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