User:Lincher/Good article establishment
Appearance
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Good article establishment)
![]() | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page is intended to stir discussion on a controversial subject that is good articles. The current proposal is to promote the idea that the good articles process is as much a step in the article creation as featured articles currently are.
Outcome of proposal
[edit]- Adopt Good articles as a level of quality in the article's progression. (See assessment scale for an example).
- Define the level of quality GA should be. It now has almost the same criterias as the FA but being less strict (For an example, see the citation criteria).
- Define the progression stages of an article Start->GA->PR->FA or Start->PR->GA->FA or Start->GA=PR->FA.
- Adopt, if possible to have a consensus on the subject, the plus sign banner in the right most corner of the article copying the FA article.
- Decide if downgraded FA articles or articles that fail FAC will be brought back to GA status.
- Are long articles to be assessed by people assessing the GA nominees.
Good article use
[edit]- It can serve as a review of articles when people failing give sufficient reasons.
- It can serve as a second peer review.
- It can be the outline of an article that will become a featured article.
- It can be seen as work complying to all of wikipedias policies when people see the plus sign in the corner.
Good article criticism
[edit]- People don't see GAs in a good light.
- People don't like the GA plus sign in the right most corner because it was an undiscussed idea, votes resulted in revoking the idea.
- See GA dispute #1 which resulted in a deletion
- GA Deletion review[1] resulted in an Endorse closure.
- The project is not well-known or appreciated.