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 no clear consensus - Greyman^(Paratus) 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so myself, along with some other administrators and users, have realized that there are some glaring loop-holes and flaws in the current Good article nomination rule system—a system which currently allows any article to be nominated simply because it is essentially complete (within the eyes of canon), but not necessarily breaking any of the other current rules. Through some good discussion in IRC, I believe that it's now come to the point where Wookieepedia needs a better set of requirements for it's creation of Good articles: Wookieepedia is constantly growing, and at an ever increasing rate, both in the amount of good contributors and number of new articles. As a result of this, it is necessary that we make sure that all of the articles that we place a and on are of the highest quality and are as complete as possible—in my opinion, that's what all encyclopedias, including Wookieepedia, should strive to be.

This CT is a result of all of this; Thefourdotelipsis and myself have made an attempt to bring the GAN page inline with the more rule-based Featured article nomination page, as opposed to the flawed GAN page. Essentially, our argument is that aside from a few minor rules, the only difference between a GAN and and an FAN is the word limit. Nominating an article for "Good status" does not mean a user can be lazy in their writing -- a GAN will still be complete, thus making available all information from all significant appearances and sources. The Good Article process is not to be used as a "stepping stone" to FA, because we're not going to point readers to something that "Is kinda good, but not quite as good as it can be."—it should still be complete, even if it can't reach FA. We, among others, feel that the GA and FA processes are indications and examples of the work we do here, and we want Wookieepedia's readers to know that, not only are our FA's complete and compelling, but our GA's are as well. Greyman^(Paratus) 01:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Before this vote takes place, voters must be made aware of a few things:

• This is a simple Yes or No vote. There will be no user additions to the proposal, and there will be no arguments and/or wiki-lawyering on this page. If you don't support the Yes or the No side, that does not give you a license to write a book here to explain yourself.
• There is no comments section. There will be no comments section. This is a Yes or No vote only. There is no third option.
• If you absolutely and utterly feel the need to add to this current CT: Don't. Wait until it's over, and formulate your own.

Below you will find the revamped Good article nomination rules, and below that you'll find the voting section.

What is a Good article?Edit

A Good article is an article that adheres to quality standards, but cannot reach FA status due to its limited content.

A Good article nomination will adhere to the following rules.

1. It is well-written and detailed.
2. It has significant information from all sources and appearances.
3. It follows the Manual of Style, Layout Guide, and all other policies on Wookieepedia. For non-character articles, please follow precedents set by existing articles of the same type.
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
5. It is fully sourced with all available sources and appearances per Wookieepedia:Sourcing.
6. It is unbiased, and non-point of view.
7. It is not the object of any ongoing edit wars.
8. It is not tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
9. It includes a reasonable number of images of good quality if said images are available.
10. A "Personality and traits" section should be included, whenever possible, on character articles.
11. Include a "Powers and abilities" section on all relevant character articles, especially for Force-sensitive characters where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated.
12. If available, provide at least one quote on the article; a lead quote at the beginning of the article would be preferred, though not required if no quotes are available. Likewise, only one quote is allowed at the beginning of each section at max.
13. It will have all quotes and images sourced.
14. Counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, be at least 250 words long (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc).

Yes, I agree with the above proposalEdit

1. Greyman^(Paratus) 01:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Thefourdotelipsis 01:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
   • If I must...--Goodwood 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
3. I agree, and my only other suggestion is, now that GA is going respectable, we ought to up the word limit for FA somewhat, because 1000 words is still really damn short, and GA is for, basically, really short FAs. I won't tie up this vote with it, but I think it's something to keep in mind. Havac 04:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Though I think a 500 word minimum would be better. --Azizlight 07:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 07:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
6. -- AdmirableAckbar ^[Talk] 07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
7. Imperialles 08:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
8. I'm so happy right now. Just one thing...a red link rule? Eh? --SoT ^{Holonet of the Hand} 10:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Not perfect but better. It will do. Huzzah, I suppose. Karohalva 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Might as well. Unit 8311 17:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
11. I've been wanting GAs to have every source covered from the beginning. —Xwing328^(Talk) 19:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
12. Yup. Havac might have a point too. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
13. While I tend to disagree with mandating absolute complete coverage (which would make it essentially just "short FA article") and would instead prefer broad but detailed coverage, I can see that the idea makes sense and has merit. The rest are also good enough for me to support. ^Jorrel _Fraajic 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
14. BTW, Havac has an excellent point too. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
15. I've been seeing far too many weak GA noms—some of which unfortunately made the cut—as of late, and this revamp sounds nice.—Graestan ^{(This party's over)} 02:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
16. After much consideration, I've decided the arguments of jSarek and Ataru do have merit, but not enough to prevent me from voting in favor of holding us all to a higher standard. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with the above proposalEdit

1. Rule 2 is a dealbreaker for me. Part of the appeal of Good Articles is that, unlike FAs, you don't have to cover *every* source a widely-mentioned subject has been in; you just have to cover the main points. I see no point in having a GA/FA distinction at all if there's no difference between the "broad in its coverage" rule for GAs and the "comprehensiveness" rule for FAs. I also object to the forbidding of comment sections on votes. jSarek 11:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   Ditto to jSarek's objection. Also, the part about Personality/traits section on characters. If you changed that to "Should be included, whenever possible", and also addressed jSarek's point, I'd change my vote. - JMAS 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

   • Meh, I don't agree at all with jSarek's points since I explained at the top of the page why 4dot and I laid it out this way. However, your point on the P&T is actually what we had intended for it. It was supposed to be similar to what I laid out for the P&A in the rules (for relevant character articles). Since that was originally my intention, but an overlook on my part when drafting the rules, I'll add that in as we had originally planned to. Greyman^(Paratus) 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
     • Every character has a personality and traits. I really don't think it's asking that much to require a P&T. And as for covering all sources . . . I've never cared for the dichotomy of "A GA is either a perfect article that's really short . . . or a long article that's a little better than average but not complete." GA should be for short FAs, not articles with halfassed-but-better-than-average coverage. If you're going to write something up, then you might as well go the whole way and not have the GA fallback open. We should be pushing people to make articles the best they can possibly be, not rewarding, "Meh, good enough." Havac 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
       • Greyman: And I disagree with the fundamental premise of the proposal, which is exemplified in Rule 2; thus the vote against. No article is EVER "complete," even FAs. The question is, how complete does an article need to be to still be a good overview of the topic, an article that will give a reader a good idea of what the subject is and what it's about? I think the existing "broad in its coverage" criterion does that, and requiring more than that should be the provenance of the FA process, not the GA process. Havac: I've always disliked the requirement for a P&T section in ANY article. It's just a place for someone to give an NPOV interpretation of the causes behind events that should already be in the biography. And if you've never cared for the GA/FA dichotomy, then it should be gotten rid of entirely, with the complete deletion of the GA process. If there isn't a qualitative difference, rather than a qualitative one, between GAs and FAs, then we should simply remove the word count from the regular FA process and add "Featured articles over X words will appear on the Main Page." No need for two separate processes when the only difference is a word count any word processor can accomplish. In my opinion, though, it's better to have people trying to make broad-but-not-comprehensive Good Articles than giving up on the article milestone process altogether because, for whatever reason, it's simply out of their league. jSarek 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
         • I understand and respect your position, jSarek. But that doesn't mean we have to agree—we just have different opinions about something, and I respect you for it :) 4dot and I knew that writing this CT would draw some good natured opposition, and I'm glad for it. Anyways, thank you for explaining your side and your thoughts, it is appreciated. Cheers, Greyman^(Paratus) 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

2. I also do not support this per jSarek. I know that I do not own every potential source out there. If I did, it would not be so much of an issue. I want to have every article fully sourced, but being sourced as best as possible is not a bad standard and why GAs are not FAs. On the nomination pages, someone can always ask for more sourcing. Its been done to me and I'm happy to comply. Master Aban Fiolli ^{(Alpheridies University ComNet)} 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
   • Trust me, there's always a way of accessing sources. Anyway, and I'm not trying to be mean, but if someone doesn't have the sources then they're not in a position to do a GA. The point of GAs isn't to make someone feel good about an article then worked on, but to reward articles that are Good. Not decent, ok or "mostly-sourced," as things seem to be shifting towards at the moment. -- AdmirableAckbar ^[Talk] 19:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
     • Agree with you on this remark 100%, Acky. What I'm saying is that an article should not be left behind or forgotten because someone with the source has not worked on it yet. Frankly, I do not view the article as a reward for the user; its about making the site the best possible. If someone might be missing a source for one sentence, should the entire article be punished or left alone because it cannot be completed. Understand me, though. I'm not saying that it should be an "as best as possible" if you only have one source. I'm saying it should be very thorough, but if one thing is missing its still fine. Good articles are supposed to be a threshold below Featured; at least, that's the impression I've been given since I've been editing here. On the other hand, and to be honest, I'm only slightly leaning this way - that's why I try to source my GA noms as fully as I can make them and try to be as thorough as possible. Master Aban Fiolli ^{(Alpheridies University ComNet)} 19:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
       • If the article is lacking one source, it generally isn't too difficult to find someone with that one source, particularly on IRC. I don't think a situation in which only one missing source prevents an article from becoming a GA would happen unless the writer ignores the nom and doesn't try to get help on it. Hobbes15^{(Tiger Headquarters)} 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Nope. In addition to the all sources thing, I don't think Personality and traits, etc sections should be required. -Fnlayson 21:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Disagree with mandating P&A. Disagree with mandating complete coverage- the old "broad coverage" requirement is more suited for GA at this point. Disagree with mandating quotes. A lot of GAs are GAs because they don't have quotes. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
   • Quotes are not necessary if there are none available. The proposal clearly states this: If available, provide at least one quote on the article; a lead quote at the beginning of the article would be preferred, though not required if no quotes are available. I interpret this as meaning "If there is a relevant quote in one of the sources then it needs to be on the article, but if there isn't one, it can still be a GA." I checked this out with Greyman and he concurs. Same with the P&A: ...where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated. -- AdmirableAckbar ^[Talk] 15:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
     • In that case, it's silly to use quotes and P&A sections as a requirement, because it's only preferred. At any rate, I don't think either of these are necessary benchmarks for "Good articleness", nor is an extremely high level of detail. These remind of our FA rules a couple iterations ago, which is a bit high of a bar for a Good Article. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 04:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Holy crap, I'm agreeing with Ataru. ;o)--Goodwood 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
6. My only objection is the P&A bit. At the same time, though, it seems ridiculous to me that we're highlighting good articles as among Wookieepedia's best, and then declaring they don't need "complete coverage." I know it'll be a while before that happens with all articles, but still... these are our best articles except for FA's, and they should definitely have all the sources covered. Hobbes15^{(Tiger Headquarters)} 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.