[WikiEN-l] Good Articles is a mess...time for a clean sweep.

[Keitei]

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