don't do GANs, and don't have journals nor books as sources).Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm really sorry if any of my remarks have been offensive in any way. I had no intention at all of criticising Pyrotec in my comments here or on my talkpage. I was not aware of Pyrotec's involvement in this issue when I made the comments above, and in the comments on my talkpage I thought that I was expressing support for Pyrotec's view that we should not be required to take out a law degree or employ sophisticated text analysis techniques. I do, however, stand by my statement that it is a poor reviewer who doesn't do ANY spot checks of sources or fails to notice a copy and paste. I feel that a decent GAN involves a bit more than a quick copyedit, and a lot of the GA criteria require some looking at sources and a bit of background reading. That doesn't mean that I would expect every source to be checked, nor that I would expect expert legal analysis of text and data in order to uncover potential copyright theft; but reasonable and obvious checks to be done, which anyone who is going to be on this talkpage talking about this issue is going to do. We all know what a poor review is: there'll be a comment saying - "I'll look at this", and a half hour later the comment "Looks good. Two spelling mistakes, but otherwise fine. Sources accepted in good faith. Well done. Pass."

Looking at a source and noting that the statement in the Wikipedia article is worded exactly the same as the source is an easy check. I think checking for something that the average reader would pick up, is something we should be doing. Anything more than that probably belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers, or at least some of the more experienced Wikipedia editors who specialise in copyright. I think that checking for neutral balance, no original research and broad coverage are slightly harder tasks than checking for text copying, and we accept those as standard. We do not, however, assume that by doing checks for neutral balance in a BLP article that we would be expected to commit ourselves or the Foundation to stand by that check in a court of law. We are not doing a legal check, we are doing an informal peer review against some minimal standards that we have set up ourselves to encourage improvement of articles on Wikipedia, motivate editors, and to give some reassurance to readers that a GA listed article has some basic standards. A GA article is not expected to be of a finished or exceptional standard. It is just a decent article that should have no glaring errors, such as text copied word by word from a copyrighted book. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SilkTork for your kind works, above. Pyrotec (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Would all GAN reviewers, please consider that copyvio is not limited to the declared sources. As an editor (hypothetically) I might have lifted some of my words from Googlebooks, Amazon, a library book, Scientific American, British Medical Journal, etc; of course I have cited quite a few of my references, but not all, I forgot to note down the source. Those unacknowledged authors have copyrights that "my" hypothetical article has breached, so when you do your GAN on my nomination and you certify that it is free of copy violations: did you check those sources that I "forgot" to declare? Some universities have software that does those types checks and I've seen "hits" on my submissions against sources that I know that I did not use. Are you are claiming that this is do-able at GAN and easy - I think it is not. This is not an argument against doing checks, we should be doing them; it is more a warning that some demands being placed on reviewers are unrealistic and unachievable (and that some of you are not even prepared to even listen). Pyrotec (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I really think this should only be part of the reviewing instructions - something like "Ensure that the article is checked for copy right violations and plagiarism."

I have only done one GAR, but it had lots of copyvios in it. I brought these to the attention of the nominator and they were changed within 48 hours. I use Duplication Detector to check the article against a few often quoted refs, Google searches (by placing a few long sentences into the search box) and Google books to see if any of the books referenced can be found and checked. I realise it takes a while, probably around half an hour if three or four are found, but I really think it is a necessary part of the process. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've had a tutorial on the use of Duplication Detector on one of the GA nominations that I'm currently reviewing (its on my talkpage) and some of my reviews can take several weeks, or as little as half an hour, it depends on what I consider is needed, but to return to the main point. WP:WIAGA is not a set of reviewing instructions, its more a set of quality standards, i.e. "this" is what is required of GAs. The point has been made that WP:WIAGA does not specifically include copyright considerations of text, so this section is to determine what sort of changes (if any) are needed. Whether Duplication Detector, other software, or Mk. I eyeballs, are used to do some of these checks is part of the process of reviewing, rather than the quality requirements. Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point, that it should be part of the reviewing notes and not part of WIAGA. To include "should contain no copyright violations" (or something similar), as Malleus says, is going to cause problems as it is going to be almost impossible to ensure that such a statement is complied with in most articles - both at GA and at FA I imagine. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of providing some practical advice on copyvio checking, and I don't think that it needs to wait for us to hash out the ideal wording. Would one of you please add a section at WP:RGA on how to do this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start Chaosdruid (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Status check

Before the above discussion gets any further into the weeds, can we have a quick 'show of hands' to make sure that we all actually agree on what we seem to agree on?

1. Does anybody object to mentioning something about copyvios in the criteria? Anyone at all?
2. Does anybody actually object to listing it (somewhere, somehow) under "well-written"? (The other options suggested so far are "verifiable" (all copyvios are 100% verifiable by their nature) or as a separate, seventh criteria.)

If you don't object, then you don't need to reply. But if you do object, please sing out ASAP; we don't want to overlook your concerns in a wall o' text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be for adding a couple of words in Criterion 1, but I don't think we need to add a new criterion just for that. To me, it does seem common sense that GA reviewers should be checking for that, anyways. However, given the history of FAs and plagiarism the past couple of years, I fear that I'll be eating my own words here. –MuZemike 00:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I will object to any words that link or appear to link lack (or apparent lack) of copyright checks of text to poor GAN viewers. I will object to any suggestions that doing copyright checks of text is easy (I'm going to be brutal here: if copyright violation is shown to exist in a GAN review the appropriate action is not "failure" of the GAN, the article is immediately removed from wikipedia by blanking with the copyvio template and it stays blanked whilst a formal investigation is carried out - the article could be reinstated, reinstated with the offending material removed, or lost entirely, but that is not the decision of the GAN reviewer). I will violently object to adding a statement that all copyvios are 100% verifiable:- under the current system of viewing a reviewer has to have access to every source used in the article and all the "sources" that are not declared in order to do these checks. It also has to be shown that the "matching text(s)" was copied by wikipedia from the valid copyright owner, not some website has copied without acknowledgement copyfree text from wikipedia and/or a mirror site of wikipedia. Is WhatamIdoing willing to certify that every declared source was checked in full against the article for each and every article reviewed; also that each and every article was checked against all possible undeclared sources. (P.S. Remember: copyvio checks could be done on your reviews, and I expect the some would be appear). Finally, I am not against some form of words such as: 1 (a): "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct (made by SilkTork, a foot or so (30 cm, or more) above). Pyrotec (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I spend far more time supporting other people's reviews, the list of "my" reviews is actually quite short, and you are entirely welcome to double check them. I am apparently unusually thorough in source checking, so I doubt that you will find either NOR or COPYVIO problems.

But this is all off-topic at this moment: We're nowhere near the point of sorting out wording. I believe that when we reach that point, you may safely rely on my firm conviction that the primary description of a poor GA reviewer is somebody who makes up fake criteria, not someone who fails to execute a complex task perfectly on the first try. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that, but did not wish to bring it up first; and there are reviewers who don't appear to use any criteria, fake or otherwise. Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is also irritating. I happen to mentally file "no criteria" under "fake criteria" (because they're faking the absence of criteria), but I suspect that others classify it differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Pyrotec and I have probably done something like 1000 GA reviews between us. Yet you, who by your own admission have done rather few, and have an inflated sense of your own competence ("I am apparently unusually thorough in source checking") knows better than we do what is and isn't practical? How does that work exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have an inflated sense of my own competence. I do have a good sense of the proportion of sources that the typical reviewer checks, and I know how that compares to the proportion of sources that I check. I do not pretend that either of you are typical reviewers. For example, I believe that I would be far from the only person who would rate you as being more thorough, more proficient with text, and more needlessly insulting than the median GA reviewer. That I am more thorough in my source review than the typical GA reviewer does not mean that I am more thorough than every single GA reviewer.

Conducting reviews does not provide one with any information at all about how the typical GA reviewers behaves. Conducting hundreds of GA reviews tells you only how you personally conduct a GA review. Reading hundreds of GA reviews by other people (and I have) tells you quite a lot about about how the typical GA review proceeds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"For example, I believe that I would be far from the only person who would rate you as being ... more needlessly insulting than the median GA reviewer". You just can't help yourself, can you. It's certainly true that some nominators take objection to the truth, but that's no concern of mine. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"You can also contact me [Whatamidong] or User talk:Geometry guy (the other major contributor to GACN) to ask for help directly."[5] So there are only two of you contributing to the project and the rest of us are just make-weights? Just who the Hell do you think you are? Malleus Fatuorum 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I also read that, but didn't exactly know where to make comment about it (nor wish to stir things up, though I did contemplate emailing GG and yourself) - seems like some people are just determined to over-inflate Chaosdruid (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion and Whatamidong's observations have been a step too far for me. No doubt GAN will be able to survive without my "needlessly insulting" reviews; I've done my stint. Perhaps WhatamIdoing will put his money where his mouth is and step up to the plate. In the meantime I feel I can be of more use at FAC, where at least my efforts are generally appreciated. Perhaps PR might welcome my feeble efforts as well. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Who do I think I am? I think I'm the specific woman who was asked for help in that instance. I offered four different suggestions for resolving disputes of this sort, including a recommendation to post a note on a page for which I knew that Malleus was the #2 all-time contributor.

Malleus, I believe that your departure from GAN would result in lower-quality articles but happier contributors. I do not have an opinion on whether this would likely be an improvement on balance. I do have an opinion on the likelihood of an on-wiki threat to leave resulting in an actual departure: the likelihood is very low. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Naturally the happiness of contributors must be our over-arching concern. Let's see who's right. Malleus Fatuorum 05:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Would any passing admin please put the GA review of 1894–95 Small Heath F.C. season back into the queue please. (I can't delete the holding review page.) Malleus Fatuorum 05:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that MF would be missed at GA, follow-on comments about "happyness" fall in to the stone-throwing category. Pyrotec (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Time will tell whether contributors at GAN are happier with or without me. I've done a stint here, but I can maybe do more with less rock-dodging elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Compared to you Pyrotec I've done rather few GA reviews, only 177, but that's largely because I got side-tracked into the GA Sweeps project, where I reviewed 321 articles. Of those 498 reviews I'd say that maybe three or four resulted in a GAR, and none of my decisions was overturned. In the most recent escapade over Mavis Wilton's GAN even the nominator agreed that he'd made a mistake. Still, what's the truth worth around here. All that matters is the happiness of the contributors. Well, I'm a contributor and I'm very far from happy. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments and a proposal

I read the above with interest and have some comments and a proposal.

1. An article containing plagiarism is not well written, and so does not satisfy criterion 1, but 1(a) does not at present make this explicit and perhaps it should. Wikipedia has been "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" for 10 years, and cut'n'paste text can be deeply buried in the edit history of an article. This serious problem certainly does affect GAs: I've encountered many examples such as Joseph Moir, Dancing the Dream, Peak water, and Frank Barson and David Yates.
2. There seems to be some confusion above about the role of this guideline. It is not an instruction list for reviewers, but a set of standards for articles. The responsibility for ensuring a good article meets these standards is a collective one, shared not only by the entire reviewing community, but by nominators and article editors (who are most familiar with the content and sources). It isn't the job of an individual reviewer to validate or certify that every sentence of the article meets every criterion. They should instead, at minimum, make sufficiently many checks to be reasonably confident that a listed article has no manifest shortcomings with respect to any of the criteria. I'm not in favour of adding comments ("good faith full efforts" etc.) to this guideline: WP:Reviewing good articles is the place to describe what reviewers should do, not here.
3. It is practically impossible to guarantee that an article meets all the GA criteria, so GA status is more like a warranty or a vehicle safety test than a guarantee: "this article has been tested and checked; if you find any problems, please send it back immediately for reinspection". Consequently the criteria are in part aspirational, and should be inspiring: it is nonsense to state that GAs should "contain no apparent copyright violations"! Does that mean well-concealed copyright violations are okay? No, any copyright violation is grounds for delisting, and the criteria should be unequivocal on each and every point.
4. In order to be inspirational and educational, the GA criteria need clarity of purpose, so that editors and reviewers understand what each criterion is for. There is a lot of confusion concerning the distinction between copyright violation, plagiarism and close paraphrasing. The last is (or can be) a prose issue, while the first is a legal and free content issue. In-text copying without quotation and/or attribution is primarily plagiarism (evidently it is additionally a copyright violation only if the source is under copyright). Adding "it contains no copyright violations" to criterion 1 does not clarify the matter! Criterion 6 is also mixed up in this way, conflating a content quality issue (using images and other media effectively to communicate content) with a copyright issue (fair use rationales and all that jazz).

In my view, a criterion expressing the aspiration to provide free content is long overdue. That includes "no copyright violations", but also issues such as attribution, licensing information, fair use rationales etc., so that content can be reused under CC/GFDL without violating copyright or license agreements.

If it were entirely up to me, I would:

• Add "not plagiarized" (or something similar) to 1(a);
• Move 6(b) to 1(c) "it is illustrated, if possible, by images relevant to the topic with suitable captions";
• Incorporate 6(a) into a new criterion that a good article is "Free reusable content, without copyright violations..."

In that way, every criterion would have a clear purpose, with all copyright issues fully covered by just one of them. Geometry guy 10:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your first assumption that an article with plagiarism is poorly written. It is possible that the copyright violations and original text are joined together very coherently, giving the reader a clear understanding of the topic. I am not advocating plagiarism (!!), I am just declaring that there could an exception to your assumption. Binksternet (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Considering the justification first:

1. I agree with Binksternet. I could for instance take a whole chunk of copyrighted text from The Oxford Companion to British Railway History (for example) and integrate it into a preferred railway article without any acknowledgement, and one that does not use that reference already. Being "Oxford" it's well written, it could appear to be my text to a reviewer, its not (for this example) controversal, likely to be challenged or a BLP, so arguably a citation is not needed. It's definitely Copyvio (the reviewer may not know that) but poorly written? No.! I could do the same approach with some high quality text that is free of copyright. In this case it's plagiarism, not copyright violation, it is still not poorly written in the usual sense (grammar, etc), but I have failed to provide proper acknowledgement of someone else's work.
2. Good point: In a "prefect world" editors have responsibility to produce articles to the standard before submitting, reviewer has the responsibility to review aginst the standard and award GA only if the article is compliant. If the article is not up standard a good reviewer can help bring it up / or withhold GA. A "poor" reviewer could unjustly withhold GA, and nothing further happens, it could go to GAR, or just be resumitted at GAN (mostly OK: this proposal does not change this situation). A poor article could be passed by a poor reviewer, nothing further happens or it goes to GAR. (Note: this proposal does not change this situation).
3. I mostly agree. But Copyright violation (text and/or images: yes I know 6a, but removing the image from the article and copyvio-ing the image will solve that) is NOT necessarily grounds for delisting an article at GAN/R or a GA-delisting the correct approach. The only applicable process is Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Under your system, you find a text "copyvio" so you delist it at GA and presummably remove the affending text(s). A couple of edits or so later some vandalism occurs so a rollback or "undo" brings the article back the the GA-state with copyvios (but maybe without the green star). Under Wikipedia:Copyright violations proper checks will be made, your copyvio might be a false positive, the owner may be willing to give permission, etc. I've done reviews (educational assigments) where copyvios were found during my reviews: the articles (two or three, I forget) were blanked with Copyvio templates but Moonriddengirl provided "rolled back" versions for the review/corrective actions processes to continue: one at least made GA in the end.

• The proposal has some merit, but I would like it to emphasise both text and images, So: "Free reusable content, text and images (where used) without copyright violations...". I'm happy for my grammar to be improved/changed but I would like to be clear that both must be considered. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  I agree and that is what I mean by the "...": a criterion 6(a) for images and 6(b) for text, perhaps?

  I also broadly agree with the other remarks. For me, a plagiarized article is poorly written ("well copied" perhaps!), and plagiarism is bad writing (I've used this to delist articles), but I don't want to argue a point where we are basically in agreement: 1(a) should be clear about plagiarism, and it currently isn't. Concerning point 3, I was not intending to propose any system: by "grounds for delisting" I simply meant that if a listed article does not meet one of the criteria, there is a prima facie case for doing something about it - such as fixing the problem. This guideline is about what the GA criteria are, not about what happens when they are not met. Geometry guy 15:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for clariying that. I'm happy with criterion 6(a) for images and 6(b) for text. I had made the assumption that there was only a new 6(a) Free reusable content, without copyright violations..."; and I'd seen the move of 6(b) to 6(c) but somehow failed to see that there was a gap at 6(b). I must be burning out. In terms of Copyvio at GA, I'd probably use the copyvio process, put the review On Hold and if there was reinstatment but wholesale cuts consider failing on scope/broadness (if applicable); but I'm happy not to discuss this aspect any further. Pyrotec (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather keep text issues under Criterion 1, and images isolated at Criterion 6. Because images aren't actually required (unlike an absence of copyvios), I think that we're better off addressing copyvios in an always-required criterion.

Given the (lack of) skill level in the community for evaluating plagiarism, I'm nervous about directly naming plagiarism as an issue. That standard is mushy, context-sensitive, and subject-dependent. We have people who believe that nearly everything without an WP:INTEXT attribution is plagiarism. Someone a while ago was arguing that incorporating public domain text is always plagiarism unless you begin each sentence with "According to the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica..." By that standard, Wikipedia is known to have tens of thousands of significant articles with major (so-called) "plagiarism" problems.

I think that the community is (barely) capable of identifying tolerably obvious copyrights at a reasonably consistent level. I don't want to introduce a standard that we can reasonably expect to be interpreted in significantly different fashions by different experienced editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Again I don't have any strong objections. It would be useful if you could summarise what changes if any you would make/suggest to the existing Criterion 1 to include copyright aspects of text. Pyrotec (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

My current inclination is to create a "1(c): It contains no obvious copyright violations", but my goal at the moment is merely to make sure that everyone thinks something should be done. I'm not committed to any particular implementation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Such a creation would further confuse good writing with copyright issues and would not help to educate editors and reviewers. WP:PLAGIARISM is quite well developed, and I have confidence in the GA community as a whole to apply sensible guidelines to good articles, despite what individual editors may do. The idea that images are optional is another meme which illustrates the basic flaw in criterion 6: it suggests that you can delete all images to meet it, which is wrong. Images should be used when they can be used.

• There is an opportunity here to create a criterion devoted to copyright issues, rather than spread the copyright issue among "optional" and unclear or confusing criteria.

Regarding plagiarism, I am also nervous about including the word in 1(a), because it means different things to different people, but I believe more should be said in 1(a) about copying sources. Geometry guy 22:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (probably more of a reason to actually oppose, in contrast to my comment above) If none of our articles are supposed to contain copyright violations or plagiarism, then wouldn't we be wasting space by stating the obvious? I mean, we don't have a criterion for notability, because an article should already be presumed to be notable before it comes to GAN. I mean, it seems like we'd be more or less stating the obvious. But then again, it might not be obvious to all that we don't allow copyright violations or especially plagiarism. –MuZemike 22:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• There's no such thing as wasting space here. Pixels are cheap. Just because something is true doesn't mean that people are focusing on it. The goal is to get people to focus on the issue in every review. I like Silk Tork's wording "respect copyright laws" rather than "there is no copyvio", because as we have said ad nauseum, we can never be sure we cleaned it all out.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried about wasting space, and "respect copyright laws" is okay with me. A criterion entirely devoted to copyright issues would be okay with me, too.

Geometry guy, I'm now confused about whether your personal view is that we ought to add "plagiarism" or "copyright" or both. It looks to me like you've given good arguments for and against plagiarism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I just want to come back to Copyright / Plagiarism. Plagiarism was a new term introduced to me in the last five years: It was made abundantly clear that Plagiarism was bad, very bad, it could get you thrown out of univerisity and/or you could fail to graduate, but I'm not too sure from my perspective, UK-based, that the general public has heard about it (the "test" in England/Wales Common Law is "the man on the Clapham Omnibus", what would he do?). Read a book, and depending how recent it is, there is either a copyright statement - 'the author has claimed/asserted rights under the....' or a "c" inside a circle followed the author's(or s') name(s). Watch a US-based DVD and there is strong warning that the FBI will come after you to the full extent of the law if copyright is breached, watch a multilingual one (Region 2) and the copyright statement is given in every European language, its almost as long as those trailers; and for the UK it is "FACT" (Federation(?) Against Copyright Theft) will come after you. Those going through university probably will have come across plagiarism, but it (plagiarism) was not mentioned (to me) at university in the 1970s, copyright was. Plagiarism is a latin-based word, so perhaps it was taught at Oxford, Cambridge, etc, at that time. A long statement, perhaps. I beleive the copyright is a better "label", by almeans have a pipeline to WP:PLAGIARISM, if that is a better article, but I suspect that the typical child-editor, perhaps many adult-editors, is/are unlikely to look at WP:PLAGIARISM because its a funny word and they've not heard of it. Pyrotec (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violations and plagiarism are different beasts. A copyvio is determined by application of law. Plagiarism is determined by application of morals, and not every person, or even every field, has the same moral code.

To give an example, the contents of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica are public domain. As far as copyright law is concerned, you may copy, fold, spindle, and mutilate that text at will. You may paste it into articles unlabeled, unsourced, and unchanged. You may wallpaper your kitchen with it. The copyright law simply doesn't care.

But if you copy an article out of EB1911 and turn it into your school teacher and pretend that you wrote all that yourself, then you will be in trouble: pretending that you wrote what someone else actually wrote is plagiarism, even if the source is in the public domain.

And it gets more complicated than that: If you read someone else's ideas, and you take their ideas, but not their words, then copyright law will exonerate you—and your school may still be mad at you. The line between "legitimate research" and "intellectual theft" is very complicated and not widely agreed upon. A level of idea-taking that is considered totally normal and desirable by, say, the fashion industry (where copying designer clothes is a major and accepted part of the industry), is a firing offense for, say, maths professors (where copying anything more significant than an admired mathematician's clothing is an unrecoverable career disaster).

And all of that complexity just (at best) gets us to the point of deciding whether plagiarism happens; it doesn't go through the equally complicated and equally diverse issue of what's considered a proper solution for it.

BTW, if you're interested in this issue, you might like to consider the discussion at WT:CITE#Interpretation_of_WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which is about whether an editor who copies text out of a "legal" source that contains citations (like Citizendium or ARKive, which is a professionally written source that has a CC-BY-SA licensing deal with Wikipedia) needs to acknowledge that he didn't actually read those sources himself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree on your description of the difference between the two: I've done two Master Degrees between 2000 and 2010, one at a "glass plate" and one at a "Russell Group" university so it does get hammered in, but how many children or adults without university education (about 45% of the current UK school leavers go to university, it was about 5 to 8%, I think, in the 1970s) have heard of plagiarism. Having said that, it was not taught at university in the 1970s when I did my first degree. Thanks for highlighting that discussion page, I will go and have a look. 07:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism was an issue in UK secondary schools when I taught 10 years ago. Students are aware of it. Does plagiarism really apply to Wikipedia? We are not passing a knowledge or competance test, and we are not engaged in original research. We summarise the work of others and cite the sources. We watch out for copyvio which would cover plagiarism anyway. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

two all-nighters in a row; summary

• Hi. Sorry. I've just done two all-nighters in a row writing a book (don't be impressed; it's a run-of-the-mill academic thing). I'm trying to read all the above, but my head is swimming. Let me summarize my thoughts:

1. I openly acknowledge that FA-level reviewers can't catch all copyvio/plagiarism, and GA-level reviewers even less so (with all apologies to my esteemed colleagues etc.). "Catching it all" is not and cannot be the goal here. Recall my repeated use of the phrase "full and good faith effort".
2. What is my goal? Two goals, intertwined to the point of being inseparable:
   1. To codify the idea that compliance with WP:COPYVIO is always the goal, even if we can't ensure perfection. However, it should always be in the active area of reviewer's minds when they begin any review at any level. It needs to be put in that template that people use (I have never used it) as well.
   2. Training. Along with starting the mindset comes starting the motions of actually checking (with all apologies again to those who already do, etc.)

• That's all, at least off the top of my head.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well ignoring the "stone throwing" aspects: there are proposals to add a copyright/plagiarism clause into WP:WIAGA section 1 and link it to other quality aspects; another proposal to keep the image copyright clause in section 6 and to add a (new) text copyright clause; and a discussion as to whether copyright or plagiarism is the best "label" to cover these violations. I suggest that it might to best to decide first whether to go for a subsection 1 clause or a subsection 6 clause; and then decide on the "label" - copyright / Plagiarism. (I have my favour in respect of the C- and P- word, but not on whether 1 or 6 is to be preferred). Pyrotec (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• No Stones here, except Rolling ones, and I vastly prefer Zeppelins anyhow. I am all in favor of making everything explicit. If we wanna check both images and text for copyvio, then each should be mentioned individually in some way or other. But since everyone is so antsy about including explicit reference to copyvio, I would be OK with putting this in the Intro, copied straight from WIAFA: "In addition to meeting the [[Wikipedia:List of policies#CONPOL|policies regarding content]] for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes" and then putting something about COPYVIO on all the "How to review a GA" pages and templates.  – Ling.Nut (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not against checking for copyvios, I am against (for example) statements of the the type: "only a poor reviewer will fail to check for copyvios", "reviewers should confirm that the article is free of copyvios" (and watered-down variants). Since this is a summary: for WP:WIAGA we seem to have: in one corner (1) 1 (a) "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct"; and in the other corner 6. 6(a) "Free reusable content, without copyright violations.."; plus 6 (b) "images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content". However, I'm not entirely sure that my summary of (1) and (6) represents any agreement on the "prefered choices", and any agreement on the copyright/plagiarism variants. Pyrotec (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Since WP:WIAGA already covers copyright of images in section 6 there is an argument for adding copyright of text into that section. There is an opposing arguement that images are optional and the presence of text in an article is mandatory, so copyright of text should not appear in section 6. There is an argument that copyright is a quality requirment like good spelling and good grammar, so these go together; and yet another that "Freecontent" is the criteria that is important, not copyright per se. Pyrotec (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I regard the quality requirements and the means of acheiving that aim to be complety different. I don't consider that the quality requirements should mandate the use of {{GAList}}, {{GAList2}} or {{GATable}} or any one of those templates in preference to the other two. I certainly don't beleive that Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not should be linked into the reviewing requirements of WP:WIAGA, but it should be brought to the attention of nominators. There is (another) fight above over that. It is certainly a well intended document, mostly written by two editors, who elsewhere are being named as "experts" to be approached for advice on GAs. I've been doing GAN reviews since September 2008 and I've almost done 450, another editor has done over 500 (Jez), Malleus did over 320 GAreviews at GA sweeps and was very active at GA before I started reviewing in 2008, another reviewer / Admin was named (elsewhere) as an outstanding reviewer and one to be emulated: the problem is that editor/Admin resigned three years ago, does not appear to have edited under his/her username since and was reveiwing (I suspect) against the old GA standards, as no /GA1 page was created or transcluded. One of these two experts does not review, but passes knowledgable comments when asked and/or "sees things going wrong", the other knows far more about GA reviews than I do, but in my view (I could be wrong) does more resolving disputes at GAR than straight reviews at GAN. Likewise, I'm not aware of Ling.Nut being an active (or even passive) reviewer at GAN. To be (perhaps) unkind, doing a number of DYKs and GAN reviews is often reqarded as a short-term step and getting stars to polish and pin to your Application for Admin: I've seen quote a few of these GAN reviewers who were merely passing through to "mop weilding", but not all that often afterwards at GAN. There are exceptions: Arsenkk for one, but there are more. As a reviewer, I'm certainly not against receiving well intended and helpfull advice but I do strongly resent being used as cannon fodder by those who can't or won't review themselves. I have to admit the possibility that I've got this wrong: I see stones or/and mud (or the S**** word) being thrown my way (as does Malleus) and perhaps I seem to be throwing back, when I say that some of the demands are unrealistic or just not do-able. I would also say that some of you reviewers may well have let copyvios go through (my two were 2009 reviews), you have not yet been caught and named. If you don't review then, you can't be blamed for let them through. Training and advice is certainly is important, I've had little experience of using tools other than the Mk I eyeball to look for copyvios against named sources used in the articles and certainly not for those unnamed sources that have crepted in. When I was a new reviewer I was also concerned that a knowledgeable editor could challenge my review, and I would not be able to respond effectively. I was not aware at that time of mentoring, after 30 reviews I felt some what more comfortatable and even more after 100; but I see reviewers claiming to be experts after 7 reviews (looking back, I would not/could not make that claim). So training, if requested for reviewers is important; probably more so were they are undertaking educational assignment reviews, since copyvios seems ripe there (even if it is only one editor in a group working on the same nomination, as happened to me). It is also worth pointing out that Reviewers should not be reviewing articles that they mave made any significant contributions to, so those copyvios must have entered the nominations by some combination of lack of knowledge / well intended edits copy and pastes, and/or vandalism and reversions by editors (blame the reviewers, but they did not put them there). Anything that helps the users to avoid editors and nominators putting those copyvios into articles is a good thing. Pyrotec (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree: you got hung out as a "bad example" on a couple of GAs that happen to have problems—problems that are often quite hard to identify, of exactly the sort that FAC itself was missing at the same time, and that weren't even mentioned in the GACR or RGA at the time. It seems that we were all just supposed to know to check very, very carefully for copyvios... more carefully than even FAC was doing. Some of us did check, and some of us didn't, but I'm sure that even those who did check didn't catch everything.
  The question now is what to do about it. Here are my current thoughts:
  1. I think that, to keep future reviewers from going through what Pyrotec has recently, we want to mention copyvios as sort of a "fair warning", and also because an article that's truly "Good" shouldn't contain anything that isn't permitted even in bad articles.
  2. After thinking about it, I think we basically want to say that a GA doesn't contain copyvios. (We might soften that as "significant" or maybe "obvious" copyvios.) My thought is that these are the standards, not a statement of what we achieve with 100% competence in every review.
     We currently say that a GA "contains no original research", despite knowing that some reviewers pass articles containing blatant OR. If someone else finds an OR violation later, then we fix it (ideally) or de-list it (if we have to). I think, in exactly the same way, we could say that a Good article "respects copyright laws" or even "contains no copyright violations". (If someone at a later date finds a copyvio, then we would fix it or de-list it.) It's not a promise of 100% compliance any more than "contains no OR" is a promise of 100% compliance.
  3. But I think I'd give the plagiarism issue a miss this round. I don't think that adding it will produce a benefit proportional to the confusion and disputes that will result. We could always add it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm in the process of changing my mind, so we may be on opposite sides again. I stated above that it was probably best to decide on a new clause 1 or 6 first and then decide on copyright / plagiarism afterwards. I still consider the word "plagiarism" to be unfamiliar to most people (I've clarified that above), but not the concepts. I'm now minded to reverse that order: we need to agree on what is to be said first and then consider were we put it:

1. We already have in WP:WIAGA, Well written 1(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; 1(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation; Factually accurate and verifiable 2(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; 2(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and 2(c) it contains no original research.
2. What we appear to be saying, in "longhand", is that: its OK to include copyfree material into articles but we need to acknowledge the source(s) (as per clause 2); bulk-use of copyright material is not acceptable, only limited/selective quotations in inverted commas/quotes (I'm talking about "text in here": British-English and American-English have different names for this) of copyright material may be used when appropriate, but paraphrasing is to be preferred, and in all cases the source(s) is/are to be cited.
3. At the moment we are saying the only contentious material, .... BLP, etc, needs to be cited. Perhaps we should be saying that all material that is copied from copyfree sources and selectively quoted and/or summarised material from copyright material needs to be cited.
4. Comments, polite disagreements, alternatives, etc, are welcomed. Pyrotec (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, on #2 (under the current rules), not all copyfree text has to be supplied with a citation. If you take "the term used of a woman on her wedding-day" from s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Bride and paste it into the top of Bride, then the GA criteria do not actually require an inline citation for this sky-is-blue sort of fact. But if you take something that fits one of the five categories of facts, then, yes, you'd be required to provide a citation, just like you would if you had written the same information in your own words.

I'm not sure that an article would be improved by adding an inline citation after something simple like the most basic definition of a bride. (On the other hand, I would have sincerely appreciated it if the original editor had provided inline citations to a good deal of what's now under Bride#History.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the argument: (1) its not plagiarism; (2) it is, but it is not significant to need acknowledgement? I think this is important: copying two consecutive words might not be plagiarism, but then we get into an argument, i.e. what is the minimum length of an unacknowledged "copied phrase" before it becomes plagiarism, is it three, four, etc, words. I think "copyright" could be inserted in place of "plagiarism" and the same question would still be valid. Pyrotec (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be plagiarism, by any reasonably strict definition, but I'm just not sure that the community actually wants to have a statement like followed by an inline citation (or marked as a direct quotation, or to have the name of the source called out in the text).

The fact that acceptable solutions aren't obvious or agreed upon is why I gave it as an example, and it's also why I don't believe that we should be trying to address plagiarism just now. I suspect that the community would be happy to have some sort of record (at least an edit summary) for such things, but previous discussions have failed to produce any agreement about how to handle that situation in an article.

My primary point, though, is much simpler: GA criterion #2 requires citations for five kinds of material, and "material that might be deemed plagiarized otherwise" is not one of those five kinds. Under the current GA criteria, this definition would not require an inline citation to comply with GACR #2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the existing criterion #2 could be expanded to require citations for all copyrighted material used in the article, I'm not asking for a definition, I'm merely asking if that is a reasonable way forward. To expand: citations are needed for direct quotes but not for paraphrasing and other material unless its "statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons (and possibly science-based articles)". If I were to read a line that had "Joe Bloggs stated: 'paraphrase of what he said'....". I would expect to see a citation, but under the existing 2 citeria that might not be mandatory. I would argue that its needed anyway. Its also a way of establishing non-conformance. If uncited copyright material is found then that would be a violation of such an expanded criterion 2. It could be used to cover both copyright and copyfree material. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that your example ("Joe Bloggs stated") would be covered under BLP (apparently everything is contentious) or as published opinion (Joe Bloggs' statements are often about Joe Bloggs' opinions), and if nothing else, under WP:LIKELY (attributed statements are likely to be challenged).

I wonder whether the 'bride' definition would be interpreted as a direct quotation by some reviewers. I think that most copyrighted material would fall under that item. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Woops, I had not intend that example be considered as a BLP, more as the statements of an expert, e.g. A. J. P. Taylor (a historian) said of ...some historical fact... . If I "lift" some of his text verbatim and put it in quotes I'm compliant, if I "forget" the quotes (and/or to name, in this case, A. J. P. Taylor) I'm in breach of his copyright and that "as yet unwritten requirement in WP:WIAGA" to 'state where it came from'. Pyrotec (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC) There is an even better example: I could have lifted verbatim without any acknowledgement three or four paragraphs from the Oxford Handbook of (some type of) History which includes the statement e.g. "A. J. P. Taylor (a historian) said of ...some historical fact... ". I use Amazon to find Taylor's book to provide a cite for those four, five, six words in "quotes" (but they did not come from Taylor's book directly). That citation for Taylor makes me apparently compliant with WIAGA in respect of a direct quote from Taylor; however, it did not quote from Taylor, I stole it unacknowledged from the Oxford handbook editors. So it is their copyright that I have breached. Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This example illustrates the problem with confusing inline citation (which directs readers to source material) with attribution/acknowledgement (which says where the writer got the information). This distinction/confusion argues against including copyright or plagiarism issues in criterion 2.

• Copyright issues are too important to confuse/combine them with other issues; they should be dealt with under a single dedicated criterion of their own, lets call it criterion C. It can have subcriteria C(a), C(b) etc. to address different aspects, e.g., C(a) on images, and C(b) on text.
• If we move the copyright/free content issues concerning images from criterion 6 to criterion C, there is very little left in criterion 6, and what is left could be combined with criterion 1, as good writing/presentation. In this case criterion C becomes a new criterion 6.
• We could mention plagiarism issues in a footnote. Issues of obscurity and name-calling surrounding the word "plagiarism" can be handled by a piped link and careful choice of words.

This arrangement would provide the criteria with the clarity of purpose we need, making it clear that they are standards/principles about good article writing, not sticks to beat other editors/reviewers with. Geometry guy 21:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Having a "Criterion Copyright" works for me, but I don't want to lose our "Criterion Images" in the process. "Criterion Copyright" is the wrong place to talk about the desire for images when feasible, the non-requirement of images when not feasible, or the need for suitable image captions. Unless we're planning to drop any requirements (except copyright) related to images, then we still need to have a "Criterion Images", no matter how brief it is.

I'd be willing to mention plagiarism in a footnote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course I agree that there is a need for a criterion on images. It should state, as now, that a good article "is illustrated, if possible, by images relevant to the topic with suitable captions", and it should have footnotes, as now, to explain that images include other media and that images are not required if they are not feasible. I suggest that this would make an excellent criterion 1(c). Geometry guy 00:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing the numbering in a system like this usually leads to confusion. Is there any compelling reason why we couldn't keep the remaining images criterion as a (short) #6, and make the entirely new copyvio criterion be an entirely new #7? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to keep the existing criterion 6, i.e. 6 (a) and (b) - the latter has a valid fair use rationales statement. A new criterion 7 for copyright which a "fair use" statement to cover plagiarism/copyfree text could work for me. However, I think we now need to move onto "words", we seem to be stuck at the "were to put it" phase. Pyrotec (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm a long-time Wikipedian who just got active again after a looong wikibreak. I've reviewed 20 GA noms in the last month, all of which I've taken very seriously. I just wanted to pop in and express support for mentioning plagiarism in the criteria (though 2b or 2c would be a more logical place, imho), and I wanted to emphasize that it isn't possible for a GA reviewer to detect all plagiarism. Still, due diligence to detect plagiarism is a part of what I do when I review GA noms, and it would be a good thing to state that to new reviewers. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Wikipedia's contributor base is in decline, and its reviewers have been abandoning ship even faster than the contributors. What could the reason for that be? A disinclination to be hit with a big stick if you don't check every single source or spot every single occurrence of close paraphrasing? For myself I've abandoned GAN because of abusive comments made by User:WhatamIdoing; I guess that for every reviewer who gives up on the job the reasons are personal. Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Malleus, I plan to take your complaints about my "abusive comments" (in which I did nothing more than acknowledge the undisputed fact that people complain frequently to you about your rudeness, including profanity and personal insults in situations that anyone else would have handled with more grace) just as seriously as you seem to have taken the many, many complaints about your rudeness that you have received over the last couple of years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've never had any problems in my dealings with MF: they have all been positive. Some people do appear to have experienced the problems which could be labelled using the words above, or similar. MF is probably quite a sensitive editor, so comments of the type used above are hardly likely to encourage a friendly response. Treating other people in the way that you wish to be treated yourself is a better way forward. Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I hope that Malleus will take your good advice to heart in his choices about how he treats me as well as other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The lesson I've learned from your continuing comments is to avoid you and anything you may be involved with. Hence this will be my last GA-related posting. I still think the project is a worthy one, but I don't like the company. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"This page is only for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Good article criteria."

For interpersonal issues I recommend user talk. As noted above, the GA criteria are standards for articles, not sticks for beating reviewers. Given broad agreement to clarify the standards on copyright and/or plagiarism issues, let us discuss how best to implement this. I have proposed a combined copyright/free content criterion and am willing to suggest more detailed wording, but welcome discussion. Geometry guy 22:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

Proposals and variations:

• 1: the addition of 2(d): It contains no copyright violations.
• 2: amending criteria 1 (a): "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;"
• 3: Add "not plagiarized" (or something similar) to 1(a);
• 4: Move 6(b) to 1(c) "it is illustrated, if possible, by images relevant to the topic with suitable captions";
• 5: Incorporate 6(a) into a new criterion that a good article is "Free reusable content, without copyright violations..."
• 6: "Free reusable content, text and images (where used) without copyright violations..."

Plagiarism is covered under copyvio. I'm comfy with current image criteria - though if looking for rewording: "if illustrated, the images are relevant to the topic, with suitable captions". Mmm. Having a footnote to include other media is awkward, so a reword of 6(a) would be useful:

• 7: Ammend 6. Uses appropriate media:

(a) if illustrated, the images are relevant to the topic, with suitable captions;

(b) media (video, images, sound clips, etc) is tagged with appropriate copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

I am in favour of 2 and 7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism is entirely separate from copyvio. You can plagiarize a public domain text; you cannot violate its (non-existent) copyright. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

At this moment, I think #2 is my favorite. It seems like the smallest change that will get the job done. I'm also open to leaving all of the existing criteria as they are, and adding a separate #7: "It contains no copyright violations". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I could accept 2 and 7; however, although "and the spelling and grammar are correct" clause is long-standing, I'd like to see a footnote to WP:Engvar since the consistent use of British/American spellings such as e.g. colour/color, etc, are not grounds for rejection. Pyrotec (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Number 2 seems like the best option. It clearly gets around any problems with copying free content as well as covering images and text in one go. 1 and 3 are too specific as, if any small copyvio or plagiarism was missed, it could be problematic. 4 is a little unnecessary as being well written is not really anything to do with image inclusion. 5, 6 and 7 are all also to do with images and I think they would be best left in a criterion of their own. Nicely put SilkTork. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• I shall action option 2, as that is the main issue in this thread, and has gained consensus. Proposals for tidying up the criteria regarding images/media and Engvar are probably best started afresh. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

  What a pity that an opportunity to provide clarity of purpose has been missed. Instead of providing a lead on non-free content, the criteria have been further muddied and confused. Even the phrase "The prose... respects copyright laws" makes very little sense, and breaks up a coherent criterion into a laundry list. "This sentence thinks copyright laws are awesome!" That aside, criterion 1 is about good writing, presentation and style, and copyright is an almost completely separate issue. Geometry guy 22:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

How thoroughly do reviewers investigate nominated articles?

I have some serious concerns about a GA review that was done a couple of years ago and I'm having a hard time understanding how this article could have passed criteria 3 and 4. How thoroughly do reviewers investigate the articles? Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Workshop#This_is_how_one_writes_GAs.3F for a more detailed discussion. The article is Werner Erhard (book) and it was reviewed by a now banned editor - see Talk:Werner Erhard (book)/GA1. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the reviewer. Some do a remarkably thorough job; others, you wonder if they even read the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that a problem that has been discussed before? Are there any proposals to make sure they do a more thorough job? This article was reviewed by an editor named Ottava Rima.Griswaldo (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We all complain about it regularly; no proposals are ever accepted for routine enforcement of standards (e.g., having a director who double-checks all reviews before listing is accepted). The primary reason for this is that GA is supposed to be a lightweight, one-editor's-opinion process, and changing that would add bureaucracy and suck up our limited reviewer time.

However, there are options: articles that anyone believes have been listed inappropriately (or failed unfairly) can (and should) be taken to WP:GAR for reassessment. GAR is usually watched by people who hold to the higher side of the standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's good to know. Of course having to reassess articles because the initial process failed could also be construed as more needless bureaucracy :). If I have any bright ideas about improving the process I'll be sure to share them but the whole thing is new to me so I doubt I'd be of much help in that regard. Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not really "needless bureaucracy". Having to reassess an article could be an indication that it was not reviewed correctly the first time; alternatively, it might indicate that the article was compliant at the time of the review but has degraded over time. Pyrotec (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There's also the cost-benefit issue: I'd guess that fewer than 5% of reviews end up at GAR, and "prevention" would require extra work on 100% of the reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Pyrotec says above that we require "the spelling and grammar are correct", but that ENGVAR is not required (which it isn't, since it's part of the main MoS page). Pyrotec suggested a footnote, but I couldn't think of a good way to phrase it. Alternatively, we could leave it to GACN, which currently says "The spelling and grammar follow an established system, even if you use a different variety of English." What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've long thought that "and the spelling and grammar are correct" is rather ambitious for GA. Grammar is fairly fluid, evolving and subject to debate; and - as we know - spelling varies (ageing/aging, judgement/judgment). What is "correct"?

I think what is intended in the criteria and what we would like is for there to be no obvious errors. If people need to consult Fowler's to work out if a sentence is acceptable in modern, polite society, then the sentence has no real problems. Language is about communication. If the message is clear, then the language is effective. If the message is not clear, or is ambiguous, then the language is not effective, regardless if the spelling and grammar are "correct".

I would prefer something like: "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and there are no intrusive spellings or sentence constructions". The "intrusive spellings" would then also cover inappropriate spelling variations for the topic. If people are puzzled or disturbed by a spelling, then it is intrusive. Intrusive "sentence constructions" would also cover any inappropriate stylistic flourishes, or personal idiosyncrasies. An encyclopaedia article is not the ideal place to indulge in creative writing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a sensible suggestion. Majoreditor (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The revised wording is a sensible suggestion. I don't have a copy of Fowler but I do have the 1973 version of Sir Ernest Gowers' The Complete Plain Words; and this brings me back to my original point. Fowler & Gowers are both written in respect of British-English: they don't take account of American-English, Canadian-English, Australian-English and/or New Zealand-English. I have reviewed GAN nominations in all those variants, but unless Fowler/Gowers come in British, American, Canadian, Australian New Zealand variants, they should not be used to verify that "the spelling and grammar are correct". Pyrotec (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

SilkTork, the spelling examples you give are merely British vs American. It's not that spelling varies; it's that there are multiple systems. Within each system, there is a formally correct answer. For some people, any error at all is intrusive. For a person who doesn't know the difference, then it's likely that no errors will be "intrusive". We don't really want to have the standard become "didn't bother the reviewer", especially for an article that might be aiming at FAC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. I am stunned by the idea that "correct spelling and grammar" is too ambitious for GA. I am surprised to see it raised and shocked to see support for it. What next? "Factual accuracy is asking too much"? GA is supposed to inspire editors to produce decent articles and hence contribute towards making Wikipedia a respectable encyclopedia. Does a respectable encyclopedia have an editorial policy that states "incorrect spelling and grammar are fine as long as it is not intrusive"? There are of course many acceptable variants of encyclopedic English, and hence often several correct formulations. We're not asking for Fowler & Gowers here. Indeed, the first clause (that "the prose is clear and concise") is probably more ambitious than the second as a requirement for good writing, and is correspondingly harder to meet in practice. Geometry guy 22:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Participants needed at GAR

Folks,

I recently initiated a good article reassessment of the song article Wait Your Turn, and I would hope it would interest editors who watch/participate in this talk page.

The dispute basically comes down to how GA criterion #3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic") and its note ("This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.") square with a mistake to avoid ("Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources").

The article offers almost no information about the song's writing, recording or composition, which I think we can agree are the "main aspects" of the subject (the one other GAR participant genuinely interested in discussion agrees with me here), and the main editor and his friends are arguing that the criterion can be overlooked because the information is not available. I don't see how the criteria can reasonably be read to allow for that – the note says not every major fact must be included, but addressing the main aspects must require the presence of at least some major facts. Lax interpretation has plagued recent pop music GAs, principally because there is a clique of editors who routinely review each other's GANs. At GAR, the main editor of the article engaged in votestacking and quickly built up false consensus, then managed to persuade an administrator to abbreviate the GAR process because of the consensus. Apparently ~36 hours remain for others to participate before the administrator takes action. So I am asking you, so that there can be discussion from knowledgeable, disinterested editors, please chime in here. Thanks for your consideration. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a common area of dispute. The guidance in Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not where it says that "Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources" is "a mistake to avoid", might not be that clear. It might be worth discussing rewording it. My understanding of that criteria is the common sense one that I have seen other reviewers follow, which is the one that you are voicing. Obvious details that a general reader would wish to know should be included in the article. If these details are not available, then the article is incomplete and cannot be a good article, let alone a Good Article. That's basic. As far as the GA criteria are concerned, it doesn't matter if the details are available in reliable sources or not. If they are not in the article the article is incomplete. I have frequently heard from nominators that they have "scoured the world for details and they couldn't be found, so give me my GA award already, as this article is as complete as its going to get!" And then I have done a search and found sources. It's also a weak argument from a nominator that as this is GA not FA we should list articles where the information can't be found. It is inappropriate to list articles that have obvious gaps and which tease rather than inform the reader. Sometimes there genuinely simply isn't enough basic information on a topic to make it broad enough to satisfy the interest of the general reader. So be it. We simply don't list those articles as being Good. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the GAR. While I personally like to have recording details, such information is not always available, even for famous songs, so readers don't expect it. In this case the article already carries quite a lot of information and appears to satisfy the needs of most readers. I have added a sentence copied over from the album article which gives a recording date span. Others may have different opinions, but I think the article is OK, and I wouldn't push for a delist. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't completely agree, but it's refreshing to read a thoughtful response as opposed to the indignation I'm seeing at GAR. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-English content; robust markup

Two related issues, which affect GAs as much as FAs

I recently opposed a FAC on the grounds that included non-English place- and company-names, that weren't marked up with {{Lang}}.

This touches on the wider issue on checking that GA/fA candidate articles uses the proper mark-up in other cases, such as quotations, lists and headings, rather than kludges.

If there is general agreement that such things should be checked, I'd be willing to help draft guidelines (or a checklist), based on existing MoS criteria, and suggest that we add a new GA criterion 1(c), to the effect that "Markup: is consistent, accessible and semantically meaningful".

Thoughts? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Only one, but you probably wouldn't like it, so I'll keep it to myself. Malleus Fatuorum 16:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on adding yet another criterion for what I view to be a minor issue. Majoreditor (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The GA criteria focus on the basics. This is not one of them. Geometry guy 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This could be dealt with by adding accessibility to the list of MoS requirements in 1b. Or by making accessibility a policy... —WFC— 22:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Question about alt-text

So I think it would be a good idea if '(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions' in the criteria, were changed to '(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have both suitable captions and alt text'. Does anyone else? Failedwizard (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Alt text is a Good Thing.

However, it's generally (if wrongly) perceived as a very advanced skill. I'm not convinced that this is sufficiently basic to really be appropriate for GA. Alt text is apparently not even required for FA (although I believe that someone normally supplies it for front-page FAs, even though it is not mentioned in the FA criteria). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't think Alt text is needed in a good article. An appropriate free or valid fair use picture and good caption cover the basic requirements well. AIRcorn (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the change per Aircorn. It's nice, but absolutely not needed for GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote heavy nominations

Is there anything in the criteria for reviewing articles that rely heavily on quotes. I can think of a few song articles that almost consist entirely of quotes (see Fading (song) for a recent example}. Another example are sections in relatively controversial articles such as the motivation section of Seattle Jewish Federation shooting (I ended up failing it as the nominator retired}, which consisted of just three large quotes. Is this reason enough alone to fail such articles? AIRcorn (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC: When do we allow more than four paragraphs in the lead section?

Please offer your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#GAs_with_five_or_more_intro_paragraphs. Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Two question

1. Images. Why are they ALL supposed to be right justified? I can understand that images which appear at the beginning of a section which are left justified will make the layout awkward. But for an image that is placed somewhere in the middle of a section, sometimes it adds a lot of visual balance to have it on the left. Otherwise, as I read these articles with lots of only-right-justified images my head starts titling rightward. Also, is this a WP:MOS issue or one that is actually relevant to GA?

2. Footnotes. Ones which add a little bit of extra information to standard article text. Of course they should be sourced. But does the inline citation for them - in a GA class article - go into the footnote itself or does it go at the end of the sentence which the footnote is referencing? In many cases, it'd be the same inline citation inserted twice. Thoughts?

 Volunteer Marek  02:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Where in the GA criteria do you see that all images must be right-aligned? Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't. In WP:MOS it does say "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement." I'm not exactly clear on if this means that images which are placed at the beginning of sections should be right justified (which makes sense to me) or ALL images should be right justified. Volunteer Marek  03:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

GAs aren't required to conform to all of the MoS, unlike FAs. Deploy common sense and see what works best. If you want clarification on the MoS, then best to raise that issue on its talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will fail a GAN simply because an image is not right-justified. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS is saying that the default position, if it is not specified, is the rightmost edge of the screen. WP:LAYOUT discusses left and right images, warning that mobile devices with web browsers do not necessarily put images where they have been coded. MOS:Images discusses a popular option in which "multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left". The whole section MOS:Images#Forced left justification exists because left justification is allowed rather than prohibited. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I always put the inline citation in the footnote and most articles I have seen with them do the same. You don't need to insert it twice. If it is in the footnote it doesn't need to be in the article body. I don't really see it as an issue for passing a GA, as long as it's there and is reasonably obvious what information it cites. AIRcorn (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. It's like "mainbody text sentence.[1-sentence reference][a-footnoote indication]" and "footnote section, footnote a.[2-footnote reference]". I hope this is clear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Re question 1 - I thought that the MOS main page was not part of the GA criteria? The footnote says "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles." Re question 2 - you can see how to nest a reference within a footnote at Help:Footnotes. --Malkinann (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Self-published material

I'm consistently getting reviewers complaining about references that are allowable under WP:SPS and/or WP:SELFPUB in my GA candidates. For example, in my current nomination, an actor's height is sourced to his own web page(!), and multiple comments on actors are sourced to the blog of the books' author and series executive producer. They're not "reliable sources", but they are sufficient to meet WP:V, and the best sources for those particular facts.

Would anyone object to a footnote clarifying that such sources, used properly, can exist within a GA? Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue I have is not that these sources are being used, but that an entire section (the production) does not have a single reliable source in it. For reference the current review is Talk:Cripples, Bastards, and Broken Things/GA1. AIRcorn (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't unique to the current review; it's been raised in other reviews, by other reviewers, and you've been more gracious than most. I think there's a disconnect that should be remedied, to provide more consistent guidance in such cases, so that nominators who are using the best available sourcing won't have to rely on varying interpretations of WP:WIAGA. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Aircorn, I'm not sure I understand the complaint. Is it your opinion that sources defined by WP:SPS as being reliable are somehow not reliable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We are working through them, trying to come to an agreement about if/how to use them and with what attribution. For example should an interview conducted by a fan site be attributed in text to the fan site? It is now attributed. I am not even sure where fan-sites sit in regards to WP:SPS? AIRcorn (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

For reference this was discussed at the reliable source noticeboard here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture question

Under the Good Article Criteria, do all images need to have WP:ALT text?
This review is provided for reference: (6b) Talk:500 euro note/GA1 – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, alt text is not a requirement for a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Update wikilink

Criteria 1(a)'s "clear and concise" is wikilinked to Wikipedia:MOS#Clarity. However, it appears that shortcut no longer exists and it just redirects to Wikipedia:MOS. Does the section of the MOS that it was referring to still exist? maclean (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Tony1 reduced it to two sentences in the lead back in August. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

After reading this again it appears 1a and 1b are in conflict. 1a links to the main MOS page as if it is the definition of "clear and concise". 1b footnote states compliance with the main MOS is not required in GAs. maclean (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anything more of the main MOS than the original, very brief definition of clarity was intended to be referenced, but as that link is basically broken, you could just remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the link was meant to highlight the importance of clear and concise writing: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." This is sometimes overlooked in reviews, in my experience.

There is no contradiction/conflict between saying that GAs are not required to comply with the entire MOS (or the entire main MOS) while also requiring them to comply with parts of it. Pretty much all of the criteria imply some sort of compliance with some part of the MOS. The point is that the MOS is not the driver. Geometry guy 13:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So, what is clear and concise and what is good writing? An article was passed GA this week which is very poorly written. Now, I know that some articles necessarily grow like topsy and there will inevitably be repetition, but surely the GA reviewer should pick that up, and ensure poor writing is fixed before the article gets the GA stamp. I don't know the reviewer. He is a well intentioned, productive editor AFAICS and I would hate to do something that would scare him off. How does one deal with this situation without drama? Moriori (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well... I suppose the least drama-oriented option is copyediting the whole thing yourself. I realize that's not a small task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Prevention is not better than cure? Oh well. Moriori (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The quality of good articles is reliant on the quality of the reviewers. Like everything this varies and some reviewers miss things while others are too strict. The due process for delisting articles that may not be up to standard is submission for good article review. Unlike the initial review these are conducted by multiple editors and a consensus is reached as to whether it is a good article or not. Not sure how much drama that will involve, it may be easier to use the talk page first. As to prevention over cure it would be great to have some ideas on how we can enforce reasonable standards without driving away editors. As it happens a similar discussion has started here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture question

Under the Good Article Criteria, do all images need to have WP:ALT text?
This review is provided for reference: (6b) Talk:500 euro note/GA1 – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, alt text is not a requirement for a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Update wikilink

Criteria 1(a)'s "clear and concise" is wikilinked to Wikipedia:MOS#Clarity. However, it appears that shortcut no longer exists and it just redirects to Wikipedia:MOS. Does the section of the MOS that it was referring to still exist? maclean (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Tony1 reduced it to two sentences in the lead back in August. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

After reading this again it appears 1a and 1b are in conflict. 1a links to the main MOS page as if it is the definition of "clear and concise". 1b footnote states compliance with the main MOS is not required in GAs. maclean (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anything more of the main MOS than the original, very brief definition of clarity was intended to be referenced, but as that link is basically broken, you could just remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the link was meant to highlight the importance of clear and concise writing: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." This is sometimes overlooked in reviews, in my experience.

There is no contradiction/conflict between saying that GAs are not required to comply with the entire MOS (or the entire main MOS) while also requiring them to comply with parts of it. Pretty much all of the criteria imply some sort of compliance with some part of the MOS. The point is that the MOS is not the driver. Geometry guy 13:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So, what is clear and concise and what is good writing? An article was passed GA this week which is very poorly written. Now, I know that some articles necessarily grow like topsy and there will inevitably be repetition, but surely the GA reviewer should pick that up, and ensure poor writing is fixed before the article gets the GA stamp. I don't know the reviewer. He is a well intentioned, productive editor AFAICS and I would hate to do something that would scare him off. How does one deal with this situation without drama? Moriori (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well... I suppose the least drama-oriented option is copyediting the whole thing yourself. I realize that's not a small task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Prevention is not better than cure? Oh well. Moriori (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The quality of good articles is reliant on the quality of the reviewers. Like everything this varies and some reviewers miss things while others are too strict. The due process for delisting articles that may not be up to standard is submission for good article review. Unlike the initial review these are conducted by multiple editors and a consensus is reached as to whether it is a good article or not. Not sure how much drama that will involve, it may be easier to use the talk page first. As to prevention over cure it would be great to have some ideas on how we can enforce reasonable standards without driving away editors. As it happens a similar discussion has started here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture question

Under the Good Article Criteria, do all images need to have WP:ALT text?
This review is provided for reference: (6b) Talk:500 euro note/GA1 – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, alt text is not a requirement for a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Update wikilink

Criteria 1(a)'s "clear and concise" is wikilinked to Wikipedia:MOS#Clarity. However, it appears that shortcut no longer exists and it just redirects to Wikipedia:MOS. Does the section of the MOS that it was referring to still exist? maclean (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Tony1 reduced it to two sentences in the lead back in August. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

After reading this again it appears 1a and 1b are in conflict. 1a links to the main MOS page as if it is the definition of "clear and concise". 1b footnote states compliance with the main MOS is not required in GAs. maclean (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anything more of the main MOS than the original, very brief definition of clarity was intended to be referenced, but as that link is basically broken, you could just remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the link was meant to highlight the importance of clear and concise writing: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." This is sometimes overlooked in reviews, in my experience.

There is no contradiction/conflict between saying that GAs are not required to comply with the entire MOS (or the entire main MOS) while also requiring them to comply with parts of it. Pretty much all of the criteria imply some sort of compliance with some part of the MOS. The point is that the MOS is not the driver. Geometry guy 13:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So, what is clear and concise and what is good writing? An article was passed GA this week which is very poorly written. Now, I know that some articles necessarily grow like topsy and there will inevitably be repetition, but surely the GA reviewer should pick that up, and ensure poor writing is fixed before the article gets the GA stamp. I don't know the reviewer. He is a well intentioned, productive editor AFAICS and I would hate to do something that would scare him off. How does one deal with this situation without drama? Moriori (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well... I suppose the least drama-oriented option is copyediting the whole thing yourself. I realize that's not a small task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Prevention is not better than cure? Oh well. Moriori (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The quality of good articles is reliant on the quality of the reviewers. Like everything this varies and some reviewers miss things while others are too strict. The due process for delisting articles that may not be up to standard is submission for good article review. Unlike the initial review these are conducted by multiple editors and a consensus is reached as to whether it is a good article or not. Not sure how much drama that will involve, it may be easier to use the talk page first. As to prevention over cure it would be great to have some ideas on how we can enforce reasonable standards without driving away editors. As it happens a similar discussion has started here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use images

Is there any limit to the number of Fair use images that are allowed in an article? For example, Foley Square trial uses five (including one that is used twice). Is that ok? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no limit, but all fair use images must have valid fair use rationales.

• File:FoleyTrialDefendants.tiff is the one used twice. "To illustrate a very important legal proceeding in US history." is not a valid fair use rationale for either use. I do not see a valid rationale for use in the infobox: this is not cover art for identification purposes, and could easily be replaced by another image. In contrast, I do see a valid rationale for use alongside the list of defendants; the image conveys information which would be difficult to communicate in prose.
• File:Budenz_1947.png only has a fair use rationale for another article, namely Louis F. Budenz. The use of the image in Foley Square trial is essentially cosmetic, hence invalid.
• File:FoleyTrialAttorneys.tiff‎. The rationale needs fixing, as it refers to "six" people in a photograph of five. More could be said about why it is educational and informative to use the image in the article (i.e., I'm not completely convinced).
• File:FoleyTrialCrowd.tiff. I consider this a good example of a fair use rationale. The image conveys the scale of the public interest in an irreplaceable fashion.

I hope that helps. Geometry guy 00:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That give me some guidelines not only for this article, but for the future. Thanks again. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing/plagiarism addressed?

None of the criteria seem to mention checking for Close paraphrasing/plagiarism (did I miss it?) I just reviewed an article in which the entire lede (which is as far as I got) was closely paraphrased or plagiarized. When pointed out to the nominator, the response was "There's no copyvio so its ok".

Shouldn't mention of this be part of the criteria? Checking for close paraphrasing/plagiarism is a big deal in dyk and featured articles.

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would very much like to rework the criteria so that this is more manifest, but stability of the criteria is important, as is community support for change. For the moment, the issue of close paraphrasing/plagiarism of sources which do not violate copyright has to be addressed under criterion 1 as "bad writing" (or "bad prose"). I find this entirely unsatisfactory, not only because it is not explicit, but also because in most cases, close paraphrasing was done in good faith, and does not conflict with most of the wording of 1(a); consequently the good faith efforts of reviewers to address this issue leads to conflict.

In my ideal world there would be a clear criterion about copyright, free use and fair use, and another clear criterion about good writing, presentation and plagiarism. In my view, this is the only point where the GA criteria muddy the waters rather than clarifying the issues. Geometry guy 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, fortunately for me, the other editors she asked to comment supported my view that the close paraphrasing/plagiarism was not ok in a good article. But she continues to attack me and still thinks she's right. And what's really scary is that on her user page it says:

I am an Online Ambassador, member of the Ambassador Selection Team, and member of the Ambassador Steering Committee. I have worked with university professors and students through the Public Policy Initiative over the past year and attended the Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit in July 2011, to assist with expanding the project to the global community. I am now part of the Wikipedia Education Program, with an emphasis on the United States and Canada.

So this means that all those editors they're recruiting are going to get the go ahead to close paraphrase/plagiarize (as long as it isn't out right copyvio itis fine.) She even quoted court cases and copy right law at me to justify her position. It's kind of deflated my sails. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, and my view is that the current position of the GA criteria is no longer tenable. We need an RFC to discuss the matter. Geometry guy 23:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hang on in there Matthew, It's long been a bone of contention with me as well that kids shouldn't just be allowed to copy stuff and claim it as their own. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Multiple lists fail?

The article Kings Island has recently been reviewed as fail status because of multiple lists. Why is it that an article should fail because of this? see below for response by reviewer.--Nickvet419 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I seen that the review failed because of multiple lists? There are multiple lists because either; they fall under different categories shops, theaters, rides. or they are ride lists that are located is separate sections of the park. how do you suggest that the list should be re-organized to meet a pass? --Nickvet419 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem. The Wikipedia

Good article criteria specifically eliminate articles with embedded lists. I believe the thinking is that such articles should try for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates because the difference between a good list and a featured list would not be that great. You could ask at the talk page of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and might get a different rationale. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment without prejudice: Neither the GA criteria nor WP:EMBED require that articles should not contain lists. What is needed is thought, balance, and compromise.) Geometry guy 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, did I make the wrong decision on Kings Island? It had a fair amount of prose, but many many lists (13, I think) plus several timelines and other listy things. Should the editor be encouraged to renominate? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in the article's current form. The issue is not just the many formatted tables, but the bullet point attitude (e.g. on notable people. slogans) that pervades the article. Such formatting sometimes adds value to an article, making it easier to digest, but overuse, as in this case, is a clear reason to fail. Geometry guy 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was the one that nominated Kings Island for GA review. I feel everything in the article is right for an amusement park article. It contains all the information to know the park and nothing more. The only think I would get rid of is the notable people. --Astros4477 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have made a valuable contribution. I hope you have also learned a little about what the GA criteria mean. Geometry guy 01:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

GA eligibility if page has previously failed

Hi! If a page has been nominated for GA status, but fails, may it later be improved and again nominated for GA status? Let me know! Thank you. Mjscheer (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

yes, you can nominate it immediately (there's no time barrier), or fix it up and nominate it. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Status of David Irving

Not sure if I'm posting this in the right place, but I find it hard to believe that the article on David Irving meets WP:NPOV by any stretch, much less qualify as a "Good Article". I tried putting the not-NPOV tag on it, but it was quickly removed.

I am not going to bother providing a list of things that make it clearly not NPOV. I think it will be obvious to any objective, fair-minded person who has read the article. I can also see from the article's Talk Page history that I am not the first person to point out the bias and gotten nowhere.

Listing this here so whatever powers that be can take a look at the page and decide for themselves whether they think it meets Wikipedias WP:NPOV stance, especially to qualify as "Good Article". Emeraldflames (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no "powers that be". To ask for a community reassessment of the GA status, you may list it at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. However, not bothering to provide reasons why it is clearly not NPOV won't get you anywhere. maclean (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

GA criterion 6 fails GA criterion 1a!

GA criterion 6 states that a GA is "illustrated, if possible, by images". Footnote 10 states: "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided."

As a non-native speaker of English, I had to reread those sentences thrice to figure out whether an article without images can meet the GA criteria. Could criterion 6 be reworded, possibly merging the copyright aspect of 1a into it? Poorly worded criteria may be among the factors that lead to reviews according to the subjective preferences of the reviewer rather than the GA criteria.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. A Good article does not need images, but if there are suitable free ones available the article should have them. Do you have a suggestion for how to make this clearer? AIRcorn (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What I found more confusing is the sentence "Images are encouraged but not required" at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Assessing the article and providing a review #6. This lead some editors to the interpretation that criteria #6 is not "Illustrated, if possible, by images" but simply "Images are [...] not required". I propose, the text at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles shall be changed to "Images are encouraged but not required if not available" (highlighted proposed change). Footnote 10 at WP:GA? could be also more clear, for instance stating "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided are required ." (highlighted proposed changes). -ELEKHH^T 09:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see how you could get confused, but I think the actual line is a little closer to "not ever required" than to "definitely required under some circumstances". It's nice to have one or more images. We prefer the inclusion of images. If it's easy to find them, I've never seen anyone object to including at least one image. But it's not exactly something that I'd want to fail an article over.

(Removing the word "some" might make some people believe that "all" such images should be included.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's the consensus interpretation here, than delete #6 as is meaningless, and add MOS compliance for images (basically 6a and 6b) to the general list of MOS compliance at #2b. Would make everything more clear, and less ambiguous. --ELEKHH^T 22:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally would like to keep it as a individual criteria, mainly because it is one that I fear gets overlooked. What about rewording to "Illustrated by appropriate images" and changing footnote 10 to "If there are no appropriate images available then the article does not need to be illustrated to pass this criteria" AIRcorn (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would reinforce my interpretation and obviously would agree. --ELEKHH^T 23:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Footnote ordering

I am involved in a debate over at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Bundling citations. I would like to clear up a point. I know that the good article criteria has nothing to say on footnote ordering, but custom also plays a part in such processes, so just because something is not mentioned in the criteria it does not mean that it is not done.

Let us suppose we have an article that has in its first paragraph two new footnotes: one to cover a fact about the moon, and then one to cover a fact about the sun.

Now let use suppose that in the second paragraph of the article there is the sentence "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big." it is covered by the same two cited sources as were used in the first paragraph "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big." would a good article review suggest that the citations in the second paragraph are placed in numerical order (smallest first) "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big."?

Are there any good articles with an example of inline citations that are being use for a second time in a multiple citation being ordered out of sequence to preserve "text-source integrity"?

--PBS (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bunched in-line citations are normally listed sequentially in numerical order, as in: "some statement". However, there is no problem in your example in having: "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. That way it is clear that the two phrases each have their own source, it's also more "accurate". Pyrotec (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My question is specifically about bunched citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Text-source integrity "Including too many citations within a sentence may be aesthetically unpleasant"). If it is usual to place them in numeric sequence during the good article process, then bundling will help to protect text-source integrity. Is rearranging bunched citations into sequential order usually done during a good article review or are some passed even if bunched citations are not in sequential order? -- PBS (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no obligation for the reviewer or nominator to place bunched citations numerically in a Good article. I don't know of any that do. AIRcorn (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In all of the various GAs and FAs I've worked on over the years, if I've had multiple sources that apply to different parts of a sentence, I insert the footnote in the middle of the sentence at the local breaking point (comma, semicolon, dash, etc). Otherwise, the only time I've had multiple footnotes for a single sentence was when I listed a handful of newspapers that had travel articles on the road and each name had its individual footnote. Otherwise, as a matter of keeping things looking professionally, I put the numbers in order at the end if the whole sentence. I suggest similar to nominators when reviewing things, but don't require it. (A Good Article should still look good, right?) Imzadi 1979 → 10:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I always do it myself when reviewing an article, if the footnotes are out of sequence. I note it in the edit summary, so the nominator will learn something. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If I was cleaning up minor "problems" during a review rather than listing them for the nominator or do (and me to then check), I might change "some statement". to "some statement".. Its not (as stated above) a requirement for GA but an out of order sequence of cites at the end of a sentence looks untidy. Pyrotec (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If I revised PBS's first paragraph from "one to cover a fact about the moon, and then one to cover a fact about the sun." to "A fact about the sun" causes a fact about the moon" then what used to be source 1 would now be source 2, and vice versa. This would lead to any bundled versions of the footnote later in the article to be out-of-order. But going through the rest of the article to spot any such reversals would be an unreasonable burden, and the risk of making a mistake would be too great considering the slight aesthetic benefit. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not work that way. Pyrotec (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, the bundling doesn't carry over. At each occurrence of bundling, you do an individual bundle. The footnote derives it's number from the order in which it is originally used, but each bundling at the end of a sentence (or anywhere) is done individually and the order of the footnotes determined when you add the footnote at that time—so you can add them in numerical order. MathewTownsend (talk)

Since this is missing a date stamp and has to be edited anyway, I'll report that the general opinion over at WT:CITE was that nothing requires footnote numbers to be placed in order in an article. And, of course, the GAC don't actually require full compliance with CITE anyway. If you can figure out which source is supporting the content, that's good enough for GA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT that is not what is being said at CITE, as even less people have expressed an opinion over the practice there than here. -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, my opinion is that it might not be required, but it certainly looks sloppy. A Good Article should look good too. Imzadi 1979 → 15:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requested on "broad in coverage"

I have recently notice some very short (less than 2k of prose/3-4 short paragraphs) good articles. I understand that broad in coverage, doesn't mean comprehensive (as per footnote), but if such a short article can truly be a GA it seems the criteria has no meaning whatsoever. In my own reviews, I have always expected every major aspect of the subject to at least get a couple paragraphs of coverage. Am I way off base here, or should I consider asked for the offending articles to be re-reviewed? --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Got an example or two for us to consider? Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Delaware Route 17 specifically motivated the Q, but I've seen several others. Kinda makes me feel silly for saying Alapalooza was on the short side for a GA in a recent review (not too short, though, as I passed it). --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Length isn't really an issue, it is more whether the article provides appropriate coverage based on the sources available. This varies a lot with the type of article. Articles with a narrow focus, like a short road or a song, may not have much information available on them so could be very short. A broad article, like on a country or a genre of music, will have more information that can be used to write the article. I have questioned the notability of some of these short road articles (see Talk:M-147 (Michigan highway)#Notability), but that is really a separate issue to whether they meet the Good Article criteria. For a really short article that was nominated see McDoolan (baseball). Common sense prevailed, but I am not sure it necessarily failed any of the criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely, there is a point when there simply is not enough information on a subject for it to meet GA. WP:Reviewing good articles says "Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." To me, broad means broad - it doesn't mean if very little is written in RS about this subject it gets a free pass. Am I wrong? --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am actually glad to see that. I was always under the impression that broad relied on what sources were available and it has been the way I have seen a few go at WP:GAR. It does seem to cast doubt on some of those very short articles passing. AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles containing at least five long paragraphs (excluding lead section) about a Singaporean disability organisation and celebrity blogger are supposedly not broad, while articles containing three short paragraphs (excluding lead section) about American roads are supposedly broad? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Following this discussion I nominated Delaware Route 17 for community reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1. --ELEKHH^T 22:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A straw-poll of Delaware Route articles indicates many are cookie-cutter affairs with an identical set of references, to 7 or 8 maps and 1 PDF, at least five of which are arguably from the same primary source. All GAs. e.g. Delaware Route 42, Delaware Route 286, Delaware Route 17. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the above comment, that the GA criteria needs to be urgently clarifieed. What the review of Delaware Route 17 made clear is that many editors will advocate an as narrow as possible interpretation of the GA criteria. Repeatedly, criteria #6 has been interpreted as "images are not required", and criteria #3 "A good article is—Broad in its coverage" has been interpreted, as if any barely notable subject can have a quasi-stub qualified as GA, given that nothing beyond a simple and vague description of the subject would be notable, or can be easily sourced. Maybe the section which states that "What is not a good article?: Disambiguation pages and stubs: these pages cannot meet the criteria." has to be expanded by adding some explicit exclusion of quasi-stubs, like the example above. Otherwise I'm afraid the GA tag might mean very little. Recently someone alleged that DYKs are better than GAs. With articles like Delaware Route 17 we can't prove they are wrong. --ELEKHH^T 13:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That interpretation of criteria #6 is correct. It has been well established that images are not required in good articles. It is better to have no images than irrelevant ones or any with borderline free use rationals. As for the broadness criteria, maybe it would be a good idea to bring a version of "Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." from WP:Reviewing good articles to this page (add it to note 7 perhaps). I don't think there is a suitable non-arbitrary clause that could be used (such as a minimum word count), but this may have some influence on reviewers when it comes to assessing a short artcle. AIRcorn (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
    • If criteria 6 would be that "images are not required", than why not simply delete the whole thing. IMO the meaning of "A good article is— 6.Illustrated, if possible, by images" is that if illustrations with proper copyright are readily available, than they are a requirement. On the other point, the citation you mention "Not every article can be a Good article..." has been often invoked in the above mentioned GAR, with little effect. Nevertheless I agree with upgrading its status by bringing it to the criteria page, and perhaps also strengthening the wording, by something like "if the article is barely more informative than a stub, than it does not satisfy #3 broad coverage". The question here is how to maintain a reasonable standard for GAs when many editors compete for GA tags, and in the process are inclined to dismiss most of the criterias, in particular #3 and #6. If you add to that that #4-Neutral and #5-Stable often do not require any effort to comply with, is obvious that very little meaningful is left. The other issue is, that such low standard for GAs affects the aim of having a comprehensive quality assessment system. Arguably many start and C-class articles are much more "good" than some "Good" Articles. --ELEKHH^T 05:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the #6 criteria is fine. If an article has no images and you find one that satisfies our copyright guidelines then you are within your rights as a reviewer to ask for it to be included (and even failing it if this is not done). In my experience most problems with images in Good articles are the opposite, the inclusion of inappropriate ones. However just because an image is available does not mean it has to be in the article. You are not the first to find the wording confusing so it may need to be clarified (we should probably continue this in the above thread).

Bringing the statement here will give it more weight and hopefully make it more visible. I was up into a little while ago under the impression that every article should have the potentially be a Good and another experienced reviewer mentioned the same thing at the reassessment. The competition thing was only encouraged due to the recent backlog drive, and is something I have been against for a while now. Do you have an idea on how to reword the Broadness criteria to remove the passing (and keeping) of "quasi stub" good articles without affecting the legitimate short articles? I don't think your last point is entirely fair, there are arguable Good articles that are better than Featured ones too. AIRcorn (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As a comment, what I would argue with the Delaware Route 17 article is that it fails notability guidelines - much less GA. Most the sources appear to be from the Delaware DOT or related, and regardless all are primary. Heck, this would even fail the third-party test from WP:V. If an article is truly notable, the coverage it gains from sources will likely meet the GA "broadness" factor due to the rigors of having independent secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All right, this point has been brought up by several editors during the review, but all must have thought that it would survive the very lax implementation of the notability criteria on the English Wiki, hence nobody actually nominated it. Since I want this issue to progress, I will nominate it for AfD, on behalf of all those who suggested it fails WP:N. But, if it will survive the AfD, please come back and help find a solution for articles like this. --ELEKHH^T 14:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that "broad in coverage" means that it covers all the things that a reader of the subject would expect to find. An article about an athlete would need information about what sports were played and when and what awards were won. An article about a disease needs information on treatment and symptoms, even if that information is limited ("Treatment: No effective treatment has been found.") If you expect a reader to be dissatisfied with the article because it doesn't tell them what they can reasonably expect to want to know, then it's probably not "broad in coverage". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Interpretations of what's "reasonable" are highly divergent and problematic. In the above example for instance the majority "consensus" has been that is not reasonable to expect to know what's the width of the road the article is about, what speed limit is in force along the road, how many traffic lights are there, what materials is the road made of, neither should one reasonably expect to know the exact date of construction, etc (is a long list I will not repeat here). --ELEKHH^T 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on how the Route 17 AFD is going, I'm going to make a suggestion that articles that are GA's should have at least meet the general notability guidelines. This is not to say that articles that don't meet the GNG should be deleted, but they aren't ready for GA. That is, in the case of Delaware Route 17, the article "passed" the Roads project internal notability guideline, which presume that any state-level highway is notable. That's fine for the creation of an article, but when we're talking about quality, we expect that enough sourcing and research is available to meet the broadness aspect that GA requires and at the same time meeting the GNG. I can find it nearly impossible that one can make an article of GA that only meets the subject-specific notability criteria and fails to meet the basic requirement for secondary sources from notability. My reservation is here is that this makes the guideline-level notability somewhat of a requirement, but at the same time, we're talking about some of WP's better articles, at which point you can't bury one's head about the lack of secondary coverage of a topic. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Your position is inconsistent; all articles should meet the GNG, nothing to do with the GA criteria. If they don't meet the GNG then they should be deleted. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all articles are supposed to meet WP:N which says they should should notability through the GNG or meet one of the subject-specific notability guidelines like WP:BIO. This is usually taken as a minimum requirement to have an article. But it's also a presumption that the topic is really notable, allowing those that only meet the subject-specific guideline time to grow and find sources to become better. There is no requirement that articles need to meet the GNG , though that certainly is an ultimate goal. In line with that, we want all articles to be viable candidates for GA, and the sources requires that GA demands are nearly always meet by meeting the GNG and aren't met if the GNG is not met. --MASEM (t) 21:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there are very many articles that could never meet the GA criteria, so that's certainly not any kind of a goal. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If a standard article is going to meet the GNG, then it likely will be able to meet GA requirements. It may take time (which is why there's no deadline) and require a good deal of writing to get the right tone in place, or time to get other sources. I can't imagine a case where if an article that has passed the GNG cannot be GA material with some elbow grease to get it there. Articles that can't be a GA because they can't get GNG should be merged to larger topics that don't have that same issue. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The situation I see it is that despite GNG, many minor articles with minimal sources are kept, per majority "consensus" of editors with special interest for the subject. From the moment these articles are kept per consensus is no point debating any longer if they meet the notability criteria. As long Wikipedia is still chasing article numbers as its primary aim, this trend is likely to continue. These articles will stay in a stub or quasi-stub status until new sources are published or additional sources discovered. Some of these articles are being promoted as GA given they have full coverage of available sources. For the DR17 article the same majority "consensus" concluded that full coverage of available sources is equivalent with "broad coverage". The GA criteria page only makes it explicit that stubs cannot be GA, it does not make it explicit that articles only little more than a stub also cannot be GA as they cannot meet the criteria for broad coverage. If the criteria is not changed, we'll continue to have such articles promoted as GA. --ELEKHH^T 22:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a well established principle that pretty much any geographical feature represented on a map will meet the GNG criteria, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why this statement appears as an answer to my text, as it does not address the issue I was raising. --ELEKHH^T 23:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the only established geographic features that get "free rides" in notability are population centers that get that leeway, because it is assumed that GNG sources will come about from people living there. People don't live on roads or other geographical features, ergo they don't gain automatic passage. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not true either. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, GNG and GAN have little to do with each other. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that I cannot think of a case where an article can meet GAC's "Broad in coverage" requirement and still fail the GNG's need for significant coverage in secondary sources. I realize they are two different types of sourcing, but in essence you can't have one without the other. If you can show me a case, outside of these road articles, where "broad in coverage" has been met but the GNG hasn't (yet still is notable by a subject-specific guideline), then there's no reason to connect. But I really think that while the issues of notability and handling that should remain separate from GA, the factor of the notability of an article is a necessary part of being a GA when it comes to basic sourcing. --MASEM (t) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

For easy targets you could look at the individual song GA's. They share a lot of similarities with the road articles. The majority are cookie cutter affairs with similar sourcing issues (Billboards, iTunes etc), have clear seemingly non-negotiable notability criteria (charting vs being a state roads) that do not necessarily coincide with WP:GNG and are maintained by an active group of close-knit editors. The only part of a song article where GNG and Broadness have to meet is in the reception sections. However in many cases they simply link to an album review and expand on a one sentence mention of the song. It is very seldom that you will find a source dedicated to just a single song or even anything approaching significant coverage. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen (song) for a similar deletion debate to the current road one and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wait Your Turn/1 for a similar reassessment. Some television episodes fall into this category as well, although most mainstream ones have whole articles dedicated to them in high profile newspaper/magazines. AIRcorn (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So can we then amend footnote 7 per above proposal, by adding an equivalent of the quote "Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." from WP:Reviewing good articles. I would suggest "However, not every article can be a Good article, if the available references do not cover broad aspects of the topic. " --ELEKHH^T 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as too many citations?

Hi,

Taylor Swift has 550 citations. Simple statements like this has four citations: "In May 2012, Swift contributed vocals to "Both of Us", a Dr. Luke-produced single from B.o.B's second album Strange Clouds.[267][268][269][270]"!

The article has reached the template limit of the wiki software and can't accept any more. See Template issues on the talk page. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this, but in general, three or four citations in a row is a red flag to me. --Rschen7754 17:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, articles with more than about 100 sources, no matter the length, are misusing primary sources. For a BLP, one likely problem is misusing news stories, which are mostly, but not always, primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more information. NPOV requires articles to "be based on reliable, published secondary sources", so an over-reliance on primary sources is a GACR failure under criterion 2(c). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

They don't seem to be primary sources, although there may be an AP article, then an article in say, the Seattle Times based on the AP article. I haven't checked them all so I don't know. (Who wants to check 550 sources, but it passed GA with those sources.) Mostly it seems to be the use of every conceivable reliable source mention - even if it just repeats basically the same information. There doesn't seem to be a policy/guideline regarding this sort of thing, but it's ridiculous. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that what you describe sounds excessive, but I wouldn't alter GA criteria to deal with it. Let the FA crowd pare them down to a more reasonable level if the author wants to go that far. :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is called citation overkill. --ELEKHH^T 01:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wording should be clearer

One important criterion reads "it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;" That is really hard to parse. It should be improved. I think it is trying to say: "The article should contain a References or Bibliography (or equivalent) section listing the sources (books, journals, newspapers, etc) used for the article." Can someone take a stab at making it clearer? --Noleander (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I interpret clause 2(a) as stating more than that. It is saying in effect that: "the section containing references to all sources of information should be in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout". Your re-explanation is merely that it needs such a section, not that it needs a such a section AND that the section should comply with this, i.e. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, requirement. Pyrotec (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. My point was that the wording is confusing and subject to various interpretations. I'll go ahead and put your wording in place of the original wording. Everyone: feel free to wordsmith & tweak. --Noleander (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I ended up with:

• "it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in a section in accordance with the layout style guideline"

Feel free to improve and tweak. --Noleander (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The layout style guideline in respect of Notes and References states "section or sections", the requirement expressed above is tighter. So, it aught to be

more like

• "it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline". Pyrotec (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Or:

• "it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline for Notes and References". Pyrotec (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay: I removed "section" and changed the WP link to directly point to the WP:FNNR subsection of the MOS. --Noleander (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd not noticed that there was a direct link WP:FNNR, which is why I'd used Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. Pyrotec (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Quickfailing

I have stricken the "quickfail" criteria. This practice is unethical and unnecessary and should not be encouraged. All reviewers should be encouraged to complete full reviews based on the six GA criteria. WTF? (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually see extremely few articles quickfailed, and generally when it does happen it's when an article is not remotely close to GA status. If it's half-done or completely unreferenced I'm not going to waste my time reading everything else to make a laundry list. I wouldn't call it unethical at all, if it's not near GA status then it shouldn't be nommed. Wizardman 16:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, ALL GA noms should go through FULL CONSIDERATION of the GA criteria. Stopping short of that and allowing quickfailing is unethical, inappropriate, and should not be allowed. WTF? (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm reinstating it. Pyrotec (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Why make a reviewer go through the bureaucracy of reviewing an article against six criteria when it patently fails one or more of them, so the others are moot? It seems something of a waste of their time, and I'm not sure that that's less ethical than not giving a full review. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The "quick fail" process steps were added back as long ago as May 2012 (see [6]), but there were appeared to be problem with implementation in that one or two (perhaps more) reviewers were using "quick fail" to fail an nomination part way through the review, when the "correct process" should have been to fail against the criteria WP:WIAGA, not to "quick fail". The current version was more of a copy edit to clarify the process to make a clear that the review can be a two-stage process, i.e. if the nomination makes it through the "quick fail gate" then the nomination should be reviewed against the criteria and either passed or failed (with an intermediate "On Hold step if the reviewer considers it necessary). I don't believe that "quickfailing" is unethical nor inappropriate. If an article is considered so unlikely as to awarded GA during course of the current review then the reviewer should be able to fail or "quickfail" the nomination without a full review. If one (or editor) is going to bring in arguments of ethics, then does not a similar set of ethics apply to nominators in that it is unethical to submit articles that are clearly uncompliant with the Good Article criteria. 17:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

While they were added to this page in May, they've been mentioned in the reviewing process page for at least five years - see here. I'm not sure about the details of how people have been implementing it, but the broad principles have been around for a very long time. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment. My first review, as a reviewer was back in September 2008, so I'm certainly aware that "quick fail" was mentioned in the guidelines back then under the heading First things to look for (but not at the stage in the criteria). I sometimes, but not very often, "quick fail" but I don't keep records of my "quick fails". Pyrotec (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You have ZERO authority to reinstate (or instate) it. This MUST be properly discussed first. And I totally disagree with it. Including it as phrased is unnecessary and very misleading, as well as horribly redundant. Maybe a simple statement about it, but six quickfail criteria in addition to six main criteria is completely ridiculous and confusing. Especially also including quickfail criteria as a separate section. Very, very confusing. WTF? (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have every right to reinstate it. You broke the 3 RR rule, and that could lead to you being banned. I have no wish to see that, and I have already given an explanation as to why I re-instated it. I suggest that discussion is the appropriate response, not edit waring. So are you now saying that its not now a question of ethics, it just one of confusion with twelve rules not six? Pyrotec (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not break the 3RR rule. Reverting three times takes it to its limit, but does not break it. But alas, I see arguing with people that haven't been laid since the Ford Administration is useless, so I digress,. . . WTF? (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What gives you the authority to revert against consensus here? Please do not remove the criteria again. --Rschen7754 22:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither edit-warring nor gross-incivility are constructive. I would suggest however to change the numbers into bullet points or the list into a paragraph, as the current format looks like a bureaucracy set to efficiently fail candidates, which can be perceived as intimidating. --ELEKHH^T 04:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The numbering does make it easier to point to the criteria that is being used. AIRcorn (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's my point, it is discouraging to hear something like "GAN failed according to criteria #2". Is better when new editors get an explanation in words. --ELEKHH^T 06:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that would be any more discouraging than simply saying your article failed because it has no references. Anyway, every time I have seen it employed the statement includes both (i.e. "Your article has failed because it has a large number of cleanup tags (quickfail criteria 3)". AIRcorn (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

While WTF has probably scuttled any chance of this section being deleted, I have wondered if the quickfail could be better presented. They tend to dominate the page more than they probably should, especially as the focus should be on the other 6 criteria. I was thinking that it could be an idea to put the numbered criteria in a collapsible box and make a better introductory paragraph. They could then be moved up a section so they appear in the logical order (i.e. before the actual criteria). For an example of what I think could work: AIRcorn (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quickfails

There are six quickfail criteria that can be used to fail articles a long way from the required Good status. If a nominated article meets any of these criteria prior to reviewing it may be failed without further review. If none of these criteria apply it should (maybe change to must?) be reviewed against the standard Good article criteria (is there a better way to say this).

Six quickfail criteria

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations.

Yes, and also the distorted mirroring of the 6:6 fail vs. promote criteria is confusing, so better differentiation and prioritisation I would find positive. --ELEKHH^T 12:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at WTF's involvement in GAN: that editor lists on his talkpage 21.5 GAN reviews carried out in 2010 and 1.5 carried out in January 2011, but none are listed since then, and he last nominated an article in August 2012 that was reviewed and failed in October 2012. It appears that WTF has recently looked at the criteria and noticed a changed since that last review that he (seems to have done) carried out two years ago. However, as stated above, "quickfailing" was certainly in the reviewing guidelines back in 2010.

However to return to the points above: from a standards-editing view point, words like "may", "could" are used when there is a element of choice and "shall" is used when there is no choice. Doing a copyedit and a slight rearrangement, I'd suggest that for the purposes of dicussion:

"There are six quickfail criteria that can be used to fail nominations that are visibly far below the standards required for Good status. If, prior to reviewing, a nominated article meets any of these criteria it may be quickfailed without further review. If none of the quickfail criteria apply it should shall (maybe change to must?) be reviewed against the standard Good article criteria.". Pyrotec (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my initially poor response to this. A lot of this instruction creep has actually discouraged my involvement in the project and made it less rewarding, as evidenced by my lack of reviews. As for the "quickfail criteria", most of these are really just extensions of the six primary criteria, especially numbers 1, 2, and 4. I don't think they're really necessary. It probably is a good idea to state (#3) somewhere that the presence of multiple tags could result in an early fail without further review; although sometimes, these tags may be used by reviewers to point out problem areas. Quickfail criteria #5 is pretty obvious, but also an extension of the stability criterion. I'm not so sure if quickfail criteria #6 is really a "quickfail" criteria -- it seems to me like this is something that would be much more difficult to assess, and if there are copyright violations, they would come out during the review (but not necessarily). Although if something is an obvious copyright violation and it can be proven quickly, then the article should be failed immediately. WTF? (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree. I "read" the guidelines as a suggesting a two-step review process: (step one) "look at it" to see if it is likely to be compliant (and I don't have a strong view on whether the GAN criteria could be used or whether another set is needed, but see below) AND (step two) if it gets through this stage then "check it" against the GAN criteria. Note: one of the "problems" that has recently arisen, and these changes were made to address, is that a reviewer added flags partway through a review and then used the quick fail criteria (the presence of flags) to justify quickfailing the nomination. The reviewer produced a strong set of arguments for failing it but but incorrectly used them to justify a quickfail (not a fail against the GAN criteria which would have been uncontroversal, unlike the "quickfail" result). However, returning to the point: Obviously, a reviewer can do a one-pass review, in which case the GAN criteria are to be used, and the quickfail step is (in this case) a redundant step. Again if the review is to be a two-step process, with step one being a "look at it" and step two a "check it", it does make a bit more sense (to me) to adapt the criteria to the process with "look for flags" rather than "is it verifiable?" for step one; ditto the differences between the other five criteria. Pyrotec (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• WTF, I actually agree with most of what you say in the above post. I still think a quickfail approach of some description is necessary however. If an article has no references then it is a waste of time for the reviewer to look at the prose as this will most likely have to be completely rewritten. Same is true for extremely poor prose, broadness or focus. You are right that this is redundant as a reviewer can simply fail the standard criteria 2 and not bother reviewing the other parts. They don't even need to place the article on hold. Many would probably view this as a quick-fail, but it is simply a fail against the criteria with no hold period. Getting rid of the use of the word quickfail may actually be a benefit to the project as it is often misused. The possible issue is that this may lead to inappropriate fails without holding. Given the length of the backlog and also that this occurs anyway I don't see this as creating a major, or at least new, problem.

One solution would be to keep the quickfail criteria that do not necessarily relate to the standard criteria (3 and 6). Nobody should be nominating articles with outstanding cleanup tags anyway - especially orange level ones. We tried to alleviate issues with reviewers adding tags and quickfailing the article with a reword a month or so ago. The copyright thing is a bit tricky, it needs to be mentioned somewhere as it has become quite a big issue here and as we are providing a quality rating we are expected to provide a good example in this regard. I think it should at least be brought up here somewhere, maybe not so much as a quickfail, but as a strong note saying that if any copyright infringements are found the article can be immediately failed without further review.

The more I think about it the more I think that this should be changed here and at WP:Reviewing good articles (where it initially came from). It would probably need a rfc as it has been around for quite a while. If it is done it needs to be replaced with something emphasising that articles can be failed if they are a long way off one of the standard criteria. So in summary I am thinking:

1. No mention of the word quickfail
2. The cleanup tags stays roughly as written, except it emphasises that these need to have been added before the review was initiated
3. It is explained that an article may be failed if it is a long way off meeting one of the six standard criteria
4. Copyright infringements can result in an automatic fail

I would just present this as a short introductory paragraph under "What is a good article?" and remove the quickfails section. AIRcorn (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have created a test page to show how I see the new wording working (see Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Alternative version). I welcome any comments before I start a RFC. AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this "mock up" of a replacement page. My only comment is that I'm not too keen on the section title: Failing an article. I would prefer to have a section title such as Visual indications of a non-compliant article or Visual indications of non-compliance. Both of these are suggestions are rather long, so I can see reason for disliking them. However, they state what I think the section title should state and I can't, yet, see a shorter or more compact way of writing it. I don't have any other objections to this proposal, neither do I advocate the return of the phrase "quickfail" as a section title. Pyrotec (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I was originally not going to have a separate section and just put it under the "What is a good article?" heading. It didn't seem to match with that title though. How about changing the "What is a good article?" header to simply "Criteria" and placing the new paragraph at the top of that section? AIRcorn (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If the example Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Alternative version-1 is what you mean, then I'd probably be inclined to accept it. However, I think we need to get some more views before proceeding any further. Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. I think it is better than the original alt version. Am leaving a note at WT:GAN as another misunderstanding has appeared. If there are no objections I will start an RFC using your one. AIRcorn (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the alt version 1 would be an excellent improvement. I had erroneously believed based on the previous instructions page that I couldn't immediately fail an article unless it met one of the 6 quickfail criteria; this version is much clearer. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

References

RFC: New wording of the quickfail criteria

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.

---

Following discussion above I am requesting comment regarding changing the wording of the quickfail criteria from its current version to the version presented at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Alternative version-1. The changes will remove the word quickfail from the criteria and emphasise an "instant fail" (that is a fail without holding). The previous quickfail criteria of cleanup tags and copyright infringements are still presented as reasons to fail an article without further review. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Their have been a few instances of editors misinterpreting the quickfail criteria recently (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 18#Misuse of quickfail, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 18#Question and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Query about discussing quick-failed article). Also it is not obvious to some of our newer (and possibly older) reviewers that the option exists to fail an article without placing it on hold (mentioned in some of the above threads and more specifically see Khazars comment here and the subthread Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 18#Reviewer options). The current quickfail criteria, apart from the cleanup tags and copyright violations are really just extreme cases of the well accepted six general criteria, so articles that do not meet these criteria will still be failed without holding. The copyright criteria is not really a quickfail in any case as its detection requires reading the article and examining sources first, so is not likely to be picked up until the review has started anyway. I don't think these changes are going to have an effect on the reviewing behaviour of the majority of the experienced Good article reviewers as it reflects common practise, but it might make it easier for new reviewers. Plus it gets rid of the word quickfail, which appears to be what most of the nominators in the above linked threads were unhappy with. AIRcorn (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support As Aircorn mentions, as a newer reviewer, I was indeed unaware that review could be failed without a hold period. The proposed revision appears to me to clarify this issue. I also like that these criteria explicitly allow an immediate fail for the rare articles that egregiously fail to meet the prose criterion, which the previous quick-fail criteria did not address. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Yes, it is important to clarify that a reviewer can fail a nomination without going through the Hold phase (provided the article falls far short of the GA criteria). Also, the word "quickfail" is too insider-ish and should be avoided: WP processes such as the GA process should be easy for newcomers (and for editors for whom English is a 2nd language) to understand, and thus WP instructions should avoid slang and jargon. --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It seems like edit-warring and ongoing events have been removed from the quickfail criteria in the alternate version. Perhaps those are common-sense enough not to require explanation, but just pointing it out. CorporateM (Talk) 15:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Those points are still there in the alternate version. It says "If the article is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria ..." and edit warring is listed as criterion #5, etc. --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment In response to the above comment: there is no edit warring and the (so called) "quickfail criteria" are still there with the explanation, but they just don't have a subsection title called "quickfail". Pyrotec (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Think this clarifies things without creating more instruction creep. There are obviously going to be situations where a full GA review is a waste of a reviewers time. - Shudde ^talk 10:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a practical alternative. —Ed!^(talk) 12:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Simple and clear guidance, just what's needed. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 17:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• I've never been convinced that this concept ought to be in the actual GACR page in any form. Sure, a 100% unref'd article fails, but GAQF is a process, not actual criteria, so its proper home is at RGA, not at GACR. As a minor nit, {{wikify}} is deprecated and ought not to be listed as an example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• weak support, with reservations - This proposal is a step in the right direction. I would prefer for this separate criterion to be removed altogether. I do not think an article should be failed automatically if it has cleanup tags. Many articles are subject to WP:OVERTAGGING, vague tags, and incorrect tags. Obviously a reviewer should see tags as a big warning flag, but the reviewer should still review the article to see if the tags actually have merit. Moreover, the nominator should be given a chance to address any issues raised by the cleanup tags before the article is failed. I also think that an otherwise good article that has a minimal amount of copyright infringement should not necessarily be failed. The copyright infringement needs to be deleted immediately, of course. But if the remaining article meets the good article criteria after the infringing material is removed, the article should pass.Fagles (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support: 'Instant Fail' sounds better than 'QuickFail' in my book. Yes I know i'm simple minded only catching that bit but hey someone has to be the simpleton in a conversation. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 13:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a simplification and clarification. --TKK ^{bark !} 19:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support much needed clarification. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 00:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support concise and succinct. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Proposal to add to the GA criteria

Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC#Add a mandatory copyvio/close paraphrasing check to the GAN process. Adabow (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

GA>FA>?

"a good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article"

I don't understand this. A good article gets promoted to featured article status and makes the front page and somehow is no longer a good article any more and needs to be rereviewed? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Newjerseyliz (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

GA is a lower status than FA. If an article is promoted to FA from GA, it is removed from the list of GAs and added to the list of FAs. If an article is delisted as a FA, it does not automatically regain any GA status it might have held before. To regain either GA or FA status once lost, the article would need to be re-reviewed. Imzadi 1979 → 23:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut

Shouldn't the shortcut WP:GAC redirect people to this page? --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Unless anyone has a good reason why not I would support such a change. meshach (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it was done this way to be consistant with other projects. For example WP:FAC redirects to featured article candidates so it is not unreasonable to think that someone might think WP:GAC means Good article candidates. Does not bother me personally and with the new headers it is a bit redundant anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio/close paraphrasing check

During the discussion at Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC, I asked what exactly would be involved in the Copyvio/close paraphrasing check proposed there. The RFC has now been closed, with a direction that there should be such a check, but that further discussion is needed to sort out the details. What should be expected of a reviewer conducting the check? Monty₈₄₅ 21:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Obviously, if during the course of a GA review, the reviewer detects copyvio, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing, they shouldn't pass the article till the issue is resolved. But that is already covered by the long standing requirement to respect copyright laws. What additional steps are expected now? Having a bot do an automated check? Randomly googling phrases in the hopes of finding something? Something else? Monty₈₄₅ 21:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I pressed Gatoclass for a more specific version of the proposal during the discussion. We never quite got specific language out of him, but so far as I understand it, he wants plagiarism to be independently listed as criterion 1c instead as a part of 1a, which makes sense to me. It's more of a format change than a change in the actual criteria, or as Gatoclass put it, a change in emphasis. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure precisely what is being asked here. Good article criteria are not decided by DYK any more than we tell DYK how to do their reviewing. Are DYK trying to tell us how to review all our nominations, just the nominations that end up at DYK, or is this checking to be done by DYK on GAs that end up at DYK? DYK is very much about box ticking. To give just two extreme examples, North Carolina Highway 2A which is probably larger than many DYKs could be checked fully for COPYVIOs, Ethanol fuel in Brazil which took a lot of effort to review can't realistically be checked fully for copyright violations. It would be ludicrous to write a tickbox procedure that could handle these two extremes. Pyrotec (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• To return to this Copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism comment above, if I copy some thing out of a document that has copyright protection, without acknowledging that I've done so, then that is a COPYVIO. In contrast, Wikipedia, for instance, does not claim copyright so if I copy something from one wikipedia article to another without referencing it, that is plagiarism. So what? Is some boxticker at DYK now demanding that every wikipedia article that has material copied from another wikipedia article needs a formal citation; and also a formal plagiarism check at GA to verify that such an event has not happened. It makes no sense to me. It's not a FA requirement, neither does it seem to be a DYK requirement. I've reviewed GANs that were DYKs and none of them had formal citations for material copied or duplicated in other wikipedia articles. So why should DYK impose it on us? It really means that the DYK boxtickers regard (quite wrongly) that their checking is superior to theirs and that our standards have to be raised to theirs; or, that they don't know what they are talking about. In actual fact the DYK standards are far far lower than ours. Pyrotec (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Smile when you call people that. Pyrotech, unattributed copying of Wikipedia content is a copyright violation. Notice how Wikipedia text is not PD, but CC-BY-SA (emphasis mine): You have to attribute, otherwise you are violating one or more other people's copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

And there is a reason FAs have spotchecks for new FA writers / nominators. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In that case, there are articles classified as FAs that have copyvios since they were created by "copying and pasting" from other wikipedia articles. That is how some prolific editors produce articles and get them through GA and FA. They are well referenced and well sourced, since they were copied from other articles of at least GA-level. Pyrotec (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

(undent)I'm unclear as to what exactly is under discussion here. A mandate against copyvio is already part of the good article criteria, and reviewers should be performing at least a brief spot check for every article they review. As has already been pointed out, copying without attribution within WP is also a form of copyvio, and so is covered by the good article criteria. Copying from a PD source without attribution would fall afoul of the good article criteria sourcing requirements, so again, that is already taken care of. Copying within WP or from a PD source with attribution is neither plagiarism nor copyvio, although the text of many PD sources is inappropriate style-wise for inclusion on WP, and could go against the the prose requirements for GA. So, TL;DR version: I don't see what DYK wants that is not already in the criteria. If reviewers are not performing checks required by the criteria, then that is a problem, but it is a problem with the reviewing process, not the criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• My reading is the same as Khazar's reading: give more emphasis to the role of copyvio/plagiarism checks, make it even clearer, maybe even as "criteria 1c" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

But again, "More emphasis on copyvio/plagairism checks", what exactly are we talking about when we say a check? What would a GA reviewer who is faithfully complying with a criteria that requires such a check do to satisfy the requirement? My view on the old language, is that we should keep our eyes peeled for violations, which we might detect as a large one diff expansion of the text, become suspicious based on an inconsistent tone while reading through the text for the other criteria, notice when we are checking the references to make sure they are proper, and that there is no OR, and then check the images for proper licensing tags. But other then the image licensing check, those are all passive detections, noticing something out of place and investigating. What additional steps should be taken? Monty₈₄₅ 01:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I should think requiring an active review (i.e. actually opening the sources and checking; FA does it [on all first time nominations, at least], and DYK reviewers should do it, and some GA reviewers do it [I do], but having it codified would be better). Smart copyright violators know how to change it enough to get past a cursory inspection. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• So, Crisco 1492 seems to be saying that DYK are seeking to impose a higher standard on GAN than FA have in place (I've only had experience twice at FA as a co-nominator). The statement was that "FA does it [on all first time nominations, at least]". As a reviewer I do that checking in part on electronic sources that are available (I can't do it on those I can't access) and on books and journals (that I have to hand) as part of the verifiable sources process checks. I don't do random checking with google or similar. Is Crisco 1492 making claims here that for every nomination he (and DYK and FA) reviews, the reviewer has access to every book, journal, newspaper, web site, subscription-only site (including foreign language editions where appropriate) referenced in the article and does a full copyvio, close copying check and plagiarism checks? In fact that is not sufficient, since the copyvio, etc, might have come from an undisclosed source. In point of fact, my two MSc thesis (I have two MSc each with a requirement for a 15,000 word thesis) had to be submitted in electronic form (as well as three bound copies) as both universities used "checkit" (I'm not sure about the spelling) to check for copyvios and plagiarism. I saw parts of the printout for my second one, my tutor admitted there were massive quantities of "false positives"; but it could only check what was publicly available in electronic format. I think I will go further, unless Crisco 1492 (and any other reviewer) has access to all the books, journals, newspapers, web sites, subscription-only sites (including foreign language editions where appropriate) cited in the nomination, full checking of citations is not being done, then neither am I (nor is DYK and FA). I think there is a great degree of uninstantiated claims going on here. DYK are setting themselves as examplars of best practice and seeking to impose these on GAN, when it is clear from my example above, full checks for this and for verifiable claims can't be done without all the sources cited (as well as those not cited) and are certainly not being done by those that claim to do so. To clarify "best efforts" need to be made in carrying out such checks, but anyone claiming to do these checks in full probably either has a "trivial length" nomination or is making claims that aren't justified. Just in case anyone disagrees, do a full copyvio, close copying, plagiarism and verifiable sources check on Ethanol fuel in Brazil and state the time that it took to do it. It would be even better if more than one editor edit those checks and a league table of times published. Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I am not saying anything of the sort, and suggest that you try reading my reply again. I'm saying that Gato's proposal was more to make sure spotchecks (nowhere did I say full spotchecks) were done, something which is required at both DYK and FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• At 00:25, 7 September 2013 you stated "... And there is a reason FAs have spotchecks for new FA writers / nominators." and 01:45, 7 September 2013 you stated "FA does it [on all first time nominations, at least], and DYK reviewers should do it". So, FA do spot checks some of the time and DYK should do it. This is your first mention of Gato's proposal, but in fact Gato (as far as I can see) has made no proposals at GAN. What he might have done was to make proposals at DYK in respect of what he/they intended to impose in GAN. So on the basis of what you have said here there appears to be some doubt as to whether FA and/or DYK do spot checks all the time. So give or take some uncertainty, the proposals being imposed on GAN are spot checks. Pyrotec (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• First of all, nobody is "seeking to impose a higher standard on GAN than FA have in place": you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is being suggested below, and seem to think "close paraphrasing" or "copyvio" checks require all sources to be scanned (as opposed to random spotchecks used everywhere else). Another of your quotes: "DYK are setting themselves as examplars of best practice and seeking to impose these on GAN, when it is clear from my example above, full checks for this and for verifiable claims can't be done without all the sources cited (as well as those not cited) and are certainly not being done by those that claim to do so." - Nobody has said anything of the sort except for yourself. And if you didn't know Gato made the initial proposal, then you haven't read the other discussion yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Let us consider this in small blocks: there is a voluminous discussion at Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC, which I've made minor contributions to be, but I've not really followed. Secondly, these reassurances are rather "wooley": you state that "nobody is "seeking to impose a higher standard ...", but that is all. The whole of the discussions and decision making about what standards are required at GAN to check for COPYVIO/plagiarism took place at DYK, not at GAN (and that seemed to be intentional). I'm also well aware of your comment there I disagree with the suggestion that passing a GA review automatically means the DYK review will be easier; I've seen some very shoddy GA reviews which, if done at DYK, would have led this talk page to catch fire. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Yes there are crap reviews at GAN, we can delist them with another review, we sometimes ban editors. DYK have a system of captive labour, whereas GAN relies on volunteers, so perhaps we don't need to light fires. I also assume (without any knowledge) that having copyvio material on Main Page is rather embarrassing. It appears to be that much of the proposals are coming from people with a similar mindset and they seem to be coming from DYK. I don't really know Gato and I don't know Monty. They both seem to have done five GAN reviews each. Monty has already asked his question at Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC as long ago as 7 August 2013 (UTC) with deathly silence; and he has asked it again here with this rfc. There is also deadly silence on the purpose of these "suggestions", I'm tending towards the "conspiracy theory" approach, and that they are going back to DYK for approval, it's already on-file at DYK that there is to be another discussion in the near future to review the progress and the operation of the Main Page system. Pyrotec (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Secondly, why am I the only one making these statements? I have to assume that either DYK don't know about them, or that the type of nomination that you get at DYK means that they are not needed. If that is the case why are DYK trying to run or manage our quality systems for copyvio checking, etc? You gave me a short lecture on copy violations, but then I've had the advantage of two days of university lectures on copyright violations and plagiarisms, once at Salford and once at Southampton, so I'm returning the favour. Perhaps my grammar was poorly presented, so I'll rephrase it. If you have a typical DKY or a small GAN with six perhaps, ten or even 20-ish citations, running a check on google and amazon might work and produce some "hits". I wrongly called it "tickit", what I should have written was turnitin. That is what some UK universities use to check student dissertations. The use of a professional fully automatic checker such as turnitin produces a massive quantity of "false positive hits", and its also a two-day course on how to use it (so I'm told). It's effectively not all that useful for us, but then its not available to use. My point was that where articles rely on the use of books (only some of which have fragments on-line, and some of these are clearly copyvios), newspapers, journals, etc, spot checking can't work if only google and amazon are used. I gave Ethanol fuel in Brazil as an example of the type of nomination that appears to GAN, but is unlikely to appear at DYK. Since the use of Google Books, Amazon is propose below, why not have some fun and play with it, do some checks, see how long it takes, etc. Since, I assume you do this all the time at DYK, try a bigger article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd also think some spotchecks would be sufficient (by which I mean simply looking up a few of the citations through links, Google Books, Amazon "search inside this book", etc.); spotchecks of the sources should be happening anyway to verify accuracy. Like you, Monty, I also try to doublecheck anything that specifically seems tonally odd or problematic. I'm resistant to writing a precise "how-to" here, however, because articles differ in their numbers, types, and uses of sources. I think it's better to leave it up to the reviewer what method (spotchecks, automated tools, etc.) would be best.

To put this RfC in perspective, Gatoclass (the proposer) stated several times that his main concern was that a copyvio check was omitted from the templates summarizing the criteria for reviewers (that part's already been addressed). He also proposed making copyvio a separate criterion so it wouldn't be overlooked by hasty reviewers. As most of the supports emphasized in their comments, this is a clarification rather than a change; I think it would be overthinking it to put a major new procedure in place. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to look at what FA requires, as FA is a higher standard than GA, unlike DYK. The requirements are at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, but I can't see them. Since today's featured article already appears on wikipedia's Main Page, we go for the higher FA standard. Pyrotec (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Tentative summary/arbitrary break

To address the concerns of the RfC, I propose that criterion 1a. be broken into two criteria and expanded as follows:

1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

1c. it complies with Wikipedia guidelines on copyright and close paraphrasing.

Does this seem like a reasonable summary? (Re-reading the RfC, by the way, the formal proposal doesn't mention plagiarism--Gato only discusses it in his later comments--so I've omitted it here, too.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, heck, I just saw that this was closed as being about "plagiarism" rather than "copyvio". Let me try to clear this up with the closer. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed the DYK ditact would need:

1c. it complies with Wikipedia guidelines on copyright, close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Plagiarism.

However, I believe that they want more that just a specification, they seem to what a full method statement and that is what I want to get onto.

DKY claim to do this fully on all their articles, well perhaps they do, but let us look at today's DYK's: Kumarakottam Temple , Sybil Campbell, Darling Downs funnel-web spider, Bigger Hair, Prisoners of Hope, and North Radworthy. They are mostly "trivial in length" articles (sorry to express it that way, since individual editors have worked hard to improve them up to DYK level) but most of them either have three or six citations, one has ten and one has 21 citations. It's probably not going to take much effort to do full copyvios, close paraphrasing and plagiarism checks on any or all of them. I've issued a formal challenge to DYK for them to do full copyvios, close paraphrasing and plagiarism checks on Ethanol fuel in Brazil since it is one I reviewed, just those checks nothing else, and to state how long it takes them it do it. I choose that one since, it is representative of articles that appear at GAN and in its current form its unlikely to appear at DYK since I very much doubt that anyone could double it in five days (the DYK requirement is little more than that, however I believe that a piece of software is used to count the words, so they don't have to do that themselves). GAN certainly does get nominations of a comparable size to today's DYKs and in backlog reviews, where points are issued for each review, they are popular to review since the effort is fairly trivial in time. However, they are not representative of the whole of the GAN spectrum, and just because DYK deals with "trivial in length" articles and nothing else they appear to have a "blind eye to the telescope" approach to such checking. I suspect that some of them are aware of the effort that is required, since they are very very unwilling to carry out their own copyright, close paraphrasing and Wikipedia:Plagiarism checks on GAs being passed to them under their impose system. That "hidden agenda" can be found on the DYK talkpages. So why should we carry out these checks for them? Pyrotec (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarifying with Newyorkbrad (the closer), he states that he didn't specifically mean we needed to add checks for plagiarism to the GA criteria; he only used the term it because he sees it as interchangeable with COPYVIO. We're free to work out the form of that on this page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is what wikipedia states in Plagiarism: Note that plagiarism and copyright infringement are not the same thing.[6] Copyright infringement occurs when content is used in a way that violates a copyright holder's exclusive right. Giving credit does not mean the infringement has not occurred, so be careful not to quote so much of a non-free source that you violate the non-free content guideline.[7] Similarly, public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source, even though there is no copyright issue. For advice on how to avoid violating copyright on Wikipedia, see Copyright violation. Pyrotec (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Following on from the Ethanol fuel in Brazil example, if our concern is over whether the checks will actually be done, then perhaps we should split 1a into new criteria 2d, instead of 1c. Admittedly I haven't reviewed in a long time, but in practise doing a copyvio check goes hand-in-hand with checking that the sources actually back up the article content. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 16:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what is meant by "our concern" - its more a case of "their concern". It appears that there is a wish for new GAs to be listed on Wikipedia's Main Page in the same way that there is a Featured Article of the day and there are a blocks of "Did You Know" hooks. This seems to be under the control of DYK, who regard their checking procedures to be superior to GANs. DYK wish to impose on GAN, or perhaps force GAN to submit proposals to DYK for them to approve. The problem appears to be that DYK have concerns over whether GAN do these checks. There are voluminous discussions at Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC. Pyrotec (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Pyro, rather than DYK bashing could you focus on the discussion here? We know how you feel. Remember, sometimes even a group you disagree with can have good ideas. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• In that case, perhaps you fully understand why I have those feelings. Its the "DYK missionaries" and the "we know better attitude" that I can't stand. DYK as a process (and an award) is good. I've reviewed at lot of GANs and some of the better GAN nominations I've reviewed had previously gained DKY. Quite a few of these become GAs and some of them later became FAs. Pyrotec (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• By "our concern", my point is that I care less about whether the DYK folks are happy (good articles on the main page will happen whether "they" are happy or not), and more about whether GAN is reasonably good at checking for copyvio. A few bad apples will slip through any net, FAC included. For me emphasis is merely on making sure that reviewers know that copyvios are something to specifically look for. This isn't about changing standards, it's about ensuring that the standards we have are applied as consistently as possible. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 16:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Overall I agree with Pyro's proposed wording. @Waiting: I usually do my spotchecks towards the end of a review (see Talk:Oliver Bosbyshell/GA1 for one example). By that point the article is roughly stable and so there will not be any major changes between the time I start my random spotcheck and the time it finishes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever we put in it should be concise and relatively flexible. One of the strengths of GAs is that it allows for many different reviewing styles as long as the minimum requirements are met. Saying that I don't really see too much of an issue with this proposed wording at 1c, although I don't see an issue with keeping the status quo either (unless there are some examples of bad copyright violations that have got through). Any advice on how-to check for this criteria should not be on this page and instead presented at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles (which already contains quite a bit on this subject). AIRcorn (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• I put the relevant part of the guidance on this page, some ten hours before you wrote your comment (see below): firstly, because DYK appear to be under the misapprehension that we don't have a written policy (we do it goes back two years to 4th August 2011); secondly, it would be nice to see what their written procedure is and how the two compare. Pyrotec (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Frequent GAN reviewer here. First off, I always check for close plagiarism when I review GANs, and I have failed a few for this reason. I spotcheck a few sources to see if they actually support the statements in the article, and CP (close paraphrasing) concerns are usually immediately apparent when I do that. (I also always check FACs as well, and I frequently find I'm the only FAC reviewer who seems to care about such issues.) Having said that, however, I don't think we should put up requirements that are so strict that they will discourage people from reviewing GANs. The backlog is already too long, by any standard. I think it is the duty of the reviewer to investigate whenever they have reason to believe that a copyvio or CP issue is present, and it is a very good idea to check even when you don't have a reason to be suspicious, but I wouldn't make anything more than that mandatory. I think we should particularly avoid any suggestion that the reviewer is responsible for copyright violations that he/she did not detect; that would be poisonous to the GAN process. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Draft proposals pending

As the original proposer of this change, I have some specific ideas about what changes need to be made but I haven't time to draft them yet. I probably should have drafted them as the RFC was coming to a close but I was intending to open a discussion here at that time and wasn't expecting someone else to do it right away. I will probably propose some changes to the wording of the GA review tables in the next day or two. In the meantime, we may need to have a discussion about whether only a spot check should be required or a thorough check - if only a spot check, we may need to define what that means exactly. Gatoclass (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

By "thorough check" do you mean every source? If so, why on earth would we do that? FAC doesn't even require that... Spot checks (checking a few sources to make sure there's no obvious copyvio, with an especially close eye on any places where the prose/refs seem hinky) are more than adequate for both FAC and GAN. Obviously there is a scale of checks: new nominators and nominators who have had problems with copyvio before should have their work checked especially closely, but this is just common sense, not something that we need to codify and create instruction creep with. Dana boomer (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well said. A voice of reason at last. Pyrotec (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I would also suggest that practicality is considered, something that is quite quick and easy to run on a typical 6 to 10 citations, and expectionally just over 20 citations DYK, based on today's "did you know" may well fall over on a large 200 to 250 citation GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, assuming there is consensus for a spot check only, we might want to add a few words to the guideline per Dana boomer's comment above outlining what a spot check consists of. Gatoclass (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, what is meant tables, we don't have tables, do you mean the (optional) review templates at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/templates? Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we adequately covered "spot checks" back in the August 2011 update to the quidelines see below. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

August 2011 guidelines

OK. I'll go through this step by step. The guidance is given at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. In it there is a section Assessing the article and providing a review, and Step 1, item 7 states: "The article is free of obvious copyright violations. Reviewers can use several tools, as well as Google searches, to help establish whether material has been plagiarised or cut-and-paste from some of the electronic sources used; but this is not a trivial undertaking. Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained.". That part has not changed very much in the last two years. The clause seems to have added by User:Chaosdruid during a series of edits on 4th August 1911. There was a very long discussion on copyvio checking this talk page in August 2011 and a extensive range of editors took part. (See here). Incidentally, 2011 was probably the last big war of words between DYK and GAN over copyvio checks, lack of them and which system was better. It would be nice it we could avoid a rerun / return match. Pyrotec (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, what is the written policy of DYK for doing such checks? Pyrotec (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm make the point that I made above yet again. This is "spot testing" and it can only test against what the reviewer "asks" the search engine to look for. If a book (journal, newspaper etc) is only partially digitised on Amazon, Google books, etc, or not all, and someone has copied the material that is not digitised and/or they've copied something that the reviewer has not "asked" the search engine to look for then it's not going to be found. I'll make another point, let us say that there is a strong match between what is in the article and what is on another website (which claims copyright): which came first, it is not unknown for sites to copy from wikipedia and then claim ownership. Obviously, in such a case the article review gets put "on Hold" for the copyvio to be resolved, but it could result in the article being passed at a later date, on the basis that the material was on wikipedia prior to it appearing on the other site. Pyrotec (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is reasonable to expect that "a reviewer will have access to all of the source material". Ideally, sure... but no one should be discouraged from undertaking a GAN review simply because he/she is unable to check the sources directly. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Formatting

This keeps coming up, so I've expanded a footnote to directly tell reviewers to stop fussing about whether the citations are perfectly formatted. Compliance with CITE has never been required. It just seems in this instance, some reviewers assume that the omission of CITE means that it is one of the requirements. I kind of assume that this is because it's easier to figure out whether an article looks good rather than whether it is good, but at this point, it may well be one of those urban legends that new reviewers believe because some old reviewer told them that it was required.

If anyone objects, then of course we could have an RFC to see whether perfectly formatted citations should be added as a criteria. I'd personally oppose that, but perhaps others like the idea of failing articles because of inconsistent formatting or the failure to include a publisher's name in every citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I ran into this in a review just a week back. It was definitely overdue for clarification. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I also think this change is a useful clarification. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Image and media criterion

I'll jump in to start the discussion, but I reverted this edit to the criteria earlier. The effect, as I read that edit, was to remove our preference for including media in articles. In short, they may not be required, but if we have the ability to include them, we should.

If an article I was reviewing lacked any imagery, I would ask the nominator if there was any that could be added. If given reasonable explanations why the article lacks imagery (or sounds, or video, etc), then I'd just move on without it.

If the desire is just to copy edit the note for clarity, that's fine, but the preference to include media should not be removed without a discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 20:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I will point out that the original/revert version should not simply say of "appropriate copyright status" without clarifying free and non-free image and important issues with the later. I know the intent of this statement is considering free vs non-free and when non-free are appropriately used, but I think this needs to be more specific. --MASEM (t) 20:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed change. Images should be included in a good article. What subject is an otherwise good article that cannot have any images? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Images should only be included if they are actually helping to improve the reader's understanding of the article, even with free images. Some topics are very "meta" and thus cannot be demonstrated with images, so requiring images makes no sense. Given that the FA process does not require images, GA certainly cannot require them. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Many GA writers are not native speakers of English. I only understood the current footnote after reading it thrice. When I started editing, that footnote said "a lack of images does not disqualify an article from GA status". GA needs to remain less demanding than FA. A "preference for including media" will increase systemic bias against certain topics. Some GA writers may wish to avoid dealing with image policy and should be allowed to do so. --Hildanknight (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how a preference for including media will increase systemic bias. All this note is saying is that if there is a perfectly good picture of a jaguar on Commons, the jaguar article should not be completely unillustrated. If, however, there are no pictures of a particular breed of dog, then the article on that breed cannot be kept from GA for not having an image. All this note is doing is expanding on the criteria itself, which says "Illustrated, if possible, by images:" Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dana boomer: A fairly new editor who is not a native speaker of English writes and nominates an article about a historic building in a Middle Eastern country. The article is well referenced, neutral and broad, with a few minor grammatical errors that are easy to correct. Commons has a decent free image of the building. However, the nominator did not include the image because he does not understand our image policies (which even native speakers may find confusing) and does not even know what Commons is. Perhaps he did not understand why a few images that he uploaded (in good faith) were deleted and is thus deterred from uploading further images. As the reviewer, what would you do?

Another editor writes an article about an African politician, which becomes a GA after she convinces the reviewer that there are no free images of the politician. Feeling motivated, she decides to write an article about another African politician. She can find only one free image of this politician, but deems the image unsuitable for the article. Perhaps the image does not show his face clearly (see Yip Pin Xiu for a real example), shows him playing football (misleading) or grossly violates an African cultural taboo (BLP issues). As the reviewer, what would you do?

--Hildanknight (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

For both of them, I would say "Hey, I found this image on Commons. What do you think of including it in the article?" The second one is less clear than the first, but if the editor had a good reason for not including it in the article, then there would be no problem. These would both be minor issues in a GA review, and would in neither case be grounds for failing the article's nomination. I have had image questions come up in a number of articles that I have nominated or reviewed for GA, and every time they have been easily solved through dialogue between the participants - sometimes ending up with including a certain image in an article, and sometimes not. I have written GAs that had images, and GAs that didn't, and GAs that had images later in the article but were determined to have no pictures illustrative enough to be associated with the lead. It would be ideal to have a high-quality, representative image in the lead of every GA, but it's not an ideal world, which is why the criteria is worded as it is. There is a major difference between "preference" and "required". Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd echo Dana's comments on this one. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dana boomer: For the first case, the reviewer should not fail the article simply due to lack of images. If the nominator is unfamiliar with image policy and the reviewer wants the article to have an image of the building, then the onus is on the reviewer to add the image. For the second case, free images are not "readily available" if the nominator has a convincing argument that the only free image is not suitable. Do we agree on these? If so, then how can the wording be made clearer to GA writers who are not native speakers of English? Reviewers may also misread the criteria and request images, even when they are not "readily available". --Hildanknight (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Hildanknight:: Reread Dana's reply. She never said she would fail the article. She said that she would mention that there is an extant free image of the building on Commons, and suggest using it, thus educating the GA nominator and offering him/her the chance to add the image to the article. Give someone a fish, they eat a meal. Teach someone to fish.... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: @Chris troutman: @Masem: @Dana boomer: @Crisco 1492:

There used to be a footnote that compliance to all aspects of the Manual of Style is encouraged, but not required for GA. Is this "preference for including media" part of the criteria itself or simply a suggestion to use images that are available and suitable? In other words, if an article is well written, factually accurate, neutral, broad and stable, but does not contain images that are available and suitable, would its nomination be failed? A suggestion is perfectly fine with me, but the wording of the footnote is unclear.

Many GA writers are not native speakers of English (as GA criterion 1a is easier than its FA counterpart). I only understood the footnote after reading it thrice (my mother tongue is Mandarin Chinese). How the criteria could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) is as important as the exact meaning. If an editor mistakenly thinks that images are required, she may be deterred from writing GAs or worse, upload a copyrighted photo and claim the photo is free (due to her limited understanding of image policy). New reviewers may make the similar mistake of failing nominations due to lack of images, even when there are no available and suitable images.

The purpose of GA is to be a reasonably accessible standard for all articles and editors. Including articles about Chinese culture, African politics or Islamic law, written by new editors who are not native speakers of English. This poorly phrased preference for including images makes GA less accessible. In my opinion, editors who wish to avoid dealing with our confusing image policies should be allowed to write GAs without images, regardless of topic.

--Hildanknight (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hildanknight: We meet again. I fondly recall our last discussion in February. The criteria is that images, where possible, be included. It's not a requirement to have images, only to include images if they're available. That's not so hard, in my opinion. Can you point to a GA nominee that didn't get promoted because it didn't include images? You claim that the "purpose of GA is to be a reasonably accessible standard". Please tell the GA reviewers because that's becoming less and less true everyday. English isn't the easiest of languages but I've not found the wording of the policy to be difficult to understand. If you can't speak English well then this project is probably not for you. I don't contribute to de.Wikipedia because my German-language skills barely qualify as basic. That's as it should be. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination and improvements from a topic banned editor

I reviewed Pharnavaz I of Iberia, and then found out that the editor who nominated the article, User:Jaqeli, was topic banned from articles that deal with Georgia and Armenia together. I requested an outside opinion from users involved with the topic ban of Jaqeli, and while I waited for that, the Jaqeli edited the article to satisfy the problems that I found during the review process. Because of this editing, Jaqeli has been blocked for two weeks. But Pharnavaz I of Iberia now satisfies the criteria for GA. How should I proceed? May I promote an article for GA even though the editor who nominated it and brought it up to snuff is topic banned?--¿3family6 _contribs 13:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• 3family6, this should go to WT:GAN. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability missing from GA criteria

Did you know that notability is not mentioned in the Good article criteria? A Good article is being considered for deletion (here) mainly because of lack of notability. Checking carefully, I agree with the lack of notability in this case, but I can also see how the article passed GA and I believe it (barely) met GA criteria. Why is notability missing from GA criteria? This seems to be a serious omission. Prhartcom (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is a serious omission. Back in June, there was a discussion at WT:GAN about notability and nominations. The discussion concluded that notability was an implicit requirement. However, it would probably benefit to explicitly include notes on notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise an article that is not notable could become GA as this one did, while technically meeting all of the GA requirements. Have I placed this discussion in the wrong place? I have added a short note at WT:GAN. Prhartcom (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

How an earth can an article meet the GA criteria (particularly #2 - "verifiable with no original research" and 3 - "broad in coverage") and not be notable? A GA requires in-line citations to reliable sources, frequently tens if not hundreds of them, which are the basic definition of WP:GNG. This just sounds like silly wikilawyering. Looking at the article itself, I could easily see myself asking a question along the lines of "what has this got to do with the song in question, rather than the parent album" during a GA review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but the answer to your question is, "Because the criteria never mentions notability." That should be an easy fix. How do we modify the criteria to mention notability? Prhartcom (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think when this has been brought up before, it's always implicit that a GAN/GA has to meet all other policy and guidelines; the criteria of WP:WIAGA is to what degree specific policy and guidelines should be met, or above and beyond the bare minimum for the guideline. For example, WP:V doesn't absolutely require well-formatted reference citations, just that you have inlines and references, but GA can say "well, you should start approaching the MOS for citations, establishing a consistent style, etc.". Other policy/guidelines not explicitly mentioned should still apply - for example, if a GAN turns out to be a glaring BLP violation, it should be removed. Notability is the same way.

To Ritchie333's point: I have seen articles that fail notability but do meet WP:V and are "broad" (in as much as the subject is covered in sources), but these typically are ones using tons of primary sources and minimal or no secondary ones. I would suggest not trying to shoehorn in notability into this, but do explain that beyond the criteria GAs still must meet all applicable policy and guidelines that relate to content if not otherwise mentioned/covered in the criteria. --MASEM (t) 17:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so can we explicitly add to the GA criteria "Must meet Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines? Prhartcom (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses community consensus to affirm or deny WP:N being met (at AfD and merger/redirect discussions), not the opinion of one reviewer. The GA reviewer should only be assessing the quality criteria of the article, not its right to exist. WP:GAN is not WP:AfD. maclean (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

However, it seems a waste of time for a reviewer to approve an article that will be deleted anyway.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This is simple: if you see an article in the queue at WP:GAN which you think should/will be deleted, then nominate it for deletion, and add a note to the GAN template that the article is currently at AfD. If it survives, then a reviewer can feel reasonably confident that their review will not be a waste of time. Adabow (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the reviewer thinks the article shouldn't be here, he should nominate it for deletion instead of reviewing it. I don't think it would be appropriate to include notability explicitly in the requirements to be a Good Article, though, as that requirement applies to all articles, not just good articles and I really don't think that general article requirements should be explicitly listed here, except perhaps in a "please check that this article meets the general article requirements before beginning your review" sense. Doing otherwise could too easily lead to the infliction of an enhanced notability standard on articles by reviewers who don't understand the reason for the instruction. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, agreed. Can we add this procedure to the GA instructions? The reviewer instructions currently do not mention "Ensure the article meets Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines." You know this will happen again unless we solidify this. Prhartcom (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As a comment, it wouldn't just be limited to notability/AFD. Say the topic is better as a merge to a different article - that's a step to propose. If it's a major BLP issue, report it to the BLP/N and let them deal with it. Copyvio? Same thing. But one thing to consider: review the talk page of the GAN article and see if it has gone through anything like these steps, as you don't want to double-ding it if it's been cleared appropriately. For example, if you get a GAN that you think is non-notable, but find it has survived AFD in the last few months (and stable since), you should respect that decision and review the GAN without that concern. But do agree adding language that general policy/guidelines not spelled out in depth in the GA criteria should still be expected to be met. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'd change the GA criteria, but the section above - "Immediate failures". Right after the numbered list, I'd add "Reviewers should be aware that just as some tags may be out of date, other tags may need to be added. If an article needs a cleanup banner (including, in extreme cases, an AfD or PROD tag), rather than reviewing the article, the reviewer should add the appropriate banner instead of reviewing the article." The phrasing isn't perfect, because an AfD tag obviously isn't a cleanup banner, but I'm sure someone will propose a refinement of it? – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I get the feeling we're wanting of concrete examples, so I'll provide one: I got Wisp (Sonic), a page about a race of aliens that are used as power-ups in a few Sonic the Hedgehog games, all the way up to FAC and had several supports for content until one editor came in and asserted that the subject was not notable. The community was at first rather hostile, but eventually came to form such a consensus, and instead of receiving a gold star, the article received a "merging" into the character list, much uglier than it once was. Because no one bothered to tell me beforehand that several full-length articles dedicated to the subject are necessary for notability (instead of just dozens of passing mentions and a couple articles that may have been more about the games than the species) until I'd spent that many hours working on the page, digging up the most obscure articles from the Internet to use, I basically threw up my hands and said, "F*ck it, enjoy your notability, everyone; I'm out." My interest in character articles has been completely soured now that I know they can be redirected so easily at the community's whim, as several of mine (including a few GAs) were right after this one, and at this point I just make it easier on myself by refusing to participate in notability disputes at all. Just in case anyone thought it was harmless not to be completely up-front about what's required for notability. Tezero (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I thank everyone for their input. I believe we have gathered from this discussion that we should not add to the Good article criteria, but I believe we are seeing support for adding to the Good article instructions. Specifically, in Step 1 of both the Nominating and Reviewing instructions, simply include a new sentence stating, "Ensure the article meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines as expected of any article, including neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, and notability." Being bold, I have just made this change to the instructions and I welcome and appreciate your comments below. I don't believe adding this sentence harms the existing instructions; I believe it will help prevent this kind of issue in the future. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability is handled at AFD or in other venues. As has been mentioned above, FACs have even been deleted. --Rschen7754 07:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We know AfD deletes articles. This discussion was to attempt to nip it in the bud, so to speak; to prevent editors from doing all that work of improving an article to an excellence recognition without first checking for notability. Hopefully this measure will help a tiny bit. Prhartcom (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that rather than say "ensure that", it should be more along the lines of "be aware of" or "instead of reviewing you may wish to". The "ensure" phrasing seems to imply an extended scope of a GA review, while the purpose, as I see it, is merely to avoid reviewers wasting their time on articles with major non-GA problems, not to extend the scope of GA. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Do you want to go ahead and make the change to the instructions? There are two places: Instructions for nominating and instructions for reviewing. Prhartcom (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

On further consideration, I left your change in place in the nominating instructions. "Ensure" does seem appropriate when nominating an article. On a related note, what were your thoughts on my suggestion for the "Immediate failures" section of the criteria page? Or do you think that the change to the nomination instructions is sufficient? I think it would be appropriate to put in some sort of warning for the reviewer as well as for the nominator. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I do think what we did already is sufficient, and I'm glad that you helped propose it. We already added a new warning for the reviewer, in the Reviewing section of the Instructions. This idea is too wordy and the first item in the Immediate failures numbered list already addresses cleanup banners. However, after this first item's phrase "It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid" you could consider adding "or needs new cleanup banners." I was wondering if we should add the entire "Ensure the article meets ..." sentence to a new number 4 in the Immediate failures list. So far we have managed to touch only the Instructions and have avoided touching the Criteria. Prhartcom (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh - this fell right off of my watchlist. I've added the "or needs new cleanup banners" phrase - it's short and sweet and should address the issue. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking requirement

Yesterday, the "Links" section of WP:LAYOUT was removed on the grounds that it is not a layout issue and is already covered in other MOS pages. In theory, this means that the linking requirements are no longer part of the GA requirements. Our choices are either to let linking be dropped from GA requirements, or to add Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking (or part of it) to the GA requirements to maintain the status quo. SpinningSpark 00:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I have copied the above post from the GA Wikiproject as there does not seem to be a lot of activity over there and no one has responded. SpinningSpark 10:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't see how you made the leap from snipping a redundant passage of the MOS to dropping a portion of the GA requirements. Prhartcom (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Because WP:LINK is not currently in the GA criteria. Linking issues were only a requirement by virtue of being in WP:LAYOUT (this is criterion 1b we are talking about). Now they are not in WP:LAYOUT, linking is apparently not a GA requirement any longer. It's a very simple question, do we wish to continue having linking as a requiremnent? I think we should, especially as the change has happened by "default" rather than an explicit decision here, but as that would require the criteria to be modified I am asking here first. SpinningSpark 10:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(FYI, the way you brought this up was pretty confusing.) No, now that I understand you, I don't think so. I am only one voice, but re-read the five points mentioned by 1b to see if a linking requirement is there, then take a look at the footnote for criterion 1b. Lest you say that the second of the five points is concerned with linking, I do not agree; it is concerned with visual layout; I don't think the two are related (It did used to have an links section, yes). You may be right, though. You can try to revert the person who cut the links section from the layout page and/or raise this topic and your concern on the Talk page there, and you can wait to see if others voice their thoughts here. It's a pretty big deal to actually add text to the GA criteria. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the change to WP:LAYOUT and don't particularly want it reverted. It is the effect of that change on GA that needs discussing. Your reasoning does not make sense. I already know that WP:LINK is not listed explicitly. That's the whole reason I brought it up. We specify those five guidelines because we think the content should be adhered to, not because there are only five guideline titles that need be considered. I don't see how just maintaining the status quo is going to be a big deal—and that's all it would be, putting back a requirement that had become accidentally removed. SpinningSpark 22:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually think that this one of the five is not about content, but is about format. But hopefully others will give their thoughts. Prhartcom (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Good Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

Critical response to She Has a Name, Good Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)