![]() | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
I have just looked at the articles for a GA review, and it seems the problems are still there, as always. If this "Project quality task force" really wants to make a change (and radically cut its workload) it would rapidly FAIL most of the articles that are up for review. "Head 'em off at the pass" seems to be the case, and explain WHY. Any editor can do it, so why don't you, if you are so concerned?-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor left a message at talk:Same-sex marriage in Canada stating that he decided that the article no longer passes muster and that he had delisted it. This occurred without notice. From an earlier discussion, it sounds as though notice is usually given. Why wasn't it this time? It appears to me that there is a procedure for delisting at WP:GAR. Following that procedure allows editors at the article to address the problems before it is delisted. Now, after getting refs for quotes, adding a paragraph or two to the lead, and dropping some links with <ref></ref> tags, editors have to go through the nomination process again. This seems like a rather drastic course to have taken given the relative simplicity of the changes required. - Rrius ( talk) 09:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Largely by mistake I discovered today that Nova laser was delisted from GA in February. I cannot find any discussion of the article or the GAR process anywhere. Links in the talk page lead nowhere. The message posted on the article talk page was posted after the fact, completely generic, and wrong.
No effort was made to engage me, the primary editor of the article. In fact, from what I can see this decision was completely internalized. The GA/PQT cabal apparently decided to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner, and then notify the victim after the fact.
I see on this talk page that this article is not the only example. What the hell is going on here?
Maury ( talk) 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to join this discussion earlier, but had to drive about 400 miles today to visit family (man, gas is expensive!), so wasn't able to respond until now. I do recognize that editors are upset from reviews performed and you have the right to be. I have upset editors in the past with some of the reviews I have performed, and have learned from each one on how to better review these articles to improve the collaboration between reviewer and editor(s). I have been thanked by many others, who have seen their articles improved as a result of the reviews I have performed. This is a learning process for both parties, and we have expanded our efforts in improving our reviews.
Although there are complaints of this "cabal", the reviewers have a difficult task. Should editors be notified when articles are passed/failed? There's no requirement, but it is usually general courtesy to do. I don't necessarily tell editors when articles pass or fail, but am sure to contact them (along with related WikiProjects) whenever I place an article on hold. This gives multiple editors a chance to work on addressing raised issues and collaborate with me in helping to improve the article to meet the criteria. Should articles be delisted? We're not a power-hungry group, believing that just because a single editor is able to delist an article that we should do our best to whittle down the current GA list. The GAs that are initially failed are so far from meeting the criteria, that it would not be feasible to put them on hold. If no issues are addressed on a hold, they are delisted as well. However, the majority of the articles pass, and the articles improve during the process by either sweeps reviewers assisting in improving the articles themselves and/or collaborating with editors of the article to further improve it. Putting articles on hold is usually the best option which stimulates larger discussions and pushes the article to pass.
Many of the reviewers have previously reviewed hundreds of articles and know the GA criteria. Many have written GAs themselves and know the dedication and requirements that articles need to meet the criteria. However, using this knowledge to review other editors' articles can be challenging. When I have passed articles in the past, there is rarely discussion afterwards. Failing articles, at times can have similar results, while some editors are very negative on the review I have performed. I have accepted this, realizing that I can not please everyone, even though I would like to. We are rarely thanked for our work (we're almost like IRS auditors!), but that's not the reason that we do it. Each member here has the best intentions for the GA process and the quality of articles on Wikipedia. We don't like delisting articles, and it does pain me to delist articles knowing the higher class it had previously attained. It's easier to point fingers on what we do wrong then it is to work with us in fixing the issues. I'm not saying that this is what is happening in this discussion, because we do need to inform editors on what we are doing, to propel better collaboration in the future.
Again, we are here to help. If you do have questions about particular articles, reviews, the criteria, or other GA issues, please do contact us. Many of us would be happy to provide a more comprehensive review when asked. Assume good faith in our intentions. If you have further questions about my comments, please do respond, as I, and the other reviewers, do want to improve this process any way we can. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 06:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
So in retrospect it's becoming clear that the real justification is embedded in the GA rules, and the reviewers are within their "legal" rights no matter how much it bothers us. So what normally happens when you have bad rules is that the rules get changed. So let's explore fixing the them.
A general rule that has developed over the last millennium or so (complete with rolling heads) is that if some process requires a bureaucracy to put it into place, another bureaucracy should be used to take it away again. The GA rules, for reasons that are not clear, allow one to sidestep this policy. That's the point of contention here.
In the past I have had people quote policy at me, policy I did not understand. So I took the time to understand it, and invariably found that the policy was originally set up to address a very different issue. For instance, I was told that articles should not have image galleries in them. When I went and looked, I found that the policy was actually set up to stop "image montages", pages consisting mostly or solely of images. Someone didn't like the word "montage", so they changed it to "gallery". So the rule was set up to do something utterly unrelated to its current reading, and was being misapplied through confusion.
My gut feeling tells me that the rule here might fall into the same category. Why would one ever want to have this rule in the first place? Doesn't it seem odd that a single person can delist GA? Perhaps it was because in the past that anyone could single-handedly list', so the single-person delist was actually being symmetrical? Or perhaps it was because there was no GAR in the past and we needed some sort of kill mechanism? Or perhaps people were bypassing the nomination and just stamping GA on anything they liked and it needed to be removed just as quickly? The possibilities are endless, but it seems clear that whatever the reason for inclusion, it's outlived its usefulness.
I'm all in favor of quick-deletes on things that clearly fail, where the GA was granted without going through nomination for instance. But, obviously, I'm not at all in favor of quick-deletes in the case that the standards change out from under the article. In that case I don't believe its "clear" at all.
So, let's talk about this: under what circumstances is the quick-fail/delete policy to be used, and under which ones should the article go to GAR? Let's codify this, get it into the GA rules, and the problem disappears. Yes, it's entirely possible that this will increase the backlog in GAR, but the Wikipedia is about writing articles, not grading them, and we need to be sure we don't scare people off from writing just so we can make a grading process easier.
Maury ( talk) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've never been a member of a cabal before, how exciting! My own view is that articles that warrant a quick delist are usually self-evident, but that when they're delisted a full explanation ought to be given so that they can be improved. I've only quick delisted a few, one of which was Handloading, an article that it seemed plain to me never should have been a GA in the first place. Almost always I'll fix what I can, detail what I can't fix in the review, and put the article on hold. It's rather depressing to see how infrequently editors step into the breach to fix things; GA sweeps is definitely something nobody would choose to for the thanks you get. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I haven't replied. I've not been online as much this past week, and wiki time has been sort of focused, so I hadn't checked my watchlist. To save time, I'm going to be blunt. Articles are listed and delisted by one editor. Article writers have no beef with the former. Critics of the GA project have no problem with the latter. In order to maintain a balance in the project, the same manner for listing needs to exist for delisting. GAR is in place to ensure neither of those processes is abused. These delistings are generally reserved for those that never appeared to meet the criteria to begin with, such as those listed without review. Let's speak on the articles mentioned in this thread. The first article has entire sections without citation; that generally prevents an article from being quickly improved. It was also passed without sufficient review and apparently failed to meet the criteria at that time. For the second, I don't know how many weeks it has been since it was delisted, but it's still not improved, so it would appear it does not fall in the "can be improved in a week" category either.
As OhanaUnited so untactfully pointed out above, article custodians/writers who have found their articles delisted have registered their displeasure a few times in the past. Perhaps I've reached a point, or maybe I started out at this point, that I just don't see the necessity to argue over such delistings. The time spent complaining about the article having been delisted could have been better spent bringing the article up to standards. The notification of delistment is placed on the article talk page. I've stated to others before, if you don't have your GAs on your watchlist, you obviously have no concern with maintaining their quality, and really should not be shocked to find that they've been delisted after being neglected for a great deal of time. I've removed two of my GAs from my watchlist because I'm tired of dealing with the frustrations that come with working on them. If they're delisted, someone else can fix them. That's how I view it.
So that's basically how I feel about it. As a project, we want as many articles listed as possible. It is certainly not our goal or desire to remove articles from the list. However, the greater goal is project quality, thus the name of our task force (not cabal). If an article is delisted, improve it. If done within a few days of its delistment, list it at GAR and, if it meets the criteria, the delist will be overturned and the article relisted. If it takes you longer, you'll be referred to GAN. If you need help improving them, ask me or others in the GA project. We can answer questions and I'm sure some of us will even help make improvements. We understand the criteria, and while most of us aren't inclined to improve the articles we come across that aren't topics of interest to us, we are happy to help those who request it of us. Our process, however, is one of checks and balances. The sweeps process involves the project's most experienced reviewers, and they are working with the best interests of the project in mind. LaraLove| Talk 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is what I propose:
Immediate-delist of GA articles should only be used when the original GA clearly fails the GA[C/N] at the time the article was promoted. Examples include editors upgrading the article to GA status without a GAN, GA promotions in spite of a fail in the GAN, etc.
In all other cases a delist should go to GAR. Examples include changes to the GAC after the GA was granted, one GA reviewer's opinion over another's that it met it in the first place, etc.
Maury ( talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Once again you are arguing that GAR is, as you put it, a "waste of time". However, you have also have repeatedly stated that GAR is the solution to use if the article is delisted during the sweeps. Obviously one of these two statements is untrue, and considering all the fightin' and a feudin' that avoiding GAR has caused, it seems pretty obvious that GAR workload is not terribly germane. Once again I feel the need to point out the fact that the Wikipedia is here for the articles, not the critics, so if we have to choose between increasing workload for reviewers (an undemonstrated point BTW) or the editors, then there's really no argument is there?
Further, I still can't find any current policy that states there is a quick-fail policy for existing GAs, although all of the members of GA/PQRF continue to "quote" it. I see a proposal for such a system from some time ago, now abandoned, and current policy that applies only to the GAN list. So I ask again, where is the current quick-fail policy stated?
I'm sure you'll both point me to Wikipedia:GAPQ/S, but given that it was created by the members of the GA/PQRF, doesn't follow official policy, and isn't being followed anyway, I consider it to be non-canonical. We don't get to write our own laws to suit us, which appears to be what happened here.
Maury ( talk) 13:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The quick-fail criterion everyone is referring to is talking about articles during GAN. There is nothing in that section that has to do with articles already on GA. And example is offered to suggest that the FA works the same way, yet the language in question also clearly refers to articles before they become FA -- "Before nominating an article..." I thank Ohana for demonstrating my point so effectively.
The same GA "reviewing" document quoted above does have a section on Delisting articles which talks about what to do when you "come across an article which no longer meets the criteria". I hope everyone agrees that this is what we're talking about here. The "Delisting articles" section sends the reviewer to these criterion, where they clearly state that the article should be placed on GAR in these cases.
So again, if someone can point to the official policy on quick-failing articles after they have received their GA, please do so.
Maury ( talk) 12:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I"m sorrry, but this has gotten ridiculous. Everything on this site was created by editors of this site. So to say that these pages are irrelevant or invalid or whatever because I created them, and because I'm participating on this page, is unfair. The quick-fail criteria used for GANs are the same criteria we follow for sweeps. You're asking for policy pages of a wikiproject. That doesn't make sense. I don't see the point in adding a line to the quick-fail section that says they can also be applied when reviewing current GAs, but if that is indeed necessary, then it's a change we can make.
You bring up "articles that could be corrected in minutes" yet you provide no examples. There have been no articles quickly delisted that could have been fixed in minutes. If that were the case, they would have been fix, listed at GAR and quickly relisted. Neither of the articles mentioned in this long discussion have been improved. Both were far from meeting the standards, and neither needed to remain listed. There has been no abuse here. Only a lot of wasted time. Improve the articles and renominate them if you so wish. If you feel they were inappropriately delisted, you can list them at WP:GAR, though, as noted above, they are clearly below standards. As Malleus, I am not commenting further here. I can run laps at the gym. LaraLove| Talk 18:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to make some changes to the way we review Good Article nominations is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA review reform. All interested editors are invited to participate. EyeSerene talk 11:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right page to be asking, but I would like to request that the PlayStation Home article be evaluated for GA. Thanks. JDC808 ( talk) 02:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered Trabancos River had been delisted. I am not here to complain about that but about the lack of targeted notice. In this case, I might or might not have been able to make the fixes suggested, but I was not aware of the GA review on the article's talk page until after the delisting (I have a few thousand pages on my watchlist as many users do). It would be absurdly easy to target notice by dropping a message on the major contributor or few contributors' talk pages in association with each review. A standard message could be:
I have reviewed [[ARTICLE NAME]] as part of a GA review sweep and left a message on the article's talk page regarding issues found. Please note that if the issues are not addressed over the next week, the article may be delisted. Thanks.--~~~~
All one needs to do to find the major contributor(s) of an article is to use the Wikipedia Page History Statistics tool. In the case of Trabancos River you would have found that I made 177 edits, another other user made 60 edits, and no one else made more than 8. I think this sweep process is a very good idea but I imagine many other article contributors will find themselves also scratching their heads, after the fact. Note the difference between this and a GA review. With regard to the latter, a major contributor has made a request and should be expecting a review on the article talk page. Here, it may be years since an article was promoted. The major contributors may not notice the page on their watchlists, and they may only stop by every few days and barely check their watchlists, when they do. Tripping the angry orange message bar is many times over more likely to provide notice, and possibly trigger action on the issues raised in the assessment which might avoid the need for delisting. Note also one psychological issue. A user is more likely to address problems raised if they think they can avoid delisting, than they are to take action (or quick action) if they know there is no deadline in place, but that they must go through the rigamarole of relisting at GA after addressing issues. I would think the impossible-to-attain but actual goal to shoot for here, is to get action on every GA so that none are delisted. I think this is crucial to foster that goal -- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that the sweep list is clear of everything apart from GAHs. Even if some of you recharge your batteries quickly, could I suggest that everyone pauses at least until the end of the year before considering another sweep.
First, the whole unreferenced BLP business means that a lot of people are being drummed into one article improvement drive and probably don't want to be distracted by another.
In the mean time, there are various review or assessment pages with backlogs which could use your skills. I know that there are plans for a WP:GAN backlog drive next month which is the most obvious place for GA Sweepers to go next. However, the people at WP:FLC are finding it takes longer than they would like before they have enough opinions to close assessments. WP:PR, WP:DYK and WP:FAC might also appreciate input.
As far as other GA improvements are concerned, I noticed today that at the bottom of WP:GA there is a link to Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing. It seems rather odd having a page saying "These are some of our better articles. Oh and a lot are tagged as needing improvements." It might be worth removing the link and attaching it to this task force's page
The cleanup listing is several months old and I suspect (and hope) that most of the 1000-odd articles listed there have been swept since the list was generated. While I'm against another sweep, it might still be worth getting the bot to generate a new listing, to see how many articles are left. Project members might then check whether anything can be easily fixed, whether any tags are mistaken or unimportant and then review the rump.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to interrupt, but...
There should be a button on the bottom of every article that says "Read to completion" or something. You could trace your browsing history more intimately. Study the patterns in the progression of thought patterns. I believe an implementation of this should be simple... However, how much more data would that cost? Is it too much? Or can only those who risk going too far find out how far they can really get?
Cool beans Nineball ( talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC) all you
I want to spread the word about a new template that I have discovered, which may someday help take on the problem of article rot (the loss of quality in previously good articles), and at the very least, preserve the good articles in an accessible fashion. Essentially, when people find that a page has achieved a good, stable position, they may mark the permanent link as such on the talk page. It is unobtrusive, does not affect the editing of the article, and does nothing permanent (the permanent link ID can be updated, as warranted). I personally think this is a wonderful idea, and am trying to get the word out. I post this here, because most articles that is found to meet the "good article" criteria would probably be logical choices for marking stable versions. It's a brand new idea, so I don't know if it's going to take off or not, but I thought I'd let y'all know. Falconus p t c 16:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm likely not in the correct location, but can you tell me how I can ask for an article to reviewed for Good Quality? This would be the Mozilla Firefox article. I know the article is not at good quality status, we just need some insight as to how we can improve the article. Thanks, Trewyy ( talk) 19:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey folks! I stumbled upon Category:Good articles without topic parameter as its the Backlog of the Week. I've been going through and adding topics to a number of these, but it seems like most of them became GAs in the last year and were given a subtopic. However, that subtopic didn't automatically place the article in the parent topic or remove it from the category "Good articles without topic parameter". I've never been involved with the GA process, so I'm not sure if there's some reasoning behind this, or if this is undesired behavior. Thoughts? Thanks! Ajpolino ( talk) 22:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding Arts to topic= doesn't do anything. Also, shouldn't this be split at least into Music, Architecture, Fine arts and sculpture and Other arts related. The topic doesn't immediately come to mind for music articles, at least — Iadmc ♫ talk 23:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey all, just writing it to find out what I can about A) learning more about the task force, what to look for as an editor, and B) possibly joining the task force! Been reading through the page but wanted to get some feedback from task force members. Thanks! PcPrincipal ( talk) 15:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this page isn't used any longer. Anyone opposed to marking it with {{
Historical}}
and de-linking it from the sidebar at
Wikipedia:Good articles?
Ajpolino (
talk)
21:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
I have just looked at the articles for a GA review, and it seems the problems are still there, as always. If this "Project quality task force" really wants to make a change (and radically cut its workload) it would rapidly FAIL most of the articles that are up for review. "Head 'em off at the pass" seems to be the case, and explain WHY. Any editor can do it, so why don't you, if you are so concerned?-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor left a message at talk:Same-sex marriage in Canada stating that he decided that the article no longer passes muster and that he had delisted it. This occurred without notice. From an earlier discussion, it sounds as though notice is usually given. Why wasn't it this time? It appears to me that there is a procedure for delisting at WP:GAR. Following that procedure allows editors at the article to address the problems before it is delisted. Now, after getting refs for quotes, adding a paragraph or two to the lead, and dropping some links with <ref></ref> tags, editors have to go through the nomination process again. This seems like a rather drastic course to have taken given the relative simplicity of the changes required. - Rrius ( talk) 09:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Largely by mistake I discovered today that Nova laser was delisted from GA in February. I cannot find any discussion of the article or the GAR process anywhere. Links in the talk page lead nowhere. The message posted on the article talk page was posted after the fact, completely generic, and wrong.
No effort was made to engage me, the primary editor of the article. In fact, from what I can see this decision was completely internalized. The GA/PQT cabal apparently decided to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner, and then notify the victim after the fact.
I see on this talk page that this article is not the only example. What the hell is going on here?
Maury ( talk) 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to join this discussion earlier, but had to drive about 400 miles today to visit family (man, gas is expensive!), so wasn't able to respond until now. I do recognize that editors are upset from reviews performed and you have the right to be. I have upset editors in the past with some of the reviews I have performed, and have learned from each one on how to better review these articles to improve the collaboration between reviewer and editor(s). I have been thanked by many others, who have seen their articles improved as a result of the reviews I have performed. This is a learning process for both parties, and we have expanded our efforts in improving our reviews.
Although there are complaints of this "cabal", the reviewers have a difficult task. Should editors be notified when articles are passed/failed? There's no requirement, but it is usually general courtesy to do. I don't necessarily tell editors when articles pass or fail, but am sure to contact them (along with related WikiProjects) whenever I place an article on hold. This gives multiple editors a chance to work on addressing raised issues and collaborate with me in helping to improve the article to meet the criteria. Should articles be delisted? We're not a power-hungry group, believing that just because a single editor is able to delist an article that we should do our best to whittle down the current GA list. The GAs that are initially failed are so far from meeting the criteria, that it would not be feasible to put them on hold. If no issues are addressed on a hold, they are delisted as well. However, the majority of the articles pass, and the articles improve during the process by either sweeps reviewers assisting in improving the articles themselves and/or collaborating with editors of the article to further improve it. Putting articles on hold is usually the best option which stimulates larger discussions and pushes the article to pass.
Many of the reviewers have previously reviewed hundreds of articles and know the GA criteria. Many have written GAs themselves and know the dedication and requirements that articles need to meet the criteria. However, using this knowledge to review other editors' articles can be challenging. When I have passed articles in the past, there is rarely discussion afterwards. Failing articles, at times can have similar results, while some editors are very negative on the review I have performed. I have accepted this, realizing that I can not please everyone, even though I would like to. We are rarely thanked for our work (we're almost like IRS auditors!), but that's not the reason that we do it. Each member here has the best intentions for the GA process and the quality of articles on Wikipedia. We don't like delisting articles, and it does pain me to delist articles knowing the higher class it had previously attained. It's easier to point fingers on what we do wrong then it is to work with us in fixing the issues. I'm not saying that this is what is happening in this discussion, because we do need to inform editors on what we are doing, to propel better collaboration in the future.
Again, we are here to help. If you do have questions about particular articles, reviews, the criteria, or other GA issues, please do contact us. Many of us would be happy to provide a more comprehensive review when asked. Assume good faith in our intentions. If you have further questions about my comments, please do respond, as I, and the other reviewers, do want to improve this process any way we can. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 06:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
So in retrospect it's becoming clear that the real justification is embedded in the GA rules, and the reviewers are within their "legal" rights no matter how much it bothers us. So what normally happens when you have bad rules is that the rules get changed. So let's explore fixing the them.
A general rule that has developed over the last millennium or so (complete with rolling heads) is that if some process requires a bureaucracy to put it into place, another bureaucracy should be used to take it away again. The GA rules, for reasons that are not clear, allow one to sidestep this policy. That's the point of contention here.
In the past I have had people quote policy at me, policy I did not understand. So I took the time to understand it, and invariably found that the policy was originally set up to address a very different issue. For instance, I was told that articles should not have image galleries in them. When I went and looked, I found that the policy was actually set up to stop "image montages", pages consisting mostly or solely of images. Someone didn't like the word "montage", so they changed it to "gallery". So the rule was set up to do something utterly unrelated to its current reading, and was being misapplied through confusion.
My gut feeling tells me that the rule here might fall into the same category. Why would one ever want to have this rule in the first place? Doesn't it seem odd that a single person can delist GA? Perhaps it was because in the past that anyone could single-handedly list', so the single-person delist was actually being symmetrical? Or perhaps it was because there was no GAR in the past and we needed some sort of kill mechanism? Or perhaps people were bypassing the nomination and just stamping GA on anything they liked and it needed to be removed just as quickly? The possibilities are endless, but it seems clear that whatever the reason for inclusion, it's outlived its usefulness.
I'm all in favor of quick-deletes on things that clearly fail, where the GA was granted without going through nomination for instance. But, obviously, I'm not at all in favor of quick-deletes in the case that the standards change out from under the article. In that case I don't believe its "clear" at all.
So, let's talk about this: under what circumstances is the quick-fail/delete policy to be used, and under which ones should the article go to GAR? Let's codify this, get it into the GA rules, and the problem disappears. Yes, it's entirely possible that this will increase the backlog in GAR, but the Wikipedia is about writing articles, not grading them, and we need to be sure we don't scare people off from writing just so we can make a grading process easier.
Maury ( talk) 16:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've never been a member of a cabal before, how exciting! My own view is that articles that warrant a quick delist are usually self-evident, but that when they're delisted a full explanation ought to be given so that they can be improved. I've only quick delisted a few, one of which was Handloading, an article that it seemed plain to me never should have been a GA in the first place. Almost always I'll fix what I can, detail what I can't fix in the review, and put the article on hold. It's rather depressing to see how infrequently editors step into the breach to fix things; GA sweeps is definitely something nobody would choose to for the thanks you get. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I haven't replied. I've not been online as much this past week, and wiki time has been sort of focused, so I hadn't checked my watchlist. To save time, I'm going to be blunt. Articles are listed and delisted by one editor. Article writers have no beef with the former. Critics of the GA project have no problem with the latter. In order to maintain a balance in the project, the same manner for listing needs to exist for delisting. GAR is in place to ensure neither of those processes is abused. These delistings are generally reserved for those that never appeared to meet the criteria to begin with, such as those listed without review. Let's speak on the articles mentioned in this thread. The first article has entire sections without citation; that generally prevents an article from being quickly improved. It was also passed without sufficient review and apparently failed to meet the criteria at that time. For the second, I don't know how many weeks it has been since it was delisted, but it's still not improved, so it would appear it does not fall in the "can be improved in a week" category either.
As OhanaUnited so untactfully pointed out above, article custodians/writers who have found their articles delisted have registered their displeasure a few times in the past. Perhaps I've reached a point, or maybe I started out at this point, that I just don't see the necessity to argue over such delistings. The time spent complaining about the article having been delisted could have been better spent bringing the article up to standards. The notification of delistment is placed on the article talk page. I've stated to others before, if you don't have your GAs on your watchlist, you obviously have no concern with maintaining their quality, and really should not be shocked to find that they've been delisted after being neglected for a great deal of time. I've removed two of my GAs from my watchlist because I'm tired of dealing with the frustrations that come with working on them. If they're delisted, someone else can fix them. That's how I view it.
So that's basically how I feel about it. As a project, we want as many articles listed as possible. It is certainly not our goal or desire to remove articles from the list. However, the greater goal is project quality, thus the name of our task force (not cabal). If an article is delisted, improve it. If done within a few days of its delistment, list it at GAR and, if it meets the criteria, the delist will be overturned and the article relisted. If it takes you longer, you'll be referred to GAN. If you need help improving them, ask me or others in the GA project. We can answer questions and I'm sure some of us will even help make improvements. We understand the criteria, and while most of us aren't inclined to improve the articles we come across that aren't topics of interest to us, we are happy to help those who request it of us. Our process, however, is one of checks and balances. The sweeps process involves the project's most experienced reviewers, and they are working with the best interests of the project in mind. LaraLove| Talk 16:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is what I propose:
Immediate-delist of GA articles should only be used when the original GA clearly fails the GA[C/N] at the time the article was promoted. Examples include editors upgrading the article to GA status without a GAN, GA promotions in spite of a fail in the GAN, etc.
In all other cases a delist should go to GAR. Examples include changes to the GAC after the GA was granted, one GA reviewer's opinion over another's that it met it in the first place, etc.
Maury ( talk) 19:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Once again you are arguing that GAR is, as you put it, a "waste of time". However, you have also have repeatedly stated that GAR is the solution to use if the article is delisted during the sweeps. Obviously one of these two statements is untrue, and considering all the fightin' and a feudin' that avoiding GAR has caused, it seems pretty obvious that GAR workload is not terribly germane. Once again I feel the need to point out the fact that the Wikipedia is here for the articles, not the critics, so if we have to choose between increasing workload for reviewers (an undemonstrated point BTW) or the editors, then there's really no argument is there?
Further, I still can't find any current policy that states there is a quick-fail policy for existing GAs, although all of the members of GA/PQRF continue to "quote" it. I see a proposal for such a system from some time ago, now abandoned, and current policy that applies only to the GAN list. So I ask again, where is the current quick-fail policy stated?
I'm sure you'll both point me to Wikipedia:GAPQ/S, but given that it was created by the members of the GA/PQRF, doesn't follow official policy, and isn't being followed anyway, I consider it to be non-canonical. We don't get to write our own laws to suit us, which appears to be what happened here.
Maury ( talk) 13:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The quick-fail criterion everyone is referring to is talking about articles during GAN. There is nothing in that section that has to do with articles already on GA. And example is offered to suggest that the FA works the same way, yet the language in question also clearly refers to articles before they become FA -- "Before nominating an article..." I thank Ohana for demonstrating my point so effectively.
The same GA "reviewing" document quoted above does have a section on Delisting articles which talks about what to do when you "come across an article which no longer meets the criteria". I hope everyone agrees that this is what we're talking about here. The "Delisting articles" section sends the reviewer to these criterion, where they clearly state that the article should be placed on GAR in these cases.
So again, if someone can point to the official policy on quick-failing articles after they have received their GA, please do so.
Maury ( talk) 12:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I"m sorrry, but this has gotten ridiculous. Everything on this site was created by editors of this site. So to say that these pages are irrelevant or invalid or whatever because I created them, and because I'm participating on this page, is unfair. The quick-fail criteria used for GANs are the same criteria we follow for sweeps. You're asking for policy pages of a wikiproject. That doesn't make sense. I don't see the point in adding a line to the quick-fail section that says they can also be applied when reviewing current GAs, but if that is indeed necessary, then it's a change we can make.
You bring up "articles that could be corrected in minutes" yet you provide no examples. There have been no articles quickly delisted that could have been fixed in minutes. If that were the case, they would have been fix, listed at GAR and quickly relisted. Neither of the articles mentioned in this long discussion have been improved. Both were far from meeting the standards, and neither needed to remain listed. There has been no abuse here. Only a lot of wasted time. Improve the articles and renominate them if you so wish. If you feel they were inappropriately delisted, you can list them at WP:GAR, though, as noted above, they are clearly below standards. As Malleus, I am not commenting further here. I can run laps at the gym. LaraLove| Talk 18:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to make some changes to the way we review Good Article nominations is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA review reform. All interested editors are invited to participate. EyeSerene talk 11:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right page to be asking, but I would like to request that the PlayStation Home article be evaluated for GA. Thanks. JDC808 ( talk) 02:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just discovered Trabancos River had been delisted. I am not here to complain about that but about the lack of targeted notice. In this case, I might or might not have been able to make the fixes suggested, but I was not aware of the GA review on the article's talk page until after the delisting (I have a few thousand pages on my watchlist as many users do). It would be absurdly easy to target notice by dropping a message on the major contributor or few contributors' talk pages in association with each review. A standard message could be:
I have reviewed [[ARTICLE NAME]] as part of a GA review sweep and left a message on the article's talk page regarding issues found. Please note that if the issues are not addressed over the next week, the article may be delisted. Thanks.--~~~~
All one needs to do to find the major contributor(s) of an article is to use the Wikipedia Page History Statistics tool. In the case of Trabancos River you would have found that I made 177 edits, another other user made 60 edits, and no one else made more than 8. I think this sweep process is a very good idea but I imagine many other article contributors will find themselves also scratching their heads, after the fact. Note the difference between this and a GA review. With regard to the latter, a major contributor has made a request and should be expecting a review on the article talk page. Here, it may be years since an article was promoted. The major contributors may not notice the page on their watchlists, and they may only stop by every few days and barely check their watchlists, when they do. Tripping the angry orange message bar is many times over more likely to provide notice, and possibly trigger action on the issues raised in the assessment which might avoid the need for delisting. Note also one psychological issue. A user is more likely to address problems raised if they think they can avoid delisting, than they are to take action (or quick action) if they know there is no deadline in place, but that they must go through the rigamarole of relisting at GA after addressing issues. I would think the impossible-to-attain but actual goal to shoot for here, is to get action on every GA so that none are delisted. I think this is crucial to foster that goal -- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 00:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that the sweep list is clear of everything apart from GAHs. Even if some of you recharge your batteries quickly, could I suggest that everyone pauses at least until the end of the year before considering another sweep.
First, the whole unreferenced BLP business means that a lot of people are being drummed into one article improvement drive and probably don't want to be distracted by another.
In the mean time, there are various review or assessment pages with backlogs which could use your skills. I know that there are plans for a WP:GAN backlog drive next month which is the most obvious place for GA Sweepers to go next. However, the people at WP:FLC are finding it takes longer than they would like before they have enough opinions to close assessments. WP:PR, WP:DYK and WP:FAC might also appreciate input.
As far as other GA improvements are concerned, I noticed today that at the bottom of WP:GA there is a link to Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing. It seems rather odd having a page saying "These are some of our better articles. Oh and a lot are tagged as needing improvements." It might be worth removing the link and attaching it to this task force's page
The cleanup listing is several months old and I suspect (and hope) that most of the 1000-odd articles listed there have been swept since the list was generated. While I'm against another sweep, it might still be worth getting the bot to generate a new listing, to see how many articles are left. Project members might then check whether anything can be easily fixed, whether any tags are mistaken or unimportant and then review the rump.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to interrupt, but...
There should be a button on the bottom of every article that says "Read to completion" or something. You could trace your browsing history more intimately. Study the patterns in the progression of thought patterns. I believe an implementation of this should be simple... However, how much more data would that cost? Is it too much? Or can only those who risk going too far find out how far they can really get?
Cool beans Nineball ( talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC) all you
I want to spread the word about a new template that I have discovered, which may someday help take on the problem of article rot (the loss of quality in previously good articles), and at the very least, preserve the good articles in an accessible fashion. Essentially, when people find that a page has achieved a good, stable position, they may mark the permanent link as such on the talk page. It is unobtrusive, does not affect the editing of the article, and does nothing permanent (the permanent link ID can be updated, as warranted). I personally think this is a wonderful idea, and am trying to get the word out. I post this here, because most articles that is found to meet the "good article" criteria would probably be logical choices for marking stable versions. It's a brand new idea, so I don't know if it's going to take off or not, but I thought I'd let y'all know. Falconus p t c 16:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm likely not in the correct location, but can you tell me how I can ask for an article to reviewed for Good Quality? This would be the Mozilla Firefox article. I know the article is not at good quality status, we just need some insight as to how we can improve the article. Thanks, Trewyy ( talk) 19:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey folks! I stumbled upon Category:Good articles without topic parameter as its the Backlog of the Week. I've been going through and adding topics to a number of these, but it seems like most of them became GAs in the last year and were given a subtopic. However, that subtopic didn't automatically place the article in the parent topic or remove it from the category "Good articles without topic parameter". I've never been involved with the GA process, so I'm not sure if there's some reasoning behind this, or if this is undesired behavior. Thoughts? Thanks! Ajpolino ( talk) 22:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding Arts to topic= doesn't do anything. Also, shouldn't this be split at least into Music, Architecture, Fine arts and sculpture and Other arts related. The topic doesn't immediately come to mind for music articles, at least — Iadmc ♫ talk 23:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey all, just writing it to find out what I can about A) learning more about the task force, what to look for as an editor, and B) possibly joining the task force! Been reading through the page but wanted to get some feedback from task force members. Thanks! PcPrincipal ( talk) 15:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this page isn't used any longer. Anyone opposed to marking it with {{
Historical}}
and de-linking it from the sidebar at
Wikipedia:Good articles?
Ajpolino (
talk)
21:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)