God, why is everyone trying to delete everything for no reason? I can
understand Esperanza, but then Concordia, Birthday Commitee, and now
Good Articles have all been attempted to be ridden. Do we just want to
get rid of things slightly broken to prove a point?
On 1/11/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't see how it'd be useful to abolish GAs.
GAs, imo, point out some of
our better work, which still need polishing to become our BEST (FAs).
Personally, whenever I write an article, my aim is usually an article that
is well-written enough to be presentable as a GA. And quite on the contrary
to "after that, the article really doesn't go anywhere", because I can say
that, at least from the perspective of the tropical cyclones wikiproject
(WPTC), we try to further our GAs up to A-class and FAs. Maybe not so for
other projects, but GA definitely plays a role within WPTC.
--Chacor
On 12/01/07, Christopher Thieme <cdthieme(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Come to think of it, Good Articles as a separate distinctin is rather
irrelevant in the entire scheme of things. Sure, you identify an article
as
being "Good". But after that, the article really doesn't go anywhere. At
least featured articles are actually "featured."
Perhaps the solution, given its shortcomings, is to abolish "Good
Articles".
Christopher D. Thieme
User:ExplorerCDT
cdthieme(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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