An article shouldn't have to be comprehensive to be a GA
Oh lord, the ten thousandth person who gets a kick from griping about what
GA should and shouldn't be while, in the meantime, people are actually
improving and promoting articles.
On 10/21/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/22/07, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
I've read them; in letter they are almost as vague as FA requirements are.
But both FA and GA have unspoken terms of reference. Re the image thing, I
picked up on that because of Thes; that surprised me, since even I have
never seen that happen, so I assumed it was a recent development. In any
event, congrats, you've refuted one problem with GA without addressing the
bigger issues raised.
An article shouldn't have to be comprehensive to be a GA; the standards
explicitly don't use that word, since that's reserved for FAs. But in
reality, most GAs take a comprehensive approach; those that are "broad in
coverage" despite being short aren't really represented in the list of
GAs,
if that sample of the latest GAs approved is anything to go by.
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