Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles

From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

Discussion when page was located at Template talk:Vgood/doc

Discussion of new requirements at Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles/New

Archived discussion of that talk page: Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles/New/Archive

---

I think it should be insisted (not as a criterion, but in the introduction section) that the article must be written in simple English to be concidered in votings. This is obvious to some of us, but it still needs to be clearly notified. - Huji ^reply 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is there in item 8, but please add a respective section to the introduction. --Eptalon 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I would prefer to expand item 8 to such:

There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. These templates include {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}. Also, there must be no obvious need to using such tags for the article.

— This unsigned comment was added by Huji (talk • changes).

I think the article should have to have a picture, and if one can't be found, another editor must verify this.— This unsigned comment was added by Liam.gloucester (talk • changes).

Finding pictures can be very hard; think about things like Correlation.. --Eptalon 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second that. There should be no obligation in using images. - Huji ^reply 12:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Templates for citations 2 Proposed changes to the way very good articles are made 3 Placement of the template 4 Changing the small template 5 Placement of the template - take 2 6 Point 3 again

[change] Templates for citations

Hello, I just found out that a <ref> tag that just contains an URL does not look too good. My question is therefore:

• If references are used, should those citations be made using the various templates? (eg cite web, cite book). Phaedriel has suggested that in fact they should. That would mean changing the requirements, revoting them, and then changing all the very good articles. Therefore my question: what is your opinion on the subject? --Eptalon 17:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm getting the wrong idea here, but I say just create the templates. It should be suggested, but not a requirement, that VGA's use them. IMO, URLs as refs are terrible-looking (as in World History, but they can certainly still be used.) My only concern with refs is the question: are the websites/books reliable? If so, that is the only thing that matters. The "cite" templates are basically only used to make it "prettier", for lack of a better term.

As I said, just create the templates. The VGA's already have enough requirements as it is (at least in my opinion). Perhaps I'm wrong about this. Maybe changing the requirements would be helpful in some way. I'm not totally against Eptalon's proposal, I just don't think it's worth all the time, trouble, and effort. IMO, this is a small issue that should not be made into a big deal. --Isis§^(talk) 17:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As to the article about World History, you'll have noticed, that I started converting those links. Personally, I am a bit reluctant to touch the criteria now, as changing them now is a lot of effort. Of course I am open to discussion on how to interpret them. --Eptalon 17:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as I commented at Simple Talk, I'm in favor of the use of these templates (which already exist, and were created a long time ago). After initial thought, however, I'm not sure that adding this as a forceful requirement, by itself, is worth the effort of reforming the guidelines. While I do believe that certain aspects of them could benefit from a little discussion, this is not one of the most important ones. Still, I do think that at the very least, it should be strongly recommended that these templates get used by VG candidates. They exist for a reason that goes beyond the mere good looks: standardization of uses. They were created for a reason: to avoid that everyone provides references the way they feel to, but in a uniform way, which happens to be the one that provides the more information about said references. VGAs are supposed to showcase the very best our project has to offer. From my modest perspective, this means complying with the highest standards. My opinion, of course. Phaedriel - 18:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this: "Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced correctly". I disagree on insisting on the use of those templates. If a person cites references correctly (for example, in accordance to Harvard style, or another well known style) without using a template, it is perfect and enough. - Huji ^reply 18:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wonder: Are you implying by that that an article With a reference I read it in the newspaper last weekend has a chance of even being voted on? --Eptalon 21:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. First, (as I said above) it should cite the reference correctly (by giving the issue number, date, etc of that newspaper); second, (as others have already said) that newspaper should be known as a reliable source about that subject (e.g. the subject being a recent political event, and the newspaper being a place for political critics to write their professional points of view). Did I answer your question, or did I get it wrong? - Huji ^reply 19:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Lets say: The Sun, Monday, Aug. 20, 2007, page 11? (Article about british politics?) :) (I know I am teasing) --Eptalon 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[change] Proposed changes to the way very good articles are made

Hello Community, there is some talk about changing the very good article process. References can be found on my talk page and on Phaedriel's talk page.

• There is a proposal to limit the amount of time the article stays in the proposed very good stage (aka: pvgood), before being voted on. This this means that from being listed on the Proposed very good articles page to being voted on would be limited. This would avoid old entries there, and might speed up the process. In my opinion, a reasonable limit would be 2 or 3 weeks before voting. Current articles there could be treated like they were added on the day we decide anything
• Another thing that was noted was that the vgood template is all nice, but a little distracting. I therefore think we could put it at the bottom of the article, instead of the top (That's what German WP does). The template could also be redesigned to be less of an eye-catcher? (Smaller star?)

These two changes could be done without much trouble, as they do not touch the guideline per se, just the way the thing is put into practice. Again, please feel free to express your thoughts. :) --Eptalon 11:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My 2.41 centimes:

Nicely laid out, Eptalon! First of all, I really like the idea of putting the featured article banner at the bottom rather than the top, it gives it a nice conclusion-y feeling in my opinion. Secondly, I think that maybe two weeks in the proposal stage would be ideal, it gives all registered and unresigtered people enough time to polish it off, leaving it at its full potential for the voting stage. There might be little problems like important people on holiday or deciding voters interrupted by school or work, but overall, I think that it would work swimmingly and we might even break the 20 VG articles by the end of October or November!

Gwib^-(talk)- 12:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your quick response to my thoughts, dear Eptalon! Here's my input on the proposals you have put together after our talk:

1. I absolutely agree with this. You know I had suggested a different idea, but this is less of a radical change, and may certainly help to speed up the process. I'd go for no more than 2 weeks. The time limit may also act as as an incentive for those who propose an article to address any objections. No need to say that, an article can be moved to the Voting stage almost immediately if it meets the criteria from the beginning; this would only apply to those that don't.
2. Strongly agreed on that matter (hey, I brough it up, didn't I? ;) From my modest point of view, I'd go only with a small, discreet star on the upper right corner. Actually, German Wikipedia only puts a small line with a star on bottom, not a large template like ours (and they also put the little star up and right - see here). French Wikipedia puts a little star and a large template on bottom, but that's possible because they format their articles differently than we do (References is their last section - see here). This alternative wouldn't work on many of our articles properly; I've made a test page to illustrate this here. A small, elegant star on top right showcases the article in a discreet manner imho, and is closer to what most Wikipedias like English, Polish and Spanish do. The current {{vgood}} article should go at the talk page. Phaedriel - 13:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I am completely open on the matter, as to how we handle placing the template. A nice idea from the French: They denote a certain article version as very good. The template then allows to compare the current one to that version. --Eptalon 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your test page: I do not see the star at the top; I see that the template needs some work as to really be the last thing on the page; and to not have overlapping boxes (as you do in the test article)... --Eptalon 13:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the star doesn't display at my test page simply because it isn't there, yet :) I'm still testing the smaller template. And yes, that's exactly my point by creating that test page; our current format doesn't allow a bigger template to be put on bottom of our articles, unless we add a {{-}} as first line of the {{vgood}} template, but that would send it even further below. Still a possibility tho, and not a bad one at all. I agree, the French have come to a very nice idea that we could benefit from. Phaedriel - 13:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first part. For the second one, I'm a little confused. It seems we are not yet sure if Very Good Articles are just the same as Featured Articles of En WP, or not. If they are not exactly the same, then a star on the top right may be misleading (having that many people have visited En WP before Simple En WP, because of its higher Google ranks, etc etc). - Huji ^reply 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no doubt whatsoever to me that our VG articles are, if not the same thing as the EnWP Featured Articles, then an equivalent of the status as the best articles our community has produced. The name we give them matters little (every project calls them differently: Germans call them "Excellent Articles", Polish call them "Articles with a medal", and so on). For this reason, I'm positive that a smaller, more discreet and elegant template than our current immense, eye-catching banner will surely benefit our VGAs - moreso now that we intend to showcase them from our new Main Page.

This is a very rough test, and if we agree on this, something far better looking can be done; but compare this (small star on top, banner at the bottom) with the way Japanese tea ceremony looks now, and let's think what looks better at a first time reader's eye. Phaedriel - 08:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this looks better :) - Huji ^reply 20:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm so happy to see we agree, dear Huji! :) Phaedriel - 12:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[change] Placement of the template

Hello, we know have two templates, {{vgood-small}}, and {{vgood}}. I proposed on simple talk to put the small template at the top, the big one at the bottom of the article. It looks like there are other ideas around. Since a change means changing all very good articles, we should reach agreement on that now, rather than later, when there are more very good articles. --Eptalon 06:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea totally. - Huji ^reply 08:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the vgood template on the bottom. I think we should either have it at the top of the article or not at all. And since people seem to be against having it at the top, I'd rather have it on the talk of the talk page than at the bottom of the article. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I suggested a week ago, if you check above. If all the practical impossibility lies in the categorization, I can retouch the {{vgood}} in order to add the article's themselves, even when placed at the Talk pages. Just give me a short while, please. Phaedriel - 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We could also add categorisation to vgood-small; which would be much simpler.--Eptalon 19:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And which is exactly what I tested, and added a couple of hours ago :) I was just about to post it here, but you beat me to it! :) All that should be done now is, removing the Categorisation from {{vgood}} and move it to the Talk pages - it there's consensus to implement the move, that is. Phaedriel - 19:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

When the categorisation is removed form vgood, it does not matter where we place the blurb. :) --Eptalon 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I know; I mean, for the aesthethical reasons pointed out by Tygart and me, not for categorisation purposes ;) Phaedriel - 20:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be useful, to give one (optional) argument to the template, that allows to specify the sort order in the vgood category? - I don't want all popes categorized as Pope... --Eptalon 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[change] Changing the small template

Hello, can the vgood-small template be changed, so it gives all verygood articles when clicked?- Would this be a worthwile change? --Eptalon 08:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And as it was a good idea, I applied it. - Huji ^reply 16:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[change] Placement of the template - take 2

Following all the comments and suggestions, as well as the modifications we introduced in the last days, I've made a few enhancements to {{vgood-small}} as asked by Eptalon. It's now the tool to categorize our VG articles, instead of {{vgood}}. I'm working on adding an optional parameter as well; hopefully it'll be ready tomorrow.
Also, as suggested by Tygart and myself before, and since it only serves an aesthetical purpose now, I suggest that we move the {{vgood}} template to the VG articles' talk pages. I've made a test of this system at Pope John Paul II. Please comment and review before we modify the text of Wikipedia:Very good articles itself. Best regards, Phaedriel - 04:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In such a case, I suggest {{vgood}} to be renamed to vgood-talk or vgood-large, and {{vgood-small}} to be renamed to vgood instead. - Huji ^reply 10:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good and keen idea, Huji. Well thought! :) Phaedriel - 13:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved {{vgood-small}} to {{vgood}} and {{vgood}} to {{vgood-large}}. I still agree that {{vgood-large}} should be placed on the talk page. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent; let's be bold and make this change, then. No need to retouch the body of Wikipedia:Very good articles, since the template name has not changed. I'm really happy about these enhancements :) Phaedriel - 16:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[change] Point 3 again

Sorry for bringing this into attention again. We had a long talk about whether point 3 should be changed from "kilobytes" to a measure of number of words or not. In the end (as I found it) one of the factors which made us avoid that change was that we thought it is hard to count the words (and exclude templates, etc). I just noticed that a Toolserver project which is used mainly by English Wikipedia, has support for Simple English Wikipedia as well! The link I gave above will show you some stats about Mali which is currently a VGA. I thought that can be helpful if we (some time) decided to change point 3 again.

Regards, - Huji ^reply 10:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)