Forum:CT:Revamp of the good article nomination rules revisited

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Revamp of the good article nomination rules revisited

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 update the Good article rules as laid out in this forum. Graestan(Talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Several months ago there was an attempt to establish some formal rules for good article nominations to raise it to the standards of our featured article nomination system. This resulted in no consensus and some debate over whether GAs should be complete and only unable to reach FA due to limited source material or whether it was acceptable for them to have broad coverage of a subject but not complete detail (as is currently the case) in order to serve as a stepping stone to FA.

So I'm proposing a compromise. Essentially articles under 1000 words (i.e. those that are too short to become FAs) should be complete in order to be considered good. Articles with enough information to pass the 1000 word mark would only be required to provide broad coverage of the topic's main information so GA could remain as a stepping stone to the complete coverage required by FA. Also, certain aspects that are required for featured articles (personality and traits, quotes, powers and abilities) would only be encouraged here and could be omitted if insufficient information was available.

So, starting with the current FA rules (minus those that don't apply to GA) and adjusting the others, we get the following:

A good article must…

  1. …be well-written and detailed.
  2. …be unbiased, non-point of view.
  3. …be sourced with all available sources and appearances.
  4. …follow the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia.
  5. …following the review process, it is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.
  6. …not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
  7. …have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This is essential in articles over 1000 words but may not be appropriate on articles with limited content.
  8. …not be tagged due to an excessive number of redlinks.
  9. …have significant information, especially a biography for character articles. For articles under 1000 words in length, comprehensive detail is required with all information covered from all sources and appearances. For articles over 1000 words, broad coverage addressing all major aspects of the topic is sufficient.
  10. …be completely referenced for all available material and sources. See Wookieepedia:Sourcing for more information.
  11. …have all quotes and images sourced.
  12. …provide at least one quote on the article if available. A leading quote at the beginning of the article would be preferred, though not required if no quotes are available. Although quotes may be placed in the body of the article, a maximum of one quote is allowed at the beginning of each section.
  13. …ideally include a "personality and traits" section on all character articles if information is available.
  14. …ideally include a "powers and abilities" section on relevant character articles if , especially for Force-sensitive characters where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated.
  15. …include a reasonable number of images of good quality if said images are available.
  16. …counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, be at least 250 words long (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc).

I'll be taking this to a vote in a few days, but until then any comments and suggestions would be welcome. Green Tentacle (Talk) 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Wholehearted support from me. However, I'm not a big fan of the "excessive number of redlinks" rule—some people will then end up objecting to just one or two, and I think its unnecessarily restricting. I'd prefer if it was left out, but if we must have it I think it'd be prudent to include a fixed number. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's do this. Anything to help us rise above the muck. Graestan(Talk) 22:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Finally, the GA system gets the revamp its needed for so long. I'm all for it. DC 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I so want to see GA reform, but... I'm not liking Rule 16. I know where it's coming from, but I still think creating another classification is the way to go. Let Good be for articles that are as good as they can (but cannot be Featured for lack of information about the subject); then have something else, like Okay Articles, that can be for your FA stepping-stone stuff and other articles that are pretty good but not quite all they can be. -- Ozzel 01:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I like the new rules and that they are stricter and more alike the FAN rules, however, I don't like 16. Now that the rules are very much like the FAN rules, the main differences are only really that a)you can have a broad coverage of a topic (which is personally not what I think GA is about) and b) they can be shorter, which is more of the gist of the GA, personally. Good articles are articles that are not long enough to be featured. With Rule 16, articles like the very popular Rainboh would not be able to be passed right now, and I think that Rainboh is a good article. GA should be used as a stepping stone by letting you start out with an easier, smaller article and getting used to the objections that would be on an FA (which is why many of the new rules are great) but you don't have to tackle a large character. I don't know, I just think it's okay right now without a word limit. Aqua Unasi 02:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think Ozzel does have a point here, but I think we might be able to achieve that if we had article assessment. At any rate, I think at some point we need to be able to tell our readers that "This article is 100% complete and factual, and you can trust it wholeheartedly" no matter what the length. Whether or not that needs to be "Good Articles" as we know them, I dunno. Looks good, though - 16's the only one that gives me any slight pause. Thefourdotelipsis 09:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • As a frequent contributor to the GA nominations page, I very much support a reform. A question though - will all former GAs have to be reviewed to make sure they adhere to the new guidelines and stripped of status if necessary? And who will be responsible for that? The Inquistorius, or a new panel? - Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 10:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Expect a CT on the matter in a couple of days, as soon as myself and Toprawa get together to iron out any creases in our proposal. The latest Inq meeting log has some details. :-) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe rule 16 is absolutely necessary. So, sorry Rainboh, but you're stripped if you're less than 250 words. I know some—maybe many—people will disagree with me on this, but I feel 16 is a must-have. I hate to see the GAN page made into a mockery. I know that's not what users are doing now (Fourdot and the like are very trustworthy and respectable), but it's too easy to pass through an extremely short article and I'd hate to see someone scamming the system. Honestly, I'd like to see it longer, but I'm sure I'm alone in that. I just want to repeat that this is in no way meant to offend or demean anyone who has a shorter GA. I trust said users absolutely. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, since we're now linking to random GAs from the main page, we definitely want GAs to have some actual content. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm strongly against the word count requirement, and completely agree with Ozzel's comments above. —Unsigned comment by Xwing328 (talk • contribs)
  • My two cents on rule 16: I think it's a good rule and a needed rule. Some sort of "extremely short article that is as comprehensive as it can be and is factually correct and fits with all applicable policies etc" status would certainly be welcome (perhaps it could operate similarly to the stub template?; I don't know), but I don't think Good Articles should be that thing. If we weren't linking to them randomly on the main page it wouldn't be quite such an issue for me, but do we seriously want to have one- or two-liners showcased on the main page? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd be for this except for Rules 8 and maybe 16. Redlinks are a hassle to track down and the info just isn't available sometimes. As for Rule 16, it would induce fluff, sometimes noticeable fluff and may cut out deserving articles, you may want to addendum that with "Unless Okay'd by an "administrator" or "Inquisitor." NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's do this:

Voting

Support the new GA rules

  1. Common sense, honestly, and also very close to the GA system as it is currently executed under the watchful eye of a few career objectors. Graestan(Talk) 22:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Obviously. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. Chack Jadson (Talk) 12:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. Cavalier One(Squadron channel) 14:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  7. DarthDragon164BlackdragonDragon's Lair 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  8. DC 23:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  9. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 15:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  10. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  11. Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 19:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  12. Aqua Unasi 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  13. Indeed.—Tommy9281 Red lightsaber (Peace is a lie) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  14. More comprehensive guidelines for higher quality GAs. I like it. Darth Xadún(Consult the Holocron) 20:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  15. Per Graestan. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  16. Imperialles 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the new GA rules

  1. I guess I'm in the minority, but not with Rule 16. Aqua Unasi 18:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • After being thoroughly convinced in IRC that a word limit would be necessary, I'll be a weakling and change my vote. :P I do think, however, that a system working somewhat like the opposite of a stub - "this article is complete" - or something or another, would be a nice thing for complete articles that would be less than the new GA word limit. Aqua Unasi 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. See comments below. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Are you honestly going to tell me that algae, the Combined Clans Center Building, and many more good articles are going to be stripped of their status even though there is nothing wrong with them aside from limited available content, while you are going to be lax and allow inadequate, partially-completed articles (over 1,000 words) with a plethora of available yet unrecorded information to be considered GAs? I feel this will be a step in the wrong direction for the GA process, leading to the dismissal of many quality, short articles and encouraging unnecessary wordiness simply to meet the minimum requirements. There's no reason we have to approve all of the rules above. I definitely support some changes, but not all. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "For articles under 1000 words in length, comprehensive detail is required with all information covered from all sources and appearances. For articles over 1000 words, broad coverage addressing all major aspects of the topic is sufficient." This is going to be taken seriously, should the other GA reform proposal pass CT. The other members of the proposed panel and I already have a growing list of GAs that need to be evaluated in our minds, and the general idea is "no missing information" in GAs. Sure, you might not get a summary of every single conversation a character has, as you would in one of our more exhaustive (and, in my frank opinion, rather unreadable) FAs, but you're going to get an outline of events from each source, and more. GA removal is one of the main goals, and as the GA system has moved up in the world quite a bit (thanks to users such as Greyman, Chack Jadson, and Toprawa and Ralltiir), the definition of what a GA should be is somewhat more clear than it was a few years ago. Graestan(Talk) 01:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)