On 1/11/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
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