From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Straw poll on new lead

Ok, I think we need to see whether this is an acceptable change. The discussion above has come to s a stand still. The proposed text reads as follows:

Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to arrive at a quick consensus set of good articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and everyone has veto power on an initial listing. When editors disagree with the delisting of an article, discussions to find consensus on given articles' status are listed here. Consensus reached on this page cannot be unilaterally vetoed, but requires new discussion on this page.

To clarify, the trajectory of an article becomes:

  1. Nominate as good article candidate.
  2. A single editor reads it and lists it as a good article.
  3. Another single editor disagrees, and removes the status.
  4. The removal is disputed, and brought up for discussion
  5. After discussion and reaching consensus, GA-status can be reinserted.
  6. If consensus GA-status is disputed again, it can be listed again on the dispute page for reevaluation

Poll will remain open till 16:51, 11 July 2006. Poll is now closed

Support

  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. -- Save the first statement "everyone has veto power". This should explicitly state, "everyone has veto power on an initial listing." If this wording change takes effect, after some time I think step 6 should be re-evaluated and modified as necessary to allow for changes to it that are likely to become evident over time. Netscott 17:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    Changed, I agree, it is better. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've altered ever so slightly the wording from, "When editors disagree with the delisting of an article, discussions to find consensus on the status are listed here." to "When editors disagree with the delisting of an article, discussions to find consensus on a given article's status are listed here." to make the line a bit more syntactically correct. Feel free to revert this change. Netscott 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    Good change!-- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Cedars 01:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. I think that the wording needs to be made clear to cover the case of consensus-delisted articles. It sounds from the current text that they should be brought back to the disputes page as that as the current consensus! But otherwise this proposal is a pretty fine one. TheGrappler 02:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Proposal for amended text? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, how about:
    Consensus reached on this page cannot be unilaterally vetoed, but requires new discussion on this page. becoming:
    If consensus is reached on this page that an article meets the criteria, then in future it should not be delisted unilaterally but brought back to the disputes page for fresh discussion. Articles judgede by consensus not to meet the criteria can be renominated in the normal way once the relevant concerns are addressed.
    I think that this makes clearer what the intent of these changes are, and deals with "by consensus" delistings. It still does not address in full the problem of unilateral delist-consensus agreement-renominate without improvement-individual relist-unilateral delist etc cycles but these seem to be less problematic at the moment. It doesn't address the question of who gets to determine whether consensus has been arrived at. There seems to be a need for {{ GAConsensus}} or {{ GAReviewed}} templates that point out that unilateral delisting is no longer appropriate, but who will administer these and how quickly? Should there be, as there is with FARC, a {{ GAUnderReview}} template that will link readers to the discussion here? The question remains unaddressed as to how a page can be renominated for review - can it be unilateral, and by the same editor, over the same issue, repeatedly and despite overwhelming consensus? Presumably this would be end up being judged by "speedy consensus". Should there be a requirement that it be by a new editor or if by a previous delister then at least with some fresh concerns? (I know if a POV pusher kept on trying to FARC what was a strong consensus FA they wouldn't get very far unless they raised new concerns. FA standards are, however, open to less interpretation. "Good" can be more subjective than "best"). Does this rewording help at least a little? TheGrappler 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. It seems slightly vauge to me, for instance, how exactly will we plan to define and/or enforce consensus, but this seems an improvement to me. Homestarmy 06:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    What about WP:CON guidelines? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    What I mean is that should it be a 60-40 rule, 80-20, and we don't have our own little group of private administrators, will we just brute force the consensus in if an edit war breaks out over controversial articles?? As I understand it, such an idea might prove too....disruptive to be feasable in some instances. Homestarmy 05:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Looks like an improvement to me, I am not a fan of veto power. But it does seem a little vague on the "consensus" part as Kim van der Linde and Homestarmy have mentioned already. Also I think we need to emphasise that this shouldn't be a plain vote, but rather a discussion.-- Konstable 06:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Try it! There has to be a better way than allowing veto to an editor with an agenda. Discussion and consensus good, veto and hostage taking bad. Weregerbil 09:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Have you? Raphael1 00:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    Have I ...what? (Sorry about long time, only found your question now). Weregerbil 13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. I have to say, it sounds fair to me. We keep part of our veto for the prior nomination evaluation and then we argue at the disputes page. Lincher 12:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Looks like a definite step in the right direction. Walkerma 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. llywrch 16:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC) -- See comments.
  11. I support the proposal as a definite improvement to end the disputecycles, although I am with Worldtraveller on that it would be better if the 'veto'-wording was gone altogether. -- Anjoe 11:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  12. Yes, sounds like a good plan. RN 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. By listening to the editor(s) opposing Good Article candidacy and addressing their problem, there's a chance that the acticle improves. By lowering the Good Article standards instead, quality will generally decrease. Raphael1 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    Consensus is about discussion is about listening, surely? And any clearly helpful suggestion made by a reviewer is likely to be acted on anyway in an effort to sway them. Some problems, however, are editorial judgement calls where editors have a legitimate difference of opinion; although it is good when a GA nomination or dispute does increase the quality of an article, the focus of forming reviewers' consensus should always be on neutrally checking how the article compares against the standard, not as a proxy for content disputes that should be handled by editors' consensus. TheGrappler 02:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Unfortunately in WP "consensus" many times does not mean to listen to opposing views, instead many editors disregard " WP:NOT an experiment in democracy" and consider "consensus" to be the result of a poll. In an article about a controversy, where one side is demographically underrepresented in the Wikipedia community, the neutrality of the article is difficult to achieve, unless editors are ready to include a minority POV. Neutrality is part of the GA standard, but neutrality cannot be tested by majority opinion polls of a demographically uneven community. Raphael1 00:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. This change would allow GA's long-standing veto over-ride system to be trivially gamed by editors disinterested in addressing the concerns of their peers, as demonstrated by the J-P Cartoons fiasco. As far as I can see, that article is the direct cause of this proposed change. Perhaps GA editors could concentrate on fixing that article — which has just unanimously failed FA nomination — rather than in this apparent attempt to gut the GA system to appease a small group of uncompromising True Believers. —  JEREMY 04:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    What a rather funny statement to be making, "Perhaps GA editors could concentrate on fixing that article." by an editor who's not done any editing on the article towards such ends himself. Reads like a very holllow statement. As well the claim to unanimous rings a bit hollow when after you requested the editor who submitted the article for FA review to withdraw his submission, he refused. Add to that your lack of civility in calling fellow editors, "a small group of uncompromising True Believers" and one has difficulty in assuming good faith on your part. Jerermy G. Byrne, please comment on content, and please cease commenting on contributors. Thanks. Netscott 17:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Sentiment disregarded, you are getting a little close to pot and kettle, I fear Netscott... it might be better to chill just a little (hard as this may be in the circumstances). I actually think Jeremy highlighted the problem when he said "Perhaps GA editors could concentrate on fixing that article". I think a substantial problem is GA reviewers can get too involved in the editorial process of an article which they have accepted the role of impartially comparing against a set of standards, and thereby getting drawn into content disputes. Fixing that problem is unlikely to be easy. TheGrappler 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    In fact I've not commented on Jeremy G. Byrne but on the conduct of Jeremy G. Byrne... it can be a bit difficult to make the distinction... but I assure you that if read closely my previous statements correspond to conduct only. Further, these statements are in accord with Jeremy G. Byrne previously calling a group of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy editors "fanatics" so you can be sure that they are spot on. Netscott 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Something is needed but in this proposal steps 5 and 6 are inconsisitant with each other, in that concensus can be achieved with the article reinstated in step 5, immediately step 6 occurs and the cycle starts again. Thats exactly the current situation with WP:GA/D handling of the JP cartoons now. Gnangarra 04:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Every system can be gamed, as is done at times with Article for deletion nominations, in which they are repeatedly renominated (resulting often in speedy keeps), and they are often very obvious. However, a renewed discussion (at 6) goes without a immediate delisting for the time being. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 11:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I do sympathise with Gnagarra in that I'm not certain that this proposal gets to the root of the problem, but it does improve on the current situtation. So long as Kim's contention is correct, it would at least break the veto delist-review-consensus relist-veto delist-review-consensus relist cycle that some articles can fall into. Do we need {{ GAConsensus}} or {{ GAReviewed}} to protect these articles? What it still wouldn't stop is a veto delist-renominate-individual relist-veto delist-renominate-individual relist situation but that situation might be rarer. TheGrappler 14:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    We could reword it that an article that was not approved in the first round can get a review here as well. That would make it effectively such that all contested decisions are discussed here, which I think is the purpose anyway. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    In that case, it should read as: Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to arrive at a quick consensus set of good articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and everyone has veto power on an initial listing. When editors disagree with a the delisting or not listing of an article, discussions to find consensus on given articles' status are listed here. Consensus reached on this page cannot be unilaterally vetoed, but requires new discussion on this page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    This new wording is a significant improvement in clarifying the process and editors individual veto rights. I think maybe strike out quick consensus then put the focus on the concensus in the discussion process here discussions to find consensus . I think there could be a clearer refinement of this text. This sentence When editors disagree with a the delisting or not listing of an article in particular needs some attention. Suggest something like Articles already listed in GA are also subject to a review, that the editor reviewing can delist article that dont comply to the GA criteria. Where editors disagree with a failed nomination or a delisting.... If we are going to change the statement then it should be a clear improvement and not something that needs to be revisited every few months. For the moment I'm still opposed to the current(new) wording but I'm open to reaching a solution that will be an improvement. Gnangarra 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    That would result in: Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to arrive at a set of good articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and everyone has veto power on an initial listing. Articles already listed in GA are also subject to a review, that the editor reviewing can delist article that dont comply to the GA criteria. Where editors disagree with a failed nomination or a delisting, discussions to find consensus on given articles' status are listed here. Consensus reached on this page cannot be unilaterally vetoed, but requires new discussion on this page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Looks better than my suggestion above, although I think it should be a little clearer about what this applies to (both renominations and subsequent removal attempts). TheGrappler 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Why say 'everyone has veto power on'? That immediately sounds contentious. Why not replace that with 'anyone can review an'? That would seem to me more accurate and less confrontational. Worldtraveller 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Because that describes the current policy, and you proposed change goes way further away from that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Nothing I proposed is in any way not current policy. I think perhaps we're trying to fit too much into an introductory paragraph, and perhaps you're saying that the veto refers to delisting articles which have been listed already. If so, we're omitting the information that anyone can review articles, which is quite an important part of the process - much more important, and worth emphasising, than the fact that delisting is also straightforward. Worldtraveller 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'd support Worldtraveller in terms of the wording issue. "Veto" is a bad word to be highlighting; it's the universality of review that makes GA so different to FA, not the question of so-called "veto powers". TheGrappler 17:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    Actually I too would prefer another word to veto, what about using "everyone has the power delist an initial listing" and "cannot be unilaterally overruled"? Cedars 13:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    I still think that's emphasising slightly the wrong thing - it would be discussing delisting before we'd even said that anyone can review nominations. I'm quite sure veto is absolutely the wrong word, because at no stage does any one person's views override all other views, which is what a veto implies. My preferred intro would be this:
    Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to list high quality articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and anyone can review nominations, passing them if they meet the good article criteria or leaving reasons for the failure. Articles may be delisted if a later reviewer feels they do not meet the criteria. Where editors disagree with a failed nomination or a delisting, discussions to find consensus on given articles' status take place here.
    That avoids any talk of vetoing, avoids getting bogged down in minutiae, and accurately describes what happens. Worldtraveller 15:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    This is a lot better I would support this wording Gnangarra 16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    Same here, I think this is a good clarification. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'm with that. :-) Netscott 16:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. See comments. Kafziel 17:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Rather than cluttering up the support/oppose area may I suggest we utilize a comment area? Netscott 17:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. First, the nitpicky part: "consensus" is a noun, and it seems to be used as an adjective in the proposed statement, describing "set". It should read, "...system to arrive at a quick consensus of opinion to establish a set of good articles" or some such thing. Second—and this is the sticking point for me—it seems to me that this demand for community consensus is just one more way of heaping bureaucracy on what is supposed to be an informal system. The GA project functioned best when it was an arbitrary system. Then somebody wanted specific criteria. Then somebody else wanted separate pages for nominations, reviews, etc. On and on it went, disagreeing over everything from due process to which symbol to use and how to use it. This looks like just one more thing, largely precipitated by a single argument over cartoons, that will slow down the system and make GA nothing but a poor man's FAC. This is a hole you all dug yourselves; the way it used to be, if someone didn't like it, they could remove the GA tag. If someone else liked it, they could put it back on. It didn't matter, because nobody had spent time jumping through hoops on any nominations page, and the GA designation is supposed to be relatively meaningless anyway. If having an article reach FA status is like having a doctoral thesis accepted, then GA is like getting a gold star sticker from a teacher. It's nice, but let's not lose our heads about it. If we can return to that mindset, the need for all these additional rules and arguments disappears. Kafziel 17:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It's absolutely not supposed to be relatively meaningless. Whatever gave you that idea? In your analogy, GA is, or should be, more like getting a masters, or at least a degree. Just because the review system is supposed to be simple does not imply that standards are low. Worldtraveller 18:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your analogy; a degree is not awarded by a single person, but GA status is. FAC can take weeks; GA takes minutes. At best, you could liken it to getting a good grade on a report card. Kafziel 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
PhD status is awarded by just two people! But my analogy is, of course, not intended to work on such a specific level. GA criteria are very similar to FA criteria. You seem to be bothered mainly by the process, and not the outcome of it. A quick review process does not imply low standards. Worldtraveller 18:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Good points Kafziel. In light of them perhaps one of the GA criteria should be that an article not be on a controversial topic such that editors who tendentiously dwell on one of two primary points in such articles and against consensus won't be inclined to carry over such tendentiousness to the GA system? Netscott 17:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Historically that's not quite so clearcut: the earliest version of the criteria (now at WP:WIAGA) dates back to the very first version of the WP:GA page last November. There hasn't been a great shift since the original: "A good article will share many characteristics with featured articles, and like featured content it should be well written, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. It should definitely be referenced, and wherever possible it should contain images to illustrate it. Good articles may not be as comprehensive as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic." The GA system was never completely arbitrary. It's true that attempts have been made to draw the line more consistently and tidily, however. I don't see why a neutrally written article on a controversial subject shouldn't have a chance at GA any more than at FA; also remember that being controversial doesn't exclude an article from the article grading scheme, so somebody will still have to work out whether it's "A" or "B" class for instance. The less arbitrary GA is, the more useful it is. If it really is arbitrary and discretionary and meaningless, and just a "minor article quasi-barnstar", then what is the point of it? TheGrappler 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite - there's a serious image problem if people think of GA as some kind of barnstar awarding system. The criteria are well-defined and rigorous. Worldtraveller 18:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for clarity, I've not had such a view of the GA system... besides Kafziel, I suspect most here haven't. Why would we spend this time discussing it? Netscott 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
When it first started, I looked at it as a well-advertised version of the crazy "Half-decent articles" proposal, which had been deleted as worthless. There was a worry that short articles receiving Featured status would devalue FA (since shortness is not technically an actionable objection at FAC, so long as the article is comprehensive) and people supported GA as a way to discourage short articles from being submitted to FAC in the first place. I'm sure the creators intended it to have value, and nobody likes to spend time on a project that everyone feels is worthless, but I definitely think things are getting carried away here. Yes, there should be standards. But, as I've said before, the point was to create a significant list of articles. At present, there are only 186 more GAs than FAs. Not even enough to create a single tenth of a percentage point higher than FA. FAs are about .1%, and so are GAs. What's the point? Not much, right now. It's a great idea to have an alternative to FAC, but the more rules we add, the less "alternative" it is. Kafziel 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The list of GAs is growing at about 5-10 times the rate that the list of FAs is growing. By the end of this year, there will be something like 2000-2500 GAs and about 1,200 FAs. Worldtraveller 18:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be great. That's still under the .2% mark (or, at best, barely reaching it).
Look - I'm not saying I think GA sucks or anything like that. I like working on it, I like reviewing the articles in a low-stress environment, and I'm happy when I get an article passed. What I'm saying is we should be doing more of that stuff, and less of this stuff. But all these new proposals force us to do this stuff, because if we don't chime in here then we'll end up wasting even more time on new red tape in the long run. Kafziel 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Kafziel, in your view what would be the best way to deal with editors who start out by being out of accord in terms of consensus on a given article and then carry such discordant behavior to the GA system? There are editors who fully qualify as disruptive. In the spirit of reducing red-tape how should such situations be dealt with when they arise? Netscott 19:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, off the top of my head, if someone fails an article he should say why. If it's valid, then it's valid. If the topic itself is contentious, it is likely unstable (with more than just simple vandalism) and if so it should be failed. If it settles down in the future, it could always be given GA status by a passing editor. Giving and taking away GA status multiple times falls under the same 3RR rule as anything else; consensus will reign in the end. Kafziel 19:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with you but unfortunately when you've got editors making this sort of edit and specifically stating in the edit summary, "(→Journalism - rm cartoons; please stop restoring this against GA rules)"... such simple logic seems to fall away. Besides is it really logical to have to rely upon WP:3RR to ensure a given article stays listed as it should? That does not strike me as sensible unless we call those reverting said editor's edits as technically "reverting vandalism" so the 3RR does not apply to them. Netscott 19:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
We always rely to a certain degree on 3RR to ensure an article stays as it should, whether we're talking about content or status. It's always hoped that it won't come to that, but it always remains in the background as a safety measure. Listing and de-listing are both accountable to 3RR; if consensus exists on one side or the other, other editors should be able to help determine that before any one editor reaches that point. It can take time, but eventually every article settles down. What seems of vital importance today will be half-forgotten trivia tomorrow. Then the article will be judged on its own merits, rather than those of its topic. Kafziel 19:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, particularly when myself I was relying upon the WP:3RR (admittedly counter to the spirt of not edit-warring) as you're suggesting here and in full accord with a general consensus reached about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article being listed when you slapped a 3RR warning on my talk page. Your commentary here is nearly in complete contradiction to your having given me that warning. (you should know that in good faith I removed my own warning from Jeremy G. Byrne's page some time ago.) Could you please explain this contradiction? Netscott 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the conflict. As I said here, both sides should be held accountable to 3RR. If consensus is indeed behind you, other editors will also revert the article, and you won't need to break 3RR. If you're in danger of doing so, you should get a warning, no matter which side you're on. Kafziel 20:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
From that edit summary alone the editor's real motivation for removing the article is very transparent, is it not? Netscott 19:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
His point of view is evident, but he could still be right. I can't speak to that. Kafziel 19:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Efforts of one editor citing "GA rules" while working against a 11-2 general consensus about reinstatement of the article after himself having delisted it:

And there's no need to disallow this? Netscott 20:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Cedars even politely asked him not to remove the listing. We can see what he thought of User:Cedars's request. Netscott 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do you always seem ready to misrepresent a situation you're involved in personally, Netscott? I delisted the article after the 11-2 dispute discussion voted to relist it, not before. No discussion has occurred in any formal venue regarding the ongoing relisting of the article, the parlous state of which the FA procedure should have amply demonstrated. This has made a farce of the GA process, not least because editors with experience in that process — and who should know better — have chosen to act in a partisan fashion to continually re-adding the article to the GA list without any formal discussion having taken place. Shame on (almost) all of you; this really is pathetic. —  JEREMY 06:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Just take it to RfA Scott. Or is it that you're so certain you'll lose that you'd rather just threaten me here? —  JEREMY 11:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
What threats are you referring to? And why would I want to take this to a Requests for Adminship (RfA)? ( → Netscott) 12:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't been much involved in the GA project lately for a number of reasons (for example, lack of time), but one I believe is germane to this discussion/vote is that I felt that it was becoming bogged down with disputes -- which was encouraging a growing concern for proceedure. Having worked on Wikipedia for over three & ahalf years, I can attest that the daily grind of editor conflicts, disputes over article content & format -- & the FA process -- contribute to editor burnout. I supported the GA process because not only did it offer a tool for users to find articles other Wikipedians believe are useful, but also to offer positive reinforcement to contributions -- or at least constructive criticism of their work. This positive effect is negated when any one person repeatedly uses her/his ability to black ball an article. Unless such an action is accompanied by a discussion towards a solution, all that is accomplished is that we have created another dispute that needs to be resolved, which may end up before the ArbCom with someone being banned but certainly will contribute to the Wikistress of all involved. -- llywrch 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've never really commented much on disputes, as the vast majority seem to centre on large articles, which I have always argued should not be considered for GA in the first place - FA is the place for them. I quite agree that allowing any one person to blackball a listing can't work and is destructive. It seems very clear from Netscott's evidence that one person has come to believe they have a veto over the inclusion of one article. It's never been the case that one person was allowed to repeatedly de-list an article, and this was one person wilfully interpreting the written rules for his own ends. I really believe that if we avoid the word 'veto', perhaps with the wording I suggested above, a similar dispute can be avoided. Beyond that one, I've never personally seen any serious dispute over a GA listing. Worldtraveller 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The reason you've never seen any serious dispute over a GA listing probably is, that there has never been an article where a minority POV has so actively been ignored resp. opposed. Raphael1 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Llywrch. Discussion is better than vetoing and reversion cycles. I think it's actually a testament to how well the system has worked that there have been relatively few disputes so far. It also seems to be working better than peer review is at the moment. TheGrappler 13:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Result

Well, it looks like 12 against 5. Does anything think this is a large enough margin to change things, or should we just hold off on it? Homestarmy 04:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the objection by some was taken away with this modified version, which as far as I can tell wil have the same result as the text I proposed:
Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to list high quality articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and anyone can review nominations, passing them if they meet the good article criteria or leaving reasons for the failure. Articles may be delisted if a later reviewer feels they do not meet the criteria. Where editors disagree with a failed nomination or a delisting, discussions to find consensus on given articles' status take place here.
That would increase the support to about 13 or 14 against 4 or 3 (which is roughly 75-80%), which is a decent majority to add. If nobody of the support voters has an objection against the modified text, I do not see any objections to change this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have replaced the old text with the new. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_7&oldid=80016007"