Forum:CT:Intermediate article milestone

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Intermediate article milestone

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was No consensus, article milestones will be kept as is. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, there are two types of Good Articles: the ones that are comprehensive and have all the information on a given topic, just not enough to reach 1000 words and therefore Featured Article status, and the ones that could reach Featured Article status, with a little more elbow grease and research.

Now, last time a change to the GA rules was proposed, it was shot down, since people like the fact that you can have an article milestone without making the work perfect. In hindsight, that's fair enough, and I intend to leave that alone. But to my mind, it's a little misleading when these incomplete articles are given the same label as some fully complete articles.

So how do we remedy this? Simple. We make these complete articles Featured Articles as well, but since there's not enough content to warrant being "Featured" on the main page, they're simply not. These article would have some sort of "Featured" status, just not at the same level as the ones that are over 1000 words, and therefore can reach the main page.

And this wouldn't even require a separate page or system. All that is needed is an amendment to the current FA rules:

Instead of "…counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, be at least 1000 words long (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc)."

We have "…counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, be at least 1000 words long (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc) in order for it to be featured on the main page. If it is less than 1000 words and more than 250 words, it will be granted Minor Featured Article status, and will not be shown on the main page."

Or something like that. The "250" and the "Minor" aren't really concrete, but I hope you understand what I'm getting at. Basically, we're presenting the reader with stuff that is premium content, but just plain isn't enough to be put on the main page. Before we vote on this, I'd like to mull it around with a bit of discussion, perhaps refine the idea and the presentation. Play ball. Thefourdotelipsis 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I don't like this. Why couldn't they just stay as good articles? I don't feel we need to create a whole new "type of article"/system. Besides, the FA word limit is too low anyway, in my opinion. Chack Jadson (Talk) 11:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I obviously think we could use something, since I proposed the aforementioned idea that was shot down; however, I think it's more our GA system that needs work. Currently, articles are being approved as GAs as a stepping stone to FAs. They have a lot of information, but not quite all of it, and are hopefully well-formatted. Yet this is what our GA page states: "A Good article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach FA status due to its limited content." According to this, those pre-FA noms should not be allowed to become a GA until they are fully fleshed out (and by that time, they'd pretty much be ready for the FA review process). In my opinion, the GA mark should be reserved for those article that are fully fleshed out and well-formatted, and essentially the "Minor Featured Article" proposed above by 4dot. This wouldn't require any additional votes or policies, just stricter voting and adherence to our current guidelines on the GA nomination page. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The improvement of the GA process was proposed by Greyman and I several months ago, but was shot down because people liked having the stepping stone that the process seems to have informally become. To respond to Chack, the reason they...not can't, but shouldn't stay as GAs is because they're of a vastly superior level of quality to what is the normal GAs. It's misleading to the reader. Thefourdotelipsis 08:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't like idea of an intermediate milestone, period. GAs should have stayed as articles that were perfect, but too short for FA. GA as an intermediate stage is just a silly, weird middle step. "Well, it's still too crappy to be an FA. But don't worry, it's not as crappy as your average article!" I mean, how do you just get most of the information in there? Do you, like, actively half-ass it or something? "Well, I could explain the events of VOTF, but screw it, I'll gloss it over in a sentence. Oh, I don't want to actually have to reread Dark Tide, so I'll just quick summarize it from memory." That's a shitty way to write an article and it results in a shitty product. That's an attitude we should slap down, not reward. It's people not being willing to put in real work and thinking they're entitled to a pat on the back for putting in minimum effort. Why do we want to reward a half-assed job? Why do people want to be rewarded for a half-assed job? Bring GA standards up to snuff, make it the too-short-for-FA-but-still-excellent marker it ought to be, and drop the slacker back-pats. Havac 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem with that is that it was already tried and people shot it down—obviously, most users do want things to be half-assed. I'm in support of either of Havac's or 4dot's proposals, though. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Havac: That's totally and absolutely what I would want in a perfect Wiki. But we have tried that course of action, and the community just doesn't want it. So...this is a middle ground. Not ideal, as you say, for you and me and many others, but that's just the way it is. And that's not defeatist: Hell, I'll try again in a year or so, maybe, but the fact of the matter is, there was a vote, it was turned down. Thefourdotelipsis 10:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Then let's clean up GA and create a new category, say, "Halfway Decent Articles" and put the half-assed crap there. I'm very wary of creating confusion by creating two classes of FAs, though. I think we should have different terms in play. Havac 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We don't need a milestone. We HAVE a middle ground by default. Articles that's aren't GAs/FAs but also don't have various cleanup tags on them pointing them out as total crap. If it's a GA, it should be high quality despite low quantity. And what's the point of having a Featured Article if you aren't going to feature it? Wildyoda 02:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • When this is put to vote, I think it should be in at least two stages: first, a vote on whether the current system is sufficient or not. Second, if consensus is for change, which of the (two, currently) options should be adopted: purge GAs not of top quality, or promote GAs of top quality to minor FA. Structuring the vote this way will not favor the status quo by spilling the change vote into two parties. --Eyrezer 05:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The following might be stricken out/nixed entirely, but I feel that this could use an "average user" perspective. When I come across half-assed articles (of which I'm familiar with the subject), I try to expand and tidy 'em up as best as I can. For an encyclopedic reference, I'd expect the articles to be written with that style. I'd expect to find clear, concise, detailed articles written with professionalism. As such, I work my hardest to emulate such styleguides when writing articles. That's what I'm doing with the Rodian article. It used to be a Good Article, but now it's in need of obvious repair. Toprawa pointed out to me that its writing is rather dismal, and when I read the article again, this time looking for the encyclopedic style, I agreed. So, I took up the project of fixing it. It's gonna take me a while, but I wanna get it right the first time. I wanna bring it back up to the current standards of GA, and possibly beyond. As Havac indicated, GA was a status for articles that were perfect. Articles that were exceptional. Articles that stood out from the mainstream. Sure, they didn't quite have the quantity required for FA, but the articles were still GOOD. To demote GA to "Meh, it's alright as it makes the length requirements" stepping-stone status is absurd. It's like when science demoted Pluto, the planet that didn't quite make it. GA should remain a status to acheive. GA should remain as that silver medal, with FA as the gold. People should want to acheive that. People should want to be known for helping to acheive that status. Otherwise, acheiving GA just for length is a very hollow victory, like playing Duck Hunt with the Zapper pressed flush against the screen. Trak Nar 05:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This one agrees with Trak Nar's assessment; what we need is GA reform, which is already beginning, not a whole new system. I'll be the first to admit that some of my own GAs aren't "perfect" (there's no such thing anyway...heh), and would be happy to fix them given concrete reasons to do so. In essence, what I'm saying is that we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 23:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Eyrezer. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What Ataru said. Unit 8311 17:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting, Round 1

Before anyone votes, I highly suggest they read this small section before making an ass of himself or herself. Seriously, folks, read and vote. Don't try to derail the discussion or change the topic entirely.

I'd like to quote Eyrezer on this one:

"When this is put to vote, I think it should be in at least two stages: first, a vote on whether the current system is sufficient or not. Second, if consensus is for change, which of the (two, currently) options should be adopted: purge GAs not of top quality, or promote GAs of top quality to minor FA. Structuring the vote this way will not favor the status quo by spilling the change vote into two parties."

Therefore, I propose a vote on whether or not the current system should be revised somehow:

Yes, I believe the system should be revised

  1. I really only see opportunities for the users who promote articles in these measures. Graestan(Talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Needs fixing. Havac 03:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 08:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. This is broke. Let's fix it. Thefourdotelipsis 09:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Imperialles 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Ozzel 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. --Eyrezer 03:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Needs fixing. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) talk 15:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I think the current system works just fine

  1. As far as the issues this vote covers, anyway (now, the issues covered here are another matter . . .). jSarek 03:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per the Vulcan. There's change, and then there's change; we can clean up the GA system without tinkering with other stuff that's not broken.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 09:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You do know you just voted under the section which says "No, I think the current system works just fine," yet you're talking about cleaning up GA. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 09:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I do, but it's because I think that the changes that need to be affected can be done in a smaller way, without rewriting the whole thing and essentially creating a third, potentially useless tier that would create more work for just about everyone concerned. I don't disagree with the overall intent, but it's overkill.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 22:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • But there's nothing in this vote saying "Create a third tier." Just "Overhaul it somehow." You're voting for "Do nothing different at all," not "Don't do this one thing different." Havac 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ahem, I proposed a whether or not the current system should be revised somehow vote. Right after I warned the voters to read. Exasperation ensues. Graestan(Talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I understand the predicament Graestan, but that's what happens when you get two CTs that, in essence if not in fact, cover the same thing(s). But I'll probably just switch to the majority if it looks like there'll be a clearcut one.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 01:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd be much obliged if you'd point me in the direction of the other CT that covers "the same thing." As far as I know, there isn't one. Toprawa's CT about the GAN rules is unrelated; a simple tweak of the rules. Graestan(Talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Chack Jadson (Talk) 13:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 03:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per me above. Wildyoda 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.