Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Showcasing Good Articles
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. 1358 (Talk) 17:44, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Hey everyone,
At the latest Mofference, we tossed around ideas regarding the showcasing of Good Articles on the main page. There was overwhelming support for the idea (see here and ctrl + f "good articles"). The remaining questions don't seem to be "Should we do this?" but rather "How should we go about it?" Well, that's what this Senate Hall thread is for. There are a few different aspects we'll need to work out, so I'll separate them into their own subsections. Menkooroo 03:47, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
To replace or to supplement Featured Articles?
If we're going to put GAs on the main page, we need to decide if we're going to feature them in lieu of FAs on certain weeks/days of the week/whatever, or if we're going to place them on the main page in addition to the day's FA.
Personally, I'm strongly against the idea of replacing Featured Articles. If we showcase GAs identically to FAs, then all that's left to distinguish them from each other is a meaningless word count. It would essentially make FAs obsolete. I believe that Featured Articles should remain "Featured," with Good Articles being acknowledged on the main page as their also-excellent-baby-brothers of sorts. I don't think we should "Feature" Good Articles so much as we should "Showcase" them --- put a daily GA on the main page, but put it below the FA. Yes, Good Articles are of the same quality as Featured Articles, but I still feel that the largeness of FAs (and the extra effort that goes into writing them) should get the better showcase. I don't think that we should turn FAs and GAs into the same thing.
The queue isn't as big as it used to be, but it's not in danger of drying up, either. Fifteen FAs and four RFAs were added to the queue in January, and so far in February, six FAs and five RFAs have been. Writing and reviewing always pick up in the summer months; by June and July, I can see us being close to queueing thirty a month. If we want new content to be on the main page every day, a daily GA falling below the semi-weekly FA can accomplish that just fine.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. What are yours? Menkooroo 03:47, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also strongly against replacing FAs. Putting them under the FA sounds excellent to me. —MJ— War Room Friday, February 24, 2012, 04:09 UTC
- Ditto. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:18, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed.—Cal Jedi
(Personal Comm Channel) 04:22, February 24, 2012 (UTC) - I've tossed around the idea of replacing the "random articles" box with this. It would beat the two randomized blue links. graestan(talk) 04:30, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the FAs. Sticking GAs beneath the FAs, either as a link, or a truncated intro, would work. And if that GA has an image, have the image aligned to the right, rather than the left, as with FAs. This way, there will be a discernible difference at first glance. Trak Nar Ramble on 04:32, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, everyone. Graestan: I'm intrigued by the idea of replacing the random FA/GA box. Do you have any more details to the idea? Do you think there would be room for the full intro/picture treatment there? It would be great if we had multiple options to vote on come CT time, so definitely dish the deets. Menkooroo 01:02, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
- Pretty much the only difference between FA and GA by now is the word count when, as I understand it, GA began with the idea that any topic could be made FA but that it wouldn't require comprehensive coverage to do so. An example might be Twi'lek: The GA version (of old) might consult all the Essential Guide to Aliens type books and write that info up without having to dig through the literally hundreds of minor appearances and mentions of Twi'leks in order to get GA status. As we do things now, there is no way Twi'lek could ever be a Good Article, though, because we're expected to consult every source, even for GA. All that's to say, the line between GA and FA as we stand now is muddy at best anyway. I wouldn't have a problem with the GAs replacing the FAs now and then. I also have no problem with them supplementing the FAs per any of the suggestions above, though. ~Savage
15:21, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
How many per week?
Seven! I say seven. One a day. New content every day. Menkooroo 03:47, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Right now there are only two things on the Main Page that update daily: the QOTD, which is only good for a quick laugh and/or smile before the reader moves on, and "On this day", which for the most part isn't "new" content, since the same stuff is recycled every year (except for new additions from the previous year). We need something on the Main Page that both updates daily and encourages readers to dig a little deeper into the site, i.e. by clicking through to the article. The FA used to accomplish this, but it's not daily anymore. Daily GAs would be perfect for that purpose. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers Friday, February 24, 2012, 04:14 UTC
- Yeah. Daily updates. We have plenty of GA material to do it with. That way, the two FAs a week could remain the same, and viewers would still have something to come back for.—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 04:24, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- If we have the queue to do it, go with the dailies. Trak Nar Ramble on 04:37, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Per all above. ~Savage
15:22, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
Should they get the full picture and intro treatment?
I don't have a strong opinion on this one. Although I will note a good point that was brought up at the Mofference --- if we just had an unobtrusive note saying "Today's GA: Cad Bane's Hats," it would be no different than the "Random Good Article" button. And it would be a little boring.
So, discuss here where on the main page they should go, and whether or not they should get the full intro and picture treatment. My votes are below the FA and sure, why not? Menkooroo 03:47, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Under the FA sounds perfect. I also like the full intro/picture for the reason you point out in the first paragraph. —MJ— War Room Friday, February 24, 2012, 04:16 UTC
- I say go full image/intro. It just looks nice, and it's far more interesting to readers. MasterFred(Whatever) 04:27, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I say go full image/intro. It just looks nice, and it's far more interesting to readers. MasterFred
- But, how to best delineate a GA from an FA above it... I'm still thinking about that. I added my thoughts above concerning alternating image placement, but if we have, say an FA and a GA without images, how would one best delineate that? Our eyes, when we skim a page, we look for contrast. Comic book word bubbles bold words for contrast. Text-heavy pages are divided up with headings for contrast. Paragraphs are indented for contrast. We register contrast and in order to mark a clear and distinct different between the FA and the GA beneath it, there needs to be a distinct contrast, else they will run together. And if you look above and see non-bulleted replies... you'll notice that they run together. Bullets also provide contrast, so we need to take that into account. The amount of text will need contrast. Trak Nar Ramble on 04:36, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Image, shortened intro is what I figured would work out best if we didn't have it in the main column. graestan(talk) 04:41, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- The intros are generally shorter in GAs, so amount of text shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise... we could make it a different color. Something other than light blue. Or we could keep the GA light blue and make the FA a different colour, in order for it to stand out more as the "Featured" article. Menkooroo 04:43, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- For most GAs, the intro isn't that large that it would be a problem to have the whole intro and picture—if available—on the Main Page.—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 04:52, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- For most GAs, the intro isn't that large that it would be a problem to have the whole intro and picture—if available—on the Main Page.—Cal Jedi
- I agree with the "include pictures and intro" camp. Distinguishing it from the FA is important too, but Trak's ideas sound feasible. ~Savage 15:25, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
Where the hell do we start?
There are over fourteen hundred Good Articles. Uh... wow! How can we possibly catch up? If we start at the beginning and do one a day, we'll start with a four-year-long queue. Yikes.
I'm not crazy about the idea of starting at the beginning. The issue of 2007-quality comes up, and we most definitely do NOT need an RGAN page. The inevitable-slow-movement of that would kind of defeat the purpose of this whole thing.
- So, what do we do then? Start now and give a big "Kriff you" to every GA that's already been written? I kind of like the idea of just being random and having fun with it. Do themed weeks. Do a Ewoks week. Do a clone trooper week. Do a Darkstryder month. :P We could have a suggestion page for themed weeks that the Agricorps would need to approve. That's just an idea. Everyone propose ideas of your own! Menkooroo 03:47, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Your idea sounds perfect. Themed weeks is exactly what I was thinking. A suggestion page would be a good idea, but I should note (as an outside observer) that it's possible that the AgriCorps might not like having Yet Another Responsibility™ dumped on them. It might be a good idea to take a page from Wikipedia's featured article system and appoint one user to act as "director" of the suggestions page. That user (who could appoint an alternate to act in his/her absence) would be responsible to scheduling GA showcases, both from the suggestions page and at his/her own discretion if the suggestions page is empty. The director would also be responsible for giving each proposed article a cursory inspection prior to scheduling to make sure it's still of reasonable quality; articles which fail that quick read would be rejected and sent to the AgriCorps to review at their next meeting. Does that make sense? —MJ— Training Room Friday, February 24, 2012, 04:29 UTC
- MJ's idea sounds good to me. Appoint a user or two to take over a page dedicated to picking topics and setting the queue. Of course, said people could get whoever they wanted to help out. And I love the idea of themes. We could even do user-themed weeks, showcasing a certain user's GA's. MasterFred(Whatever) 04:31, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I forgot to toss in there that if the community goes for my idea, I'm willing to serve as director if no one else is, so you won't run into the problem of nobody willing to do it. —MJ— Holocomm Friday, February 24, 2012, 04:36 UTC
- Why don't we just skip the bureaucratic red-tape mess and just put the articles on a Main Page queue as they pass nomination review? It seems unnecessarily complicated to create a whole new system of checks and balances for something we've been doing more simplistically on FAN for years now. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:54, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Per Tope. JangFett (Talk) 04:55, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Definitely per Tope.—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 04:57, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I fourth. They're GAs. graestan(talk) 05:02, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- MJ's proposal sounds pretty simple; I wouldn't call it a red-tape mess. The problems I see with a basic main page queue are that seven GAs aren't passing per week, and that it seems unfortunate to preclude the 1400 existing GAs. Menkooroo 05:03, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Edit: To allow for new content daily, we could take the last six months worth of passed noms or so and stick them on the queue, but I do still like the idea of allowing every existing GA a chance on the main page. Menkooroo 05:05, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Per Menk. We shouldn't just tell the existing GAs "sorry, you missed your chance." Give them a shot. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers Friday, February 24, 2012, 05:06 UTC
- MJ's proposal sounds pretty simple; I wouldn't call it a red-tape mess. The problems I see with a basic main page queue are that seven GAs aren't passing per week, and that it seems unfortunate to preclude the 1400 existing GAs. Menkooroo 05:03, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I fourth. They're GAs. graestan(talk) 05:02, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. Definitely per Tope.—Cal Jedi
- Per Tope. JangFett (Talk) 04:55, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- MJ's idea sounds good to me. Appoint a user or two to take over a page dedicated to picking topics and setting the queue. Of course, said people could get whoever they wanted to help out. And I love the idea of themes. We could even do user-themed weeks, showcasing a certain user's GA's. MasterFred
- Dismissing the idea of creating another reviewing tier doesn't have to preclude putting existing GAs on the main page. I have no problem with that whatsoever, and in fact I would support it. I can't speak for the rest of the AC reviewing body, but I'm fairly confident in the current status of just about all articles on WP:GA and gladly stand by their quality. If there's something I'm missing that needs major overhaul or cleanup, then bring it up for review. But that's going to be few and far between on that page, and I say that with pride. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:14, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- What do you have in mind, re: Putting existing GAs on the main page? Your original suggestion seemed to preclude it, but if you have any ideas, throw 'em on out. Menkooroo 05:25, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy to support any system that allows old and existing GAs to go on the Main Page, however you guys want to divide them up, provided it doesn't include the creation of an unnecessary new review tier. The most simplest thing I can think of is mirroring the FAN queue system, and then from there decide how you want to organize the old and the new articles, which is just semantics to me. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:29, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- No random new review, please. JangFett (Talk) 05:34, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Just a random idea, you could put one new GA up every day, or every other day, in a normal-sized box, and at the same time put three old GAs up right underneath that into a smaller, tri-segmented box that maybe only shows the article's picture, if it has one, and maybe the first one or two sentences of the intro before a "Read more..." link. That would cover about a year and a half before the old articles ran out, and then once that happens just stick with putting new GAs up. I'm not married to this idea or something, but it's an idea, good or bad. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:37, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I like that idea. I'm not sure if every intro would still make sense were it truncated like that; another idea would be to have a single line saying "Today's other Good Articles: One, two, and three." Since we're not closing thirty GAs a month, though, we should consider putting up to a year's worth of existing GAs on the queue first. Otherwise we'll be struggling with a shrinking GA queue sooner than we think. To begin with a guaranteed many-year long queue, we could always do something like new GA one day, old GA the next. Menkooroo 05:55, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fine system to me. Alternating every other day is simple enough, I think. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:57, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Checking the GAN history, it looks like twenty-five GAs were archived in January. Keeping that in mind, we could do something like Monday - Friday new GAs, weekend old GAs. We could avoid a shrinking queue but also avoid the queue (of new GAs) from becoming too long. We'd be fine as long as we archived ~20 GAs a month, which I doubt we'll ever have trouble doing. We'd have to accept that not every old GA could realistically be featured, though, unless this site is still around in fourteen years. Menkooroo 06:05, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fine system to me. Alternating every other day is simple enough, I think. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:57, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I like that idea. I'm not sure if every intro would still make sense were it truncated like that; another idea would be to have a single line saying "Today's other Good Articles: One, two, and three." Since we're not closing thirty GAs a month, though, we should consider putting up to a year's worth of existing GAs on the queue first. Otherwise we'll be struggling with a shrinking GA queue sooner than we think. To begin with a guaranteed many-year long queue, we could always do something like new GA one day, old GA the next. Menkooroo 05:55, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Just a random idea, you could put one new GA up every day, or every other day, in a normal-sized box, and at the same time put three old GAs up right underneath that into a smaller, tri-segmented box that maybe only shows the article's picture, if it has one, and maybe the first one or two sentences of the intro before a "Read more..." link. That would cover about a year and a half before the old articles ran out, and then once that happens just stick with putting new GAs up. I'm not married to this idea or something, but it's an idea, good or bad. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:37, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- No random new review, please. JangFett (Talk) 05:34, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy to support any system that allows old and existing GAs to go on the Main Page, however you guys want to divide them up, provided it doesn't include the creation of an unnecessary new review tier. The most simplest thing I can think of is mirroring the FAN queue system, and then from there decide how you want to organize the old and the new articles, which is just semantics to me. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:29, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- What do you have in mind, re: Putting existing GAs on the main page? Your original suggestion seemed to preclude it, but if you have any ideas, throw 'em on out. Menkooroo 05:25, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds pretty good. Get the best of both worlds.—Cal Jedi (Personal Comm Channel) 06:14, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- We could even put a proviso in the CT that if we ever have a month where only ~16 GAs are archived, we'll change it to 4 new GAs and 3 old GAs a week. If we ever have a month where, heaven forbid, only ~12 GAs are archived, we'll do 3 and 4. Etc, etc. The queue would never shrink. Menkooroo 06:19, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on just tossing GAs up at random like that. I would still like to see themed weeks in some form. Is there any way we can do themed weeks? —MJ— Training Room Friday, February 24, 2012, 17:08 UTC
- Menk, I don't mind your idea too. JangFett (Talk) 17:15, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I think themed weeks could still be done. Maybe once a month or so just have a week with only old (or new if there are any that fit the topic) GAs. It would also help us showcase more old GAs and keep the queue from running low if something disastrous happened. MasterFred(Whatever) 19:33, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I think themed weeks could still be done. Maybe once a month or so just have a week with only old (or new if there are any that fit the topic) GAs. It would also help us showcase more old GAs and keep the queue from running low if something disastrous happened. MasterFred
- Menk, I don't mind your idea too. JangFett (Talk) 17:15, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on just tossing GAs up at random like that. I would still like to see themed weeks in some form. Is there any way we can do themed weeks? —MJ— Training Room Friday, February 24, 2012, 17:08 UTC
- We could even put a proviso in the CT that if we ever have a month where only ~16 GAs are archived, we'll change it to 4 new GAs and 3 old GAs a week. If we ever have a month where, heaven forbid, only ~12 GAs are archived, we'll do 3 and 4. Etc, etc. The queue would never shrink. Menkooroo 06:19, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Your idea sounds perfect. Themed weeks is exactly what I was thinking. A suggestion page would be a good idea, but I should note (as an outside observer) that it's possible that the AgriCorps might not like having Yet Another Responsibility™ dumped on them. It might be a good idea to take a page from Wikipedia's featured article system and appoint one user to act as "director" of the suggestions page. That user (who could appoint an alternate to act in his/her absence) would be responsible to scheduling GA showcases, both from the suggestions page and at his/her own discretion if the suggestions page is empty. The director would also be responsible for giving each proposed article a cursory inspection prior to scheduling to make sure it's still of reasonable quality; articles which fail that quick read would be rejected and sent to the AgriCorps to review at their next meeting. Does that make sense? —MJ— Training Room Friday, February 24, 2012, 04:29 UTC
- Fred: I like that idea, of throwing in a themed old-GA week every month or two. It would be a good, and also fun, way to get more old GAs showcased. Keeping old GAs as queue-proper-uppers seems necessary—Tope's idea a few lines up of the three-old-GAs per week is an interesting one, but my biggest worry there is that if we only put new GAs into the queue proper, the queue will dry up sooner than we expect. What does everyone think of the idea of showcasing new GAs Monday to Friday and old GAs on the weekend? There are too many new GAs (but not enough to keep a daily queue!) that showcasing every old GA soon doesn't seem possible. Doing a themed week every month or two, however, would help showcase more of them faster. And who doesn't want Dulok week? :) The themed-week idea could get its own vote when we CT this. Menkooroo 01:10, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
- Seconded! I was going to propose a system whereby the 1st and 3rd weeks of each month were new GAs, the 2nd and 4th old. Seems it'd be easier to set up than alternating particular days or weekdays/weekends. But either way, I think it's a fabulous idea to keep the option open for themes (which would be a time when old and new GAs might both appear in the same week, I suppose). ~Savage 15:32, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Seconded! I was going to propose a system whereby the 1st and 3rd weeks of each month were new GAs, the 2nd and 4th old. Seems it'd be easier to set up than alternating particular days or weekdays/weekends. But either way, I think it's a fabulous idea to keep the option open for themes (which would be a time when old and new GAs might both appear in the same week, I suppose). ~Savage
Anything else?
Let's figure this out as a community. Menkooroo 03:47, February 24, 2012 (UTC)