You obviously know little about the GA criteria, in letter and in practice.
You claim that all GA's "have to have a picture" (paraphrase). Not a single
reviewer I know makes the mistake of thinking images are required. Review
templates even stress this explicitly. Only proper image licenses and
rationales are required for images present. But you can pass GA without an
image.
On 10/21/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/21/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah and still does. You might try actually looking at some GAs before
shooting your mouth off. I've reviewed dozens of GA articles, and most
of
them are far, far too short to ever be FA. I
think almost all GA project
people would agree. Examples I have passed: Fuerzas Armadas de
LiberaciĆ³n
Nacional (Puerto Rico), Haystacks (Monet), SS
Christopher Columbus,
Roman
trade with India, and the list goes on. The point
is: yes, long articles
get
passed by GA when they should be FA candidates. But that serves as a
great
stepping stone for those articles, and the short,
great articles that
never
will be FA get to be recognized.
Several articles I've written which are hamstrung by their nature
(e.g.howmuch information and references are there about a rally racer
from a
developing country - [[Karamjit Singh]] - or even an obscure but notable
person in a developed country such as [[Karamjit Singh (electoral
commissioner)]]?) failed GA within a few months after it was started. It
became clear to me that it had already been hijacked by the crowd who like
gold stars - nothing wrong with that, except that the niche it was
originally meant for remains unfilled. A brief glance at the list of GAs
indicates that, as a general rule, you can only be a GA if you're almost
an
FA.
I'm pretty sure a lot of Wikipedians have a different idea of how GA ought
to work, and a decent number including yourself probably review GAs
themselves. But as the saying goes, policy is what is done, not what is
said
- and the de facto standards for GA dictate that an article be not short,
have a picture, etc. A look at the recently listed GAs shows only one
([[Robin
Starveling]]) which is probably short in some sense.
IMO, a GA should be something which we would not be ashamed to publish in
a
print or other hard copy version; indeed, that is what it has been used
for
in 1 or 2 hard copy editions of Wikipedia. The way I see it, GA is nothing
more than an FA/PR-lite for the vast majority of articles subjected to the
GA process.
Johnleemk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l