This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was: Good article nominations that are comprehensive cannot exceed 3,000 words. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm proposing a policy that GA noms can not be more than 3,000 words. The reason for this is to avoid users using the GAN page simply to fix any problems their article had so that they could then take it to FA and get it passed quickly there. This has happened in the past, and as an AC member, I must say that I am tired of this. It's not our duty to read 10,000 word articles that will be taken to FA almost immediately after they pass GA. The purpose of GA is to showcase short articles that can't be featured articles. Obviously, there is no point in having massively long GAs. GAs are short, and do not have enough info to reach FA, not long articles that are nominated for selfish purposes. Anyway, it should be noted that this will not affect any current GAs, just nominations for the future.
Just an added note to clarify: this is for noms that are both comprehensive and over 3000 words.
I support this. As an AC member, let me say that it can get really annoying to read long articles and fix them up just so that the nominator can then FA them with little fuss. Chack Jadson(Talk) 22:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
From the GAN page: "A Good article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach FA status due to its limited content." GAs over 3,000 words simply nullify this guiding definition. CC7567(talk) 22:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to Naru, as CC pointed out, this is not simply about not wanting to read long articles, but a matter of the content of the article. There have been a few instances where a comprehensive 5,000 word article was nominated on the GAN page. That is not in the spirit of what a GA article is meant to be. Cylka-talk- 08:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably per Havac. We've got plenty of 1000 word+ GA noms going straight to FAN after being passed, which is a waste of time and resources and an abuse of the system. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 10:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"Abuse of the system," "waste of time and resources," however you want to put it, this is not what GAN was designed for. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
After clarification, I think the AC has an excellent point, and I see no reason to disagree with its judgment on this matter. Full support. Atarumaster88(Talk page) 17:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
In the long run, the ultimate goal (from which we must not back down!) is to FA every topic of sufficient length, and GA as many smaller (but not too small) topics as possible, as well. The GAN should be used to produce a steady, faster-than-the-FAN stream of small, complete, well-done articles in pursuit of this goal. Optimally, there will be many, many more GAs than FAs on the site simply from the larger number of available topics. There's no reason the GAN rules should not reflect this goal of turning out smaller articles of high quality. Graestan(Talk) 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
While I'm glad that you decided to make this a CT instead of just adopting it as an AC policy as it was planned, you still cannot guarantee that an article can be FA quality when its 3000 words. Look at Luke Skywalker (Project Wormhead), or any other article with ties to the OT. Or any ship class that's been in 20+ appearances. There would be too many things either not falling into this or needing exceptions for this to be a good rule. As well, it is up to the nominator to nom the article for what they think it deserves, not the people who don't want to read longer articles. NaruHinaTalk 04:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I think you've stumbled upon a loophole that probably has to do with this proposal not being worded entirely clearly. I believe the intention here is for articles that are both north of 3000 words and complete/comprehensive, in which case there's really no reason to take them to GAN. That's why we have FAN to begin with. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Naru, I've reworded it. Hopefully, it makes sense now and the loophole is gone. Chack Jadson(Talk) 05:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still against this on the merit that I think its a bad idea, though the rewording is a good one (and "comprehensiveness" is in the eye of the beholder). There shouldn't be a cap on GANs. NaruHinaTalk 13:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The former - that's what the vote is on. The latter is just a related issue, as both deal with wasting the time of the AC. -- AdmirableAckbar(Talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I think removing the "broad coverage" part of WP:GA might limit the number of GAs going directly to FANs, but I don't know how everyone else feels about this. Plus, it's kind of a separate issue. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)