Any comments?
1) Use the Good Article Review page. Seriously. If you want to see long-term traction on what you want to do, you're best off demonstrating it rather than having someone accuse you of being disruptive.
2) I was the one who brought up the problem with [[Captain Falcon]] at FAC. That sort of thing, lately, has been the exception, not the rule - generally speaking, articles that lack references the way that one did don't get passed.
3) Keep in mind, if you decide to sweep through, that the GA criteria has tightened considerably. Articles without references are routinely delisted from the candidacy page almost immediately. Considering that we're still finding unsourced FAs from a few years ago, I think it's in good shape for a relatively new process.
Just don't be rash. I doubt the GA regulars want poor articles listed any more than you do.
-Jeff
On 1/11/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Any comments?
- Use the Good Article Review page. Seriously. If you want to see
long-term traction on what you want to do, you're best off demonstrating it rather than having someone accuse you of being disruptive.
- I was the one who brought up the problem with [[Captain Falcon]] at
FAC. That sort of thing, lately, has been the exception, not the rule - generally speaking, articles that lack references the way that one did don't get passed.
- Keep in mind, if you decide to sweep through, that the GA criteria has
tightened considerably. Articles without references are routinely delisted from the candidacy page almost immediately. Considering that we're still finding unsourced FAs from a few years ago, I think it's in good shape for a relatively new process.
Just don't be rash. I doubt the GA regulars want poor articles listed any more than you do.
-Jeff
I've seen science "good" articles (organisms mostly) that are not even intelligible, contain incorrect information, have words mispelled, repeat information, duplicating the same sentence a couple of times, and appear to be written by someone who knows nothing about the subject (for example one GA discussing a member of the Aster family that referred to the ray flowers as petals, and, no, not saying they looked like petals, but a mention of how many petals each inflorescence has). Being a more casual process is okay, but this can translate into loosening of standards over time and maintaining some standards is important, too. An occasional sweep might help--as people get offended and hostile when their GA status is challenged. I've quit looking at them and just do FAC and FAR, instead, because it's not so frustrating as often.
KPScum