User talk:Eptalon/GOOD

“

Within one week of being listed as to be voted on, three named editors must agree that the article is indeed very good. If agreement cannot be reached, two out of three that voted must agree. Again, a minimum of 3 people must be in agreement.

”

This does not seem to agree with itself. 3 editors must vote yes, if they cant then 2 of the 3 must agree, but 3 must be in agreement? -- Creol(talk) 01:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two thirds, with a minimum of 3 agreeing. The minimal result would be 3 agree, 1 oppose (pass), 3 agree, 2 oppose (fail). --Eptalon 19:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the correct statement will be like:

“

Within one week of being listed as to be voted on, three named editors must agree that the article is indeed very good. If agreement cannot be reached, two third of people who voted must agree. Again, a minimum of 3 people must be in agreement.

”

, right? - Huji ^reply 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...reached, two thirds of the people who voted..; and yes. Thats the idea. --Eptalon 22:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Huji ^reply 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete[change source]

I made some corrections and minor additions. I think the criteria are "very" incomplete. With the current criteria, perhaps most of our articles will fit the "good article" defintion, which is pointless. I remember we had a discussion about obligating some (but not all) of the VGA criteria to be met for GA too. I think it is time to add them. - Huji ^reply 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've spotted a bit of a big one that's missing: simplification level. The entire point of having articles here is to have them simplified, and (Very) Good Articles should be showcasing the best simplification level. With the current criteria, they don't need to be simplified at all to get GA status. I think there could still be massive variation in the simplification of articles though, until we get some decent tools available to more strictly enforce Basic English rules. Archer7 - talk 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will be a tough one. It needs to be both stated in a simple way, and be broad enough not to limit us. What about The language used in the article should be similar in complexity to that of most of the other articles in SEWP? --Eptalon 00:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lower standards?[change source]

What I envisioned when I suggested that perhaps we change the current VGAs to GA status was making the current VGA standards the standards for Good articles and creating new stricter/higher guidelines for new VGAs. Not creating new lower standards for GAs. If we do not higher the standards for VGAs, we're not really solving the key problem--that some the articles that are being promoted are lacking in quality. · Ty grrr... 15:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point you make you here, but let's also look into it from this view: We have some standards for VGA, but we don't follow them fully. That is why some of our VGAs are better called GAs. So, one way to make sure our future VGAs are better is to stick to the same criteria (or improve it as you said) but force "all" of the items to be met for each VGA. - Huji ^reply 15:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the comments on Wikipedia talk:Proposed very good articles‎, there seem to be a number of people who think that the current standards for the VGAs are not high enough. Among the suggestions for higher standards so far are: a higher minimum number of voters, a higher percentage of support, more references, a picture minimum, and more. I think we need to take these suggestions into consideration. · Ty grrr... 15:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]