![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
FYI: It has been proposed that "WP:GAC" be retargeted to this page. Feel free to contribute to the discussion. Thanks! Swarm X 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've started my first GA review and have been looking at the criteria for guidance. Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be anything about defining scope or measuring scale.
I would expect an article to have a clearly defined scope and remain within it whilst providing a full scope coverage. One of the criteria is "broad in coverage" but that could imply that it is in order to discuss associated topics which are not necessarily within the scope of the article. Should I therefore assume that scope includes anything that is either directly or indirectly relevant; or should I take a value judgment and in effect define the scope myself?
"Broad in coverage" also implicates the scale of the article which might be too long (as some articles unquestionably are) or simply not long enough. Obviously, a stub with just a couple of paragraphs can never be a good article but what about an article that is of necessity short, relatively speaking, perhaps because of limited scope? Equally, at what point should I consider an article too long (e.g., 100kb)? I realise it would be impossible to define minimum and maximum limits in terms of kb but I think some broad guideline is needed to make clear that articles which are very short or too long cannot qualify. Again, is the question of scale one for the reviewer's own judgment?
Any useful advice or pointers about other aspects of GA reviewing would be appreciated. I do have review experience in other spheres but this site has its idiosyncracies and I will need to be aware of any special considerations. -- Mykleavens ( talk) 07:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe that scope is probably the most subjective criteria. It depends on three factors - the article title, article length (see WP:SIZE), and the scope of related articles. If some aspect of the topic that comes to mind when you think of the article title and you find it missing from the nominated article, you should raise that problem in the review. However, if the nominated article is a survey article with many daughter articles, then the omission of a topic would be more understandable. As a practical matter, the scope becomes a matter of negotiation between the nominator(s) and the reviewer. There is no single "right" answer, and it involves a great deal of judgment. Racepacket ( talk) 20:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Criteria 1(b) is "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]" Note 2 reads: "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles."
What is not clear is if the expanded details on a sub-page are included. For example - WP:Layout has a section on linking - Wikipedia:Layout#Links - which directs people to Wikipedia:Linking for further information, and that page includes advice on overlinking. I have regarded overlinking as outside the GA criteria, though I have noticed that it does get mentioned in GA reviews.
Some clarity regarding the subpages would be useful. Either:
or
Thoughts? SilkTork * Tea time 09:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I am writing a historical article for which dates of certain events are not really known. There exists however an old historical chronicle which assigns dates to events. Since those dates are possibly not always correct, I would like to leave them outside of the main text, but put them into a kind of timeline section linked as footnotes. The timeline section will have an introduction discussing the correctness of dates. Is this a good idea, i.e. does it satisfy good article criteria, MOS, etc; or is there a better way to provide the same information? bamse ( talk) 09:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Timelines and chronologies weren't explicitly covered in WP:EMBED. I've now added some comments and links. They are in effect serving the same purpose as a list of works, in that they are graphically summing up and giving a quick overview of some essential facts, and that the data will be supported by prose analysis of the main points - either within the timeline itself or elsewhere in the article. From what you have described, that is what will be happening in the Fujiwara no Hirotsugu Rebellion article: the dates will be discussed as part of the main text, and the timeline will collect the dates together in a graphic representation. Does that help? SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I just reviewed Ladislaus III of Hungary, and it satisfies the basic GA criteria (well-written, all major aspects, no copyvios, follows MOS, etc.) However, the article is very short, coming in at some 2120 characters. Is this acceptable? Ladislaus died at around age 4, so there's not much that could be written about him.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am currently reviewing the article for the Catholic Church article, and I have about the proper usage of citations. There are a few instances in the article were lists of particular groups/organizations e.g.: Social services. Do the last two paragraphs still need a citation at the end of the paragraph?(I might have a few more questions to ask before this process is over, too...but not now) LeftAire ( talk) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose we change parts 1 and 2 of the Good Article Criteria as follows:
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- the prose is clear and concise
, it respects copyright laws,and the spelling and grammar are correct; and- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
and- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
This was previously discussed back in 2011 and then again in 2013, but no action was taken at that time. Now that Wikipedia:Plagiarism has solidified as a guideline I think it makes sense to revisit.
Breaking out copyright violation from 1a makes it a more explicit requirement for reviewers to check before promoting articles. It also makes 1a be solely about prose quality. I see copyright and plagiarism to be more related to verifiability than well-writtenness, so it makes more sense to have it as a subpoint under 2 than 1.
A common objection to adding plagiarism explicitly to the criteria in previous discussions was the fear that complete plagiarism checks would be impractical for good article candidates with potentially 60+ sources cited, including offline sources. I would counter in two ways: first, that online plagiarism checkers would help greatly with this activity; and second, I would not interpret this language as outlawing source spot checks as opposed to full checks. If something is missed and is found later, the article can always be corrected or delisted.
What does everyone else think? – Grondemar 23:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
As this discussion was open for just short of two months and no one was opposed, I went ahead and implemented the change in the criteria. Thanks to everyone who weighed in. – Grondemar 04:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems that criterion 5 should also cover articles about ongoing events, that are therefore inherently unstable, but this is not stated. Am I missing something? FunkMonk ( talk) 02:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Since when is Stability not a quick-fail ?
— Cirt ( talk) 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Not seeing any reason on the talk page why this was removed, after discussion with Maile66, over two (2) weeks ago. Will add it back, pending explanation here on the talk page. — Cirt ( talk) 14:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm new to this topic area and wonder if there are already some rules about how old an article must be before it can be nominated for GA status. Would six months be reasonable? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
In connection with this delisting of Falun Gong, I thanked the delister and made the following observations on their talk page. They sent me here. The context of the comment was Falun Gong, but here I'd like to open up a discussion about the principle in general.
An article which does not contain any criticism is obviously in violation of NPOV, unless it's a totally uncontroversial subject, and Falun Gong is very controversial, so the lack is notable. When such an article is nominated for GA status, this lack should be mentioned as a condition for reconsideration:
The "NPOV test" of appropriate content balance (in articles which document points of view, biases, and controversies) is not the presence of positive and favorable content, but the presence or absence of properly sourced negative and controversial content, giving each their due weight. If the latter is minimal or missing, something is likely wrong and NPOV is being violated. The complete or partial removal of properly sourced content is generally not allowed and must be viewed with suspicion. Especially guard against the removal of properly sourced negative material. We don't write hagiographies or advertising brochures. Like Newton's third law, for every opinion there is likely an equal and opposite opinion out there which should be included. The NPOV test describes biased content which exists in an action-reaction relationship, and we must include both to maintain an NPOV homeostasis. Censorship upsets this balance by trying to remove negative opinions and facts. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's keep this one, as it's the most commonly used shortcut.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 20:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
"all material in the article is directly supported by external reliable sources"
This is the spirit of WP:V, which is linked in the first line of criterion 2 but is not directly elaborated in the criteria page, which seems like an oversight.
The other "subcriteria" to criterion 2 are all, with the exception of the current c, are either relatively minor concerns or have nothing to do with the criterion 2:
I'm not necessarily in favour of altering/deleting/moving any of the above, but an accurate summary of V should certainly also be included.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, looking over the editorial assessment criteria, I feel like good articles should have some guideline that dictates a general threshold of kilobytes of readable prose. For example, one of the criteria for C class is that the article be substantial in length, thus it follows that good articles should also be substantial in length. Would having a guideline for readable prose character count be considered acceptable? For the sake of argument, say 25 kB? Note that the example GA in the editorial assessment criteria is 36 kB readable prose. (Disclaimer: I've never nominated or reviewed a GA. I want to get into the process soon; in the meantime, this was just a thought that crossed my mind). Looking forward to knowing what everyone thinks. Icebob99 ( talk) 02:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Per discussion many years ago on the featured article criteria (wish I could pinpoint the actual convo in the short time I have right now), not all content policies are outlined in the criteria. It's mostly for obvious reasons (e.g. the criteria would become bloated). A GA should adhere to all content policies, even those not included in the criteria ( WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:TITLE, etc.). — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 06:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for ... contentious material relating to living persons. If we do wish to mandate this, perhaps it can be added as I suggested above. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm fine with keeping the line out of the page if users find it unnecessary. GA process is different than FA; times have changed as well. I think the only point left to address is possibly incorporating WP:BLP into the criteria as a precautionary measure (per BlueMoonset above). — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 04:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
As stated in the GAN talk page, it seems a bit silly to explicitly allow deadlinks for GA's. At a minimum, we should be following WP:DEADREF. While this may happen in practice, it is not explicitly stated in the criteria. As I read the criteria as written now, the URL can be dead as long as it is not a barelink. Thought? Pinging @ Bungle and BlueMoonset: since they were in the discussion on the other page. Kees08 ( talk) 06:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@ BlueMooset: How do I go about officially proposing this? I have never done an RfC before and do not know how, is that what I should be doing? Kees08 (Talk) 05:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Something failed criteria 2d:
In case one, it's interesting that an article met the criteria 2 but failed the criteria 2d. Why we binding copyvio with verifiable, put it to 2d but not 1c?-- A Sword in the Wind ( talk) 04:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Our criteria require that reviewers check all the listed sources to verify that they support the assertions. However, I'm concerned that many reviewers are skipping this altogether. Number 2 in the criteria has a link to
WP:V which says: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article"
. It's not enough for a reviewer to see that there is a citation, but that the cited source actually has to be examined. Our criteria about verifiability currently has a note which says (in part): "At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article"
. My proposal is to promote this note into criteria 2e (or maybe make it 2a and move the others down the list). I recommend the following:
All of the sources checked substantiate the claims of the content they support. The reviewer is expected to check a majority if not all of the sources cited, with special attention to every quote and every statement likely to be challenged.
The attached note would then be moved to this new line and would then read:
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. At a bare minimum, check that the sources you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary).
I'd like to hear the consensus view on this. GA is an important step on the way to A-class and FA and I think this new wording would reinforce our existing standards. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
Is it appropriate for a GA reviewer to require changes to an article that are not aimed at meeting the WP:WIAGA criteria? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Who said "require"? Get a grip people. The Rambling Man ( talk) 04:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
... and [[Hungerford Bridge]]s and the ...
which is not piped in any way, and it is further clear from
this edit of yours that you will not permit redirects, and
this edit by
Ritchie333 (
talk ·
contribs) that you do want it piped. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 07:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
if such edits continue then we wouldn't be able to consider this as a stable articlepart of the review. Stability is one of the more misused and misunderstood criteria here. Anyway, I was just trying to help, but you seem not to need it so I will leave you to it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Gosh, storm in a teacup comes to mind here. Whilst I can see the point on both sides, I can't really think of any reason why this is even being discussed, unless TRM made any suggestion that the review comment, left unattended, would result in a failure (this doesn't seem to have been noted). I too often make suggestions/comments as part of a review for enhancements I feel would be beneficial, but not necessarily as a red-line determination for GA failure, and such a comment can be queried by the nominator, or indeed addressed if both parties agree. I think TRM should simply continue as was before, and make a decision outside of this discussion, as would have otherwise been the case; the "stability" argument is irrelevant. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I have raised some concerns about the "quick fail" criteria here. Comments welcome there- it's best if this can be kept in one place! Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I posted a note at WT:GAN about a suggested change to the criteria regarding quickfails; posting here to ensure everyone interested can chime in. (I realize now I should have had the discussion here and the pointer there.) Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Do the verifiability criteria imply that every paragraph must end with a citation? If so, this should be explicitly stated in the criteria, if not, reviewers should not require that every paragraph ends in a citation, and should not be permitted to fail a review based on this requirement. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
. This is more stringent than the policy at WP:MINREF, but nowhere does it say that everything needs to be verified by an inline citation."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"
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.
The footnote says that by images, we really mean all media. It specifically says: "Other media, such as video or audio files, are also covered by the "images" criterion."
I propose we change the word images to media, and take out the footnote. Proposal:
Apologies for formatting, not sure how to make this list. Correct it if you would like. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 06:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
References
-->|6=Illustrated, if possible, by '''[[WP:Images|images]]'''<!--
-->|6a=images are [[WP:File copyright tags|tagged]] with their [[WP:FAQ/Copyright|copyright status]], and [[WP:Non-free use rationale guideline|valid fair use rationales]] are provided for [[WP:Non-free content|non-free content]]<!--
-->|6b= images are [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE|relevant]] to the topic, and have [[WP:CAPTION|suitable captions]]<!--
media is tagged with its copyright status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoonset ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Footnote 7 currently reads: Reverted vandalism, 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 to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.. I propose to change it to Reverted vandalism, 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 to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold., because while non-constructive editing is referenced within policies, none that I have found are actually named after such, whereas Wikipedia:Disruptive editing exists as a guideline. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I need clarification according to criteria 3: "addresses the main aspects of the topic." Supposing that an article topic has around five secondary sources covering it and I've researched and summarized all of it. Does that means the article on the topic qualified this criteria? Because I see some short GA (such as ISO 3166-2:SJ) and think, wait, does that means an article topic that has very few sources can easily be GA? -- Horus ( talk) 19:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Should we count (non-image) dynamic maps as "images" for GA purposes? What about musical scores (see Girls and Boys Come Out To Play)? On the one hand, I don't think that 6(a) is comfortable fit, but 6(b) is probably just as relevant. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I couldn't find it mentioned in the criteria for GA, but I'll ask anyways. Do articles need to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility for a GA? Also, do sources need to be archived? Thanks. -- Gonnym ( talk) 21:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a newer GA reviewer. I only have two currently Talk:The High Llamas/GA1 and Talk:Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino/GA1. My question is about the reviewing process. For both of these nominations, I used the box to pass/fail individual criterias while I was reviewing the article. When a failed criteria is addressed and fully passed, should I update the criteria to a checkmark? Or should I wait until I'm finished reviewing and all issues are addressed to re-review the article? Thanks -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
In 2013, the requirement for factual accuracy
was removed from
the GA criteria. As listed, the GA criteria give no requirement for fact-checking factual accuracy beyond baseline verifiability, that contentious claims have appropriate (
reliable, secondary, independent) sourcing. Some of the other guidelines haven't kept pace. The
guidance for reviewers says that reviewers should "at a minimum" compare the article's claims against its openly accessible citations. Last year,
a proposal to elevate that advice to the GA criteria did not pass. So which is it? Do we require fact-checking factual accuracy, and if so, how much?
czar 22:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Verifi. -- Izno ( talk) 22:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)abilitycation involves checking that the text is supported by the sources
Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "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. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable ... and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary).
Could we avoid the term "factual accuracy"? It isn't a term used by the sourcing policies, and it's causing confusion.
Wikipedia:No original research requires that everything on Wikipedia be "verifiable". That is, a reliable published source must exist that supports the text; the text cannot be something an editor has made up or a conclusion an editor alone has reached.
Wikipedia:Verifiability goes a step further. Text must be not only verifiable but also supported by a source in the article (which is what we call "verified"): "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."
The issue that sparked this discussion was whether the GA criteria require spot checks (not "fact checking") to ensure that the source do support the text. It seems that they do, according to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, a guideline: "At a bare minimum, check that the sources ... you can access support the content of the article". The FAC coordinators request spot checks for first-time nominators and those who haven't nominated for a while. As things stand, the GA criteria appear to be more stringent on this point (in theory) than the FA criteria, which are supported by an essay ( WP:FASOURCE) that says: "The extent to which spot checks are pursued is a matter for each reviewer." SarahSV (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC) (edited 14:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC))
direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living personsso in many articles that narrows down the sources that need to be checked anyway. As for including "factual accuracy" in the criteria, given the genuine confusion here over that wording and it being redundent to what we already have I would be against adding it back in. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Over the years, I have seen a number of editors bringing up how faulty this GA system is. However, I think it's a great to enhance the quality of articles. But the criteria needs an update, especially with factual checking and register. Some reviewers take this for granted. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 20:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
{{Documentation|content= ==Usage== Example: :<code>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}</code> yields: :{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}} }}
to {{documentation}}
. I have added this to the new documentation page, and this would allow non-template-editors to add categories for the template and otherwise improve its documentation. Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk) 06:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
0a, "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" is ambiguous prose IMO. I initially interpreted it as meaning that a quick fail could happen if and only if all six of the criteria were a long way from being satisfied (i.e., "a long way from meeting any of the criteria"), but after looking at a few failed GANs and rereading it I came to interpret it as that if a single criterion was far from being satisfied, which I now think is the correct version.
If the latter interpretation is indeed correct I propose we reword 0a to the effect of "It is a long way from meeting at least one of the six good article criteria", which incidentally also covers articles that are a long way from meeting multiple criteria. John M Wolfson ( talk) 03:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
"any one of the six"does not mean
"any of the six"as you misread it. Chris Troutman ( talk) 10:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Template:QF-tags has been moved. Could I please remove it from 0c? 99721829Max ( talk) 19:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
My proposal to add understandability as a criterion to GA has gained some support (see WP:VPR#Vote). Here are two ways I can think of to implement it:
Which one of these seems preferable? Do you have another idea in mind on how to implement it?
Additionally, Trovatore wanted to make sure that it is specified that the reviewer should either be knowledgeable on the article's topic, or ask for expert help. Mentioning this in the criteria itself seems doesn't seem like a good idea. My idea is to append it at the end of the lead: "The good article criteria are the six standards or tests by which a good article nomination (GAN) may be compared and judged to be a good article (GA). A good article that has met the good article criteria may not have met the criteria for featured articles. Reviewers not familiar with the article's topic are expected to do basic research or ask for expert help."
Thoughts?-- Megaman en m ( talk) 09:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
Should
Good article criterion 1a be changed from the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
to the prose is clear, concise, and
understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
? 07:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
the prose is clear and concise, technical terms are
explained or avoided where possible
[1], and the spelling and grammar are correct}}? 21:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
References
technical terms are explained and not used unnecessarily
technical terms are explained and not used excessively
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correctColin M ( talk) 21:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
czar 17:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)the prose is grammatically correct, clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience.[1]
An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration. I think rough consensus is looking pretty clear at this point, but since this is a fairly high-impact change, I don't think it would hurt to wait another week. 6 responses is not a great turnout. Colin M ( talk) 14:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is against the proposed change of #2b from all inline citations are from reliable sources, ... to all prose paragraphs have at least one inline citation, and all inline citations are from reliable sources....
I noticed that no-where in the verifiability criterion does it actually state that all the prose within an article must be cited. It only requires a list of citations, that all citations be reliable, that no OR takes place, and no copy-vio or plagiarism. Nowhere does it actually say "all elements of the article must be cited." It's mostly semantic, but I'd suggest updating #2b from all inline citations are from reliable sources, ... to all prose paragraphs have at least one inline citation, and all inline citations are from reliable sources... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
all prose paragraphs have at least one inline citationis both policy creep and a gamification of the writing process. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
There is today quite a sharp mismatch between the quick-fail criteria on this page and the Template:QF. Presumably the template needs to be updated. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Currently under the Verifiable criteria we say science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines
. I am not terribly impressed with that how-to guideline. In particular how it doesn't encourage the use of inline citations. It almost seems weaker than a lot of other sourcing requirements. I am not a fan of how it is written either. I left a comment at the talk page and one solution would be to rewrite it better if there is no or agreeing response there. I was thinking however we may be better linking to
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) as it actually provide information on what makes a science source reliable and is much better maintained. It has been used as justification to pass an article (
Talk:Hidden Markov model/GA1) which I feel is probably not up to standard.
AIRcorn
(talk) 02:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
content relating to living people, medicine or science must follow the BLP, medicine and science sourcing guidelines, deleting whatever ones we don't need. One potential sicking point is that BLP is policy, meds is a guideline and Sci is an essay. AIRcorn (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, please share your thoughts here. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
FYI: It has been proposed that "WP:GAC" be retargeted to this page. Feel free to contribute to the discussion. Thanks! Swarm X 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've started my first GA review and have been looking at the criteria for guidance. Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be anything about defining scope or measuring scale.
I would expect an article to have a clearly defined scope and remain within it whilst providing a full scope coverage. One of the criteria is "broad in coverage" but that could imply that it is in order to discuss associated topics which are not necessarily within the scope of the article. Should I therefore assume that scope includes anything that is either directly or indirectly relevant; or should I take a value judgment and in effect define the scope myself?
"Broad in coverage" also implicates the scale of the article which might be too long (as some articles unquestionably are) or simply not long enough. Obviously, a stub with just a couple of paragraphs can never be a good article but what about an article that is of necessity short, relatively speaking, perhaps because of limited scope? Equally, at what point should I consider an article too long (e.g., 100kb)? I realise it would be impossible to define minimum and maximum limits in terms of kb but I think some broad guideline is needed to make clear that articles which are very short or too long cannot qualify. Again, is the question of scale one for the reviewer's own judgment?
Any useful advice or pointers about other aspects of GA reviewing would be appreciated. I do have review experience in other spheres but this site has its idiosyncracies and I will need to be aware of any special considerations. -- Mykleavens ( talk) 07:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe that scope is probably the most subjective criteria. It depends on three factors - the article title, article length (see WP:SIZE), and the scope of related articles. If some aspect of the topic that comes to mind when you think of the article title and you find it missing from the nominated article, you should raise that problem in the review. However, if the nominated article is a survey article with many daughter articles, then the omission of a topic would be more understandable. As a practical matter, the scope becomes a matter of negotiation between the nominator(s) and the reviewer. There is no single "right" answer, and it involves a great deal of judgment. Racepacket ( talk) 20:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Criteria 1(b) is "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]" Note 2 reads: "Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles."
What is not clear is if the expanded details on a sub-page are included. For example - WP:Layout has a section on linking - Wikipedia:Layout#Links - which directs people to Wikipedia:Linking for further information, and that page includes advice on overlinking. I have regarded overlinking as outside the GA criteria, though I have noticed that it does get mentioned in GA reviews.
Some clarity regarding the subpages would be useful. Either:
or
Thoughts? SilkTork * Tea time 09:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I am writing a historical article for which dates of certain events are not really known. There exists however an old historical chronicle which assigns dates to events. Since those dates are possibly not always correct, I would like to leave them outside of the main text, but put them into a kind of timeline section linked as footnotes. The timeline section will have an introduction discussing the correctness of dates. Is this a good idea, i.e. does it satisfy good article criteria, MOS, etc; or is there a better way to provide the same information? bamse ( talk) 09:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Timelines and chronologies weren't explicitly covered in WP:EMBED. I've now added some comments and links. They are in effect serving the same purpose as a list of works, in that they are graphically summing up and giving a quick overview of some essential facts, and that the data will be supported by prose analysis of the main points - either within the timeline itself or elsewhere in the article. From what you have described, that is what will be happening in the Fujiwara no Hirotsugu Rebellion article: the dates will be discussed as part of the main text, and the timeline will collect the dates together in a graphic representation. Does that help? SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I just reviewed Ladislaus III of Hungary, and it satisfies the basic GA criteria (well-written, all major aspects, no copyvios, follows MOS, etc.) However, the article is very short, coming in at some 2120 characters. Is this acceptable? Ladislaus died at around age 4, so there's not much that could be written about him.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am currently reviewing the article for the Catholic Church article, and I have about the proper usage of citations. There are a few instances in the article were lists of particular groups/organizations e.g.: Social services. Do the last two paragraphs still need a citation at the end of the paragraph?(I might have a few more questions to ask before this process is over, too...but not now) LeftAire ( talk) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose we change parts 1 and 2 of the Good Article Criteria as follows:
A good article is—
- Well-written:
- the prose is clear and concise
, it respects copyright laws,and the spelling and grammar are correct; and- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Verifiable with no original research:
- it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
and- it contains no original research; and
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
This was previously discussed back in 2011 and then again in 2013, but no action was taken at that time. Now that Wikipedia:Plagiarism has solidified as a guideline I think it makes sense to revisit.
Breaking out copyright violation from 1a makes it a more explicit requirement for reviewers to check before promoting articles. It also makes 1a be solely about prose quality. I see copyright and plagiarism to be more related to verifiability than well-writtenness, so it makes more sense to have it as a subpoint under 2 than 1.
A common objection to adding plagiarism explicitly to the criteria in previous discussions was the fear that complete plagiarism checks would be impractical for good article candidates with potentially 60+ sources cited, including offline sources. I would counter in two ways: first, that online plagiarism checkers would help greatly with this activity; and second, I would not interpret this language as outlawing source spot checks as opposed to full checks. If something is missed and is found later, the article can always be corrected or delisted.
What does everyone else think? – Grondemar 23:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
As this discussion was open for just short of two months and no one was opposed, I went ahead and implemented the change in the criteria. Thanks to everyone who weighed in. – Grondemar 04:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It seems that criterion 5 should also cover articles about ongoing events, that are therefore inherently unstable, but this is not stated. Am I missing something? FunkMonk ( talk) 02:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Since when is Stability not a quick-fail ?
— Cirt ( talk) 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Not seeing any reason on the talk page why this was removed, after discussion with Maile66, over two (2) weeks ago. Will add it back, pending explanation here on the talk page. — Cirt ( talk) 14:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm new to this topic area and wonder if there are already some rules about how old an article must be before it can be nominated for GA status. Would six months be reasonable? -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
In connection with this delisting of Falun Gong, I thanked the delister and made the following observations on their talk page. They sent me here. The context of the comment was Falun Gong, but here I'd like to open up a discussion about the principle in general.
An article which does not contain any criticism is obviously in violation of NPOV, unless it's a totally uncontroversial subject, and Falun Gong is very controversial, so the lack is notable. When such an article is nominated for GA status, this lack should be mentioned as a condition for reconsideration:
The "NPOV test" of appropriate content balance (in articles which document points of view, biases, and controversies) is not the presence of positive and favorable content, but the presence or absence of properly sourced negative and controversial content, giving each their due weight. If the latter is minimal or missing, something is likely wrong and NPOV is being violated. The complete or partial removal of properly sourced content is generally not allowed and must be viewed with suspicion. Especially guard against the removal of properly sourced negative material. We don't write hagiographies or advertising brochures. Like Newton's third law, for every opinion there is likely an equal and opposite opinion out there which should be included. The NPOV test describes biased content which exists in an action-reaction relationship, and we must include both to maintain an NPOV homeostasis. Censorship upsets this balance by trying to remove negative opinions and facts. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 04:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Let's keep this one, as it's the most commonly used shortcut.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 20:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
"all material in the article is directly supported by external reliable sources"
This is the spirit of WP:V, which is linked in the first line of criterion 2 but is not directly elaborated in the criteria page, which seems like an oversight.
The other "subcriteria" to criterion 2 are all, with the exception of the current c, are either relatively minor concerns or have nothing to do with the criterion 2:
I'm not necessarily in favour of altering/deleting/moving any of the above, but an accurate summary of V should certainly also be included.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, looking over the editorial assessment criteria, I feel like good articles should have some guideline that dictates a general threshold of kilobytes of readable prose. For example, one of the criteria for C class is that the article be substantial in length, thus it follows that good articles should also be substantial in length. Would having a guideline for readable prose character count be considered acceptable? For the sake of argument, say 25 kB? Note that the example GA in the editorial assessment criteria is 36 kB readable prose. (Disclaimer: I've never nominated or reviewed a GA. I want to get into the process soon; in the meantime, this was just a thought that crossed my mind). Looking forward to knowing what everyone thinks. Icebob99 ( talk) 02:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Per discussion many years ago on the featured article criteria (wish I could pinpoint the actual convo in the short time I have right now), not all content policies are outlined in the criteria. It's mostly for obvious reasons (e.g. the criteria would become bloated). A GA should adhere to all content policies, even those not included in the criteria ( WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:TITLE, etc.). — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 06:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for ... contentious material relating to living persons. If we do wish to mandate this, perhaps it can be added as I suggested above. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm fine with keeping the line out of the page if users find it unnecessary. GA process is different than FA; times have changed as well. I think the only point left to address is possibly incorporating WP:BLP into the criteria as a precautionary measure (per BlueMoonset above). — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 04:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
As stated in the GAN talk page, it seems a bit silly to explicitly allow deadlinks for GA's. At a minimum, we should be following WP:DEADREF. While this may happen in practice, it is not explicitly stated in the criteria. As I read the criteria as written now, the URL can be dead as long as it is not a barelink. Thought? Pinging @ Bungle and BlueMoonset: since they were in the discussion on the other page. Kees08 ( talk) 06:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@ BlueMooset: How do I go about officially proposing this? I have never done an RfC before and do not know how, is that what I should be doing? Kees08 (Talk) 05:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Something failed criteria 2d:
In case one, it's interesting that an article met the criteria 2 but failed the criteria 2d. Why we binding copyvio with verifiable, put it to 2d but not 1c?-- A Sword in the Wind ( talk) 04:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Our criteria require that reviewers check all the listed sources to verify that they support the assertions. However, I'm concerned that many reviewers are skipping this altogether. Number 2 in the criteria has a link to
WP:V which says: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article"
. It's not enough for a reviewer to see that there is a citation, but that the cited source actually has to be examined. Our criteria about verifiability currently has a note which says (in part): "At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article"
. My proposal is to promote this note into criteria 2e (or maybe make it 2a and move the others down the list). I recommend the following:
All of the sources checked substantiate the claims of the content they support. The reviewer is expected to check a majority if not all of the sources cited, with special attention to every quote and every statement likely to be challenged.
The attached note would then be moved to this new line and would then read:
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. At a bare minimum, check that the sources you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary).
I'd like to hear the consensus view on this. GA is an important step on the way to A-class and FA and I think this new wording would reinforce our existing standards. Chris Troutman ( talk) 14:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
Is it appropriate for a GA reviewer to require changes to an article that are not aimed at meeting the WP:WIAGA criteria? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Who said "require"? Get a grip people. The Rambling Man ( talk) 04:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
... and [[Hungerford Bridge]]s and the ...
which is not piped in any way, and it is further clear from
this edit of yours that you will not permit redirects, and
this edit by
Ritchie333 (
talk ·
contribs) that you do want it piped. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk) 07:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
if such edits continue then we wouldn't be able to consider this as a stable articlepart of the review. Stability is one of the more misused and misunderstood criteria here. Anyway, I was just trying to help, but you seem not to need it so I will leave you to it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Gosh, storm in a teacup comes to mind here. Whilst I can see the point on both sides, I can't really think of any reason why this is even being discussed, unless TRM made any suggestion that the review comment, left unattended, would result in a failure (this doesn't seem to have been noted). I too often make suggestions/comments as part of a review for enhancements I feel would be beneficial, but not necessarily as a red-line determination for GA failure, and such a comment can be queried by the nominator, or indeed addressed if both parties agree. I think TRM should simply continue as was before, and make a decision outside of this discussion, as would have otherwise been the case; the "stability" argument is irrelevant. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I have raised some concerns about the "quick fail" criteria here. Comments welcome there- it's best if this can be kept in one place! Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I posted a note at WT:GAN about a suggested change to the criteria regarding quickfails; posting here to ensure everyone interested can chime in. (I realize now I should have had the discussion here and the pointer there.) Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Do the verifiability criteria imply that every paragraph must end with a citation? If so, this should be explicitly stated in the criteria, if not, reviewers should not require that every paragraph ends in a citation, and should not be permitted to fail a review based on this requirement. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
. This is more stringent than the policy at WP:MINREF, but nowhere does it say that everything needs to be verified by an inline citation."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"
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.
The footnote says that by images, we really mean all media. It specifically says: "Other media, such as video or audio files, are also covered by the "images" criterion."
I propose we change the word images to media, and take out the footnote. Proposal:
Apologies for formatting, not sure how to make this list. Correct it if you would like. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 06:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
References
-->|6=Illustrated, if possible, by '''[[WP:Images|images]]'''<!--
-->|6a=images are [[WP:File copyright tags|tagged]] with their [[WP:FAQ/Copyright|copyright status]], and [[WP:Non-free use rationale guideline|valid fair use rationales]] are provided for [[WP:Non-free content|non-free content]]<!--
-->|6b= images are [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE|relevant]] to the topic, and have [[WP:CAPTION|suitable captions]]<!--
media is tagged with its copyright status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoonset ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Footnote 7 currently reads: Reverted vandalism, 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 to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of non-constructive editing may be failed or placed on hold.. I propose to change it to Reverted vandalism, 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 to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold., because while non-constructive editing is referenced within policies, none that I have found are actually named after such, whereas Wikipedia:Disruptive editing exists as a guideline. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I need clarification according to criteria 3: "addresses the main aspects of the topic." Supposing that an article topic has around five secondary sources covering it and I've researched and summarized all of it. Does that means the article on the topic qualified this criteria? Because I see some short GA (such as ISO 3166-2:SJ) and think, wait, does that means an article topic that has very few sources can easily be GA? -- Horus ( talk) 19:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Should we count (non-image) dynamic maps as "images" for GA purposes? What about musical scores (see Girls and Boys Come Out To Play)? On the one hand, I don't think that 6(a) is comfortable fit, but 6(b) is probably just as relevant. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I couldn't find it mentioned in the criteria for GA, but I'll ask anyways. Do articles need to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility for a GA? Also, do sources need to be archived? Thanks. -- Gonnym ( talk) 21:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a newer GA reviewer. I only have two currently Talk:The High Llamas/GA1 and Talk:Tranquility Base Hotel & Casino/GA1. My question is about the reviewing process. For both of these nominations, I used the box to pass/fail individual criterias while I was reviewing the article. When a failed criteria is addressed and fully passed, should I update the criteria to a checkmark? Or should I wait until I'm finished reviewing and all issues are addressed to re-review the article? Thanks -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 19:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
In 2013, the requirement for factual accuracy
was removed from
the GA criteria. As listed, the GA criteria give no requirement for fact-checking factual accuracy beyond baseline verifiability, that contentious claims have appropriate (
reliable, secondary, independent) sourcing. Some of the other guidelines haven't kept pace. The
guidance for reviewers says that reviewers should "at a minimum" compare the article's claims against its openly accessible citations. Last year,
a proposal to elevate that advice to the GA criteria did not pass. So which is it? Do we require fact-checking factual accuracy, and if so, how much?
czar 22:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Verifi. -- Izno ( talk) 22:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)abilitycation involves checking that the text is supported by the sources
Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "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. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable ... and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary).
Could we avoid the term "factual accuracy"? It isn't a term used by the sourcing policies, and it's causing confusion.
Wikipedia:No original research requires that everything on Wikipedia be "verifiable". That is, a reliable published source must exist that supports the text; the text cannot be something an editor has made up or a conclusion an editor alone has reached.
Wikipedia:Verifiability goes a step further. Text must be not only verifiable but also supported by a source in the article (which is what we call "verified"): "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."
The issue that sparked this discussion was whether the GA criteria require spot checks (not "fact checking") to ensure that the source do support the text. It seems that they do, according to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, a guideline: "At a bare minimum, check that the sources ... you can access support the content of the article". The FAC coordinators request spot checks for first-time nominators and those who haven't nominated for a while. As things stand, the GA criteria appear to be more stringent on this point (in theory) than the FA criteria, which are supported by an essay ( WP:FASOURCE) that says: "The extent to which spot checks are pursued is a matter for each reviewer." SarahSV (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC) (edited 14:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC))
direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living personsso in many articles that narrows down the sources that need to be checked anyway. As for including "factual accuracy" in the criteria, given the genuine confusion here over that wording and it being redundent to what we already have I would be against adding it back in. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Over the years, I have seen a number of editors bringing up how faulty this GA system is. However, I think it's a great to enhance the quality of articles. But the criteria needs an update, especially with factual checking and register. Some reviewers take this for granted. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 20:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
{{Documentation|content= ==Usage== Example: :<code>{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}</code> yields: :{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}} }}
to {{documentation}}
. I have added this to the new documentation page, and this would allow non-template-editors to add categories for the template and otherwise improve its documentation. Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk) 06:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
0a, "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" is ambiguous prose IMO. I initially interpreted it as meaning that a quick fail could happen if and only if all six of the criteria were a long way from being satisfied (i.e., "a long way from meeting any of the criteria"), but after looking at a few failed GANs and rereading it I came to interpret it as that if a single criterion was far from being satisfied, which I now think is the correct version.
If the latter interpretation is indeed correct I propose we reword 0a to the effect of "It is a long way from meeting at least one of the six good article criteria", which incidentally also covers articles that are a long way from meeting multiple criteria. John M Wolfson ( talk) 03:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
"any one of the six"does not mean
"any of the six"as you misread it. Chris Troutman ( talk) 10:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Template:QF-tags has been moved. Could I please remove it from 0c? 99721829Max ( talk) 19:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
My proposal to add understandability as a criterion to GA has gained some support (see WP:VPR#Vote). Here are two ways I can think of to implement it:
Which one of these seems preferable? Do you have another idea in mind on how to implement it?
Additionally, Trovatore wanted to make sure that it is specified that the reviewer should either be knowledgeable on the article's topic, or ask for expert help. Mentioning this in the criteria itself seems doesn't seem like a good idea. My idea is to append it at the end of the lead: "The good article criteria are the six standards or tests by which a good article nomination (GAN) may be compared and judged to be a good article (GA). A good article that has met the good article criteria may not have met the criteria for featured articles. Reviewers not familiar with the article's topic are expected to do basic research or ask for expert help."
Thoughts?-- Megaman en m ( talk) 09:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
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.
Should
Good article criterion 1a be changed from the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
to the prose is clear, concise, and
understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
? 07:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
the prose is clear and concise, technical terms are
explained or avoided where possible
[1], and the spelling and grammar are correct}}? 21:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
References
technical terms are explained and not used unnecessarily
technical terms are explained and not used excessively
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correctColin M ( talk) 21:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
czar 17:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)the prose is grammatically correct, clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience.[1]
An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration. I think rough consensus is looking pretty clear at this point, but since this is a fairly high-impact change, I don't think it would hurt to wait another week. 6 responses is not a great turnout. Colin M ( talk) 14:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is against the proposed change of #2b from all inline citations are from reliable sources, ... to all prose paragraphs have at least one inline citation, and all inline citations are from reliable sources....
I noticed that no-where in the verifiability criterion does it actually state that all the prose within an article must be cited. It only requires a list of citations, that all citations be reliable, that no OR takes place, and no copy-vio or plagiarism. Nowhere does it actually say "all elements of the article must be cited." It's mostly semantic, but I'd suggest updating #2b from all inline citations are from reliable sources, ... to all prose paragraphs have at least one inline citation, and all inline citations are from reliable sources... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
all prose paragraphs have at least one inline citationis both policy creep and a gamification of the writing process. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
There is today quite a sharp mismatch between the quick-fail criteria on this page and the Template:QF. Presumably the template needs to be updated. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Currently under the Verifiable criteria we say science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines
. I am not terribly impressed with that how-to guideline. In particular how it doesn't encourage the use of inline citations. It almost seems weaker than a lot of other sourcing requirements. I am not a fan of how it is written either. I left a comment at the talk page and one solution would be to rewrite it better if there is no or agreeing response there. I was thinking however we may be better linking to
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (science) as it actually provide information on what makes a science source reliable and is much better maintained. It has been used as justification to pass an article (
Talk:Hidden Markov model/GA1) which I feel is probably not up to standard.
AIRcorn
(talk) 02:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
content relating to living people, medicine or science must follow the BLP, medicine and science sourcing guidelines, deleting whatever ones we don't need. One potential sicking point is that BLP is policy, meds is a guideline and Sci is an essay. AIRcorn (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, please share your thoughts here. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)