On Jan 11, 2007, at 15:52, Christopher Thieme wrote:
I recently came across two articles in the last 24 hours that were candidates for Featured Article status. Both asserted that because they were GAs, FA was the logical next step.
Only one big problem...
The articles literally sucked and shouldn't have been GAs in the first place.
The GA criteria is a good criteria, but it's only as strong a standard as the standards applied by the most lenient promoting editor. Either the process needs to be reformed, or more oversight over the GA list is needed.
<snip/>
Any comments?
Personally, I think GA needs less, less, less oversight. If it sucks, remove the GA status. GA is not FA-in-training; it's a designation for decent articles which aren't exceedingly amazing, but are accurate, reasonably complete, "good" articles. Apparently it was meant to have none of the bureaucracy FAC has... Ha...
I agree the process needs to be reformed, but I'd say that the standards need to be less uptight and less FA-wannabe. Promoting an article to GA should not be complex and neither should delisting it. FA and GA have separate places in the 'pedia for a reason.
--keitei