This contents of this page was originally from User:LaraLove/GA draft. Since the page was deleted by its owner, LaraLove, I have made a copy of the section here.

An essay on the views of GA by LaraLove

This is a diary entry of sorts, only public. A venting, really, in response to the various and numerous demands made regularly on the GA project. For lack of a therapist, I'll put it here. I am also going to be completely honest, which may be received as refreshing, or perhaps regarded as pathetic. Either way, here goes...

I've been involved in the GA project for several months now, starting from shortly after I started editing, and have reviewed hundreds of articles in that time. It quickly became evident that it is a highly criticized project. Working in it basically guarantees hostility on a regular basis. It's trolled consistently, the demands are vast, repetitive, and unwaivering. It's certainly not for the light of heart. It requires much dedication, to say the least. In an attempt to curb some of the hate the project received for a perceived lack of quality, I began making proposals, along with other editors, to improve various processes and such within the project. I also created two task forces. The first categorized somewhere around (I believe) 2,500 GAs. This entailed updating GA and AH templates to include the oldid and topic fields. The second (which now has the first merged into it) has the goal of total project quality. It first focused on consistency within the project and then to ensure quality throughout the project, including in every single listed GA.

Along the way, unsurprisingly, we have been met with much criticism. The improvements are not enough. They're just an attempt to be more like FA, even though the changes, in many cases, take us away from FA. We are, ironically, demanding too much of the article custodians/primary editors. The irony is that the demands on us by the article custodians are often impossible. We're consistently told that we need to make the necessary changes rather than list them at GAR or during sweeps reviews, that we must point out every instance in where an article needs to be improved in the cases where we can not make the improvements ourselves (i.e. fact tagging every instance an article is in need of a citation), and that every possible article custodian and associated WikiProject must be informed of any such reviews. These demands are sometimes made separately and other times all at once. In any form, they can't be met.

Considering the point of sweeps is to ensure all listed GAs—including those promoted before criteria and without review, those passed inappropriately without meeting the criteria, and those that have degraded over time—participants are limited to the most experienced and/or most trusted reviewers. It's currently a handful, although I hope to have a longer list of reviewers soon. The point is, however, that it is currently an extremely overwhelming task. We frequently joke that the estimated conclusion of this task is somewhere around 2012. While it's not really meant as anything more than amusing, it does elude to the pressure felt amongst us. And, in reality, it may be accurate. There's already so much to it. Many don't understand how tedious articles reviewing is. And sweeps reviews are no joke. They cover everything. We also have the experience and information to know that the number of disputes within the project are a small fraction of all the conducted reviews.

Our experience and our goals are also too frequently devalued. This project, as all of Wikipedia, is voluntary, of course. When I noted earlier that these reviewers are dedicated, that was not stated lightly. There are already so many steps involved in this process. The more steps added, the fewer editors willing to participate. So while I can appreciate the concerns that our failing to notify all substantially contributing editors and associated Wikiprojects can be a detriment to the process, I must implore those to consider the detriment it would be to require all these things of the reviewers and lose them.

An editor requested all sweeps reviewers to give a list of our GA and FA contributions. I knew when we were asked, why we were asked. I was more than happy to answer. I would like to ask each of the editors who make such demands on our project to list all the GAC reviews they have done, and how many GAR reassessments they have constructively participated in. Alas, the answers would almost always be the same, none.

It's a very conflicting place to be in, this place where I sit within the project. As the custodian of two Good articles, I can certainly appreciate the pride one takes in their work. It is when I think about this that I justify my stances in regards to the forementioned demands. I watchlist my GAs, I revert vandalism on them daily, I answer questions asked on their talk pages whenever any are posted, and I expand and update them as necessary. I take continuous pride in my GAs, not just pride in that they once met the criteria and were listed as GA. I am not able to understand how some editors can be so passionate about "their GA", yet not be inclined to keep it watchlisted.

There is debate regarding who is responsible for maintaining the quality of listed GAs. Is it the article custodians or the GA project participants? I am firmly in belief that the article custodians are the responsible party here. Our project can only do so much. While we want as many articles to be listed, and stay listed, as possible, we must resolve that some articles will be abandoned and fall from the list. Whether it be that they are ignored altogether or have custodians unwilling to maintain them to standards, we cannot be responsible for the maintenance. It's too much to ask, in my opinion.

I cannot articulate the stress that has come from this endeavor to improve the project that I am so passionate about. Perhaps this overly long vent implies enough, but I feel it important to reveal where I currently stand; which is on the ledge of GA looking down. If I, as one of the more passionate GA participants, am contemplating a jump from GA, after all that I have devoted to it (an estimated 90% of my project contributions), I feel that I certainly cannot be the only one.

Where was I going with this? I don't even know at this point. Perhaps I'm cracking under the pressure, losing it a little. A wikibreak may be in my future, but I feel better for venting. What will this accomplish? Perhaps nothing. It would be wonderful, however, if it would enlighten some as to the impossibility of their demands. And perhaps derail the hate train that chugga chugga choo choos through GA with regularly scheduled and punctual stops.

My personal views on GA

From time to time, I came across articles that fail the current GA criteria in my sweeps category. Often, I listed them on GAR or put them on hold for 7 days before I delist them. Usually, they were not improved (or improved slightly but still far from satisfying the criteria so I proceeded to delist them. Very soon editors came and harass me such as "this delist is a 99.9% unilateral move", or making ridiculous demands like "you only posted a notice on the talk page and it's not enough", "how come you didn't notify the main author?", "you didn't contact the WikiProjects", etc. If the editors care so much about status of the articles that they like/created/contributed, to the point of attacking the editor who delisted them, then it's much more appropriate if you spend your time to go improve it instead of throwing insults. This kind of attitude is very detrimental to the project and I have considered to quit because of these individuals.

I'm pretty sure everyone has noticed the green + symbol debate that just occurred recently. It was sickening to see that the FA group once again worked together to shoot down this proposal to ensure the supremacy of FA star on the main article page. I have voiced my concerns and provided some statistics to support showing the GA symbol on the article page. Of all projects that have GA process, only English and Japanese do not show the symbol on those articles. I view this as going the opposite direction and against the global community. Imagine an editor whose active-wiki was another language other than English and he has written mulitples of GA in that language. Then he came to English Wikipedia and get articles to become GA. Afterwards, he realized that his work was not as recognizable in English than in his other language because people have to make an extra click before able to see its status. For all those people who came to Wikipedia just to read information (I usually call this group of people CD-ROM because they only read but not write), they may have correlate the relationship that the FA star means a pretty good article. But will the CD-ROM group know how to go to talk page to realize certain articles are GA? I would say no. I just gave a 10 minute presentation on Wikipedia in my university's computer class. People in the class are fascinated just to see me clicking the edit button, accessing talk page and the history, and change the contents on the page. They won't bother touching any parts of Wikipedia other than clicking links to other articles.

Now, active GA reviewers are working on a change to improve the GA process. Will this change finally earns the GA a spot on the article page? We'll see...