Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
For the result of the RFC see : #Closure.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


In October 2012 I (Gilderien) suggested a proposal to allow the addition of another criterion to the DYK rules, allowing a newly promoted GA to be nominated for DYK, alongside the current ones of being a 1500 character new article or 5x's expanded article. This would only affect the eligibility of an article being nominated to DYK, after-which the nominated article would be treated exactly the same as any other article going through the normal DYK nomination process. My proposal developed into an informal RfC, generating nearly 13,000 words of discussion and was eventually closed as successful, but after the close there was considerable discussion regarding the format of my proposal and how it may have influenced the discussion, and also on the fact that the a large number of the comments, both supporting and opposing, were based on misconceptions, and so the close was disregarded.

Shortly after the RFC started, another RFC was started proposing that GA articles be given their own slot on the front page. This added to the confusion.

Main RfC[edit]

The proposal is to expand the definition of "new articles" at WP:DYK to include:

articles designated as Good articles within the past five days are also acceptable as "new" articles.

This proposed eligibility of Good articles would have no greater influence on the WP:DYK process. The cohort of good articles that are nominated for Did You Know would proceed through the same DYK process, and be evaluated against the DYK rules and "Supplementary guidelines" by the community.

Notes to prevent confusion
  • The "Supplementary guidelines" already prevent an article appearing twice in DYK. An article that has already been a DYK is not eligible for DYK again once it has become a GA.
  • GA status for an article would be optional. This is an addition rather than a replacement.
  • There were suggestions that this might overload the DYK process. However, having passed GA means an article is less likely to require an extensive review as problems will have been picked up through the GA review. Also, in the 100 most recent GAs, about 1/3 would be ineligible due to being a prior DYK, ITN or currently nominated.
  • This does not affect any of the other DYK rules - for example a DYK nomination of a GA would still require a QPQ review of any other DYK nomination.
  • There was some concertation over having a NAC last time. Newyorkbrad has agreed to close the RfC after one month, assuming there are no valid objections to his role in this.

Commenters are invited to add their rationale(s) in the General Discussion section underneath the proposal.

Support (main)[edit]

  1. David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  4.  OBSIDIANSOUL 23:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  5.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. Eric Corbett (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  9. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 23:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  10. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  11. ELEKHHT 23:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  12. Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 23:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  13. First Light (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  14. SpinningSpark 00:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  15. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  16. MER-C 00:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  17. Yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  18. Torchiest talkedits 00:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  19. Graham87 00:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  20. TBrandley (TCB) 00:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  21. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  22. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  23. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    To elaborate more, as Gilderien was right to request, I'd like to say I always thought that 10k/20k expansions to long articles (thus less than x5 expansion required) should get a place in DYK. With this change, these articles can be featured there after becoming GAs. Also per Obsidian Soul and Graham87 below. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  24. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  25. The Interior (Talk) 01:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  26. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  27. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 02:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  28. Sasata (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  29. Begoontalk 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  30. Adabow (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  31. Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  32. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  33. Corn cheese (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  34. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  35. Rosiestep (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  36. ΛΧΣ21 04:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  37.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  38. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  39. Deryck C. 05:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  40. Ruby 2010/2013 05:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  41. - tucoxn\talk 05:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  42. --EchetusXe 07:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  43. ϢereSpielChequers 07:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  44. Connor Behan (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  45. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  46. Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 09:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  47. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  48. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  49. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  50. Plarem (User talk) 10:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  51. Kierzek (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  52. Gilderien Talk|List of good deeds 10:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  53. Miyagawa (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  54. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  55. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  56. Yaris678 (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  57. NW (Talk) 13:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  58. Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  59. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  60. Hut 8.5 16:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  61. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  62. FoxyOrange (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  63. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  64. --Andreas JN466 19:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  65. CtP (tc) 19:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  66. Juliancolton (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  67. CycloneIsaacE-Mail 20:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  68. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  69. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  70. GabrielF (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  71. AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  72. Kurtis (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  73. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  74. Courcelles 17:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  75. Ericoides (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  76. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  77. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  78. Altamel (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  79. WFCFL wishlist 21:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  80. Per last year's extensive discussion. – Steel 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  81. Only if From Wikipedia's newest content is reworded to make it clear that some of the content will not be new. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  82. United States Man (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  83. Excellent idea. Would get more high quality well referenced content linked on the main page. Would also link articles of greater importance / potentially reduce trivia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  84. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  85. The benefits outweigh the downsides. Wizardman 02:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  86. --12george1 (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  87. --99of9 (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  88. Faizan 03:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  89. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  90. -- ɑηsuмaη « ৳ᶏ ɭϞ » 06:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  91. --AshLin (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  92. Slambo (Speak) 10:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  93. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  94. Corvus coronoides talk 19:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  95. Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  96. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  97. Typing General (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  98. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  99. Can you decipher this acronymical code? CYDTAC (Hint: It's really easy!) (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  100. Tea with toast (話) 18:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  101. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  102. Shudde talk 03:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  103. Yes, I am a longstanding fan of this idea. :) John Cline (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  104. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  105. I think this is a good idea; there are lots of kinds of content we would like to showcase, why get stuck with the old framework of one FA and a handful of completely new articles several rungs further down the quality ladder...? bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  106. Good Articles are not worthy of a spot the size of a Featured Article (reflecting the typical difference in quality). DYK one-liners seem the most appropriate way to include them on the front page (which is highly desirable) – I do not think there is a better method of presentation for GAs that lies between a DYK one-liner and an FA summary. SFB 12:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  107. --Batard0 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  108. Albacore (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  109. Seems like something we should have had in place already Jenova20 (email) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  110. Wikiwayman (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  111. Harrias talk 06:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  112. Laser brain (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  113. Quadell (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  114. Support, as long as the headline is changed to make it clear. Perhaps from "newest" to "newest and newly expanded" or "new or notable". --Elonka 18:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  115. – SJ + 21:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  116. I've had misgivings about featuring good articles on the Main Page and have opposed similar measures before, but I sense that DYK is having more difficulty than ever featuring truly interesting subjects/blurbs. I don't think that one or two GAs will wreck the process, and can see how this would motivate editors to improve articles to GA status. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  117. We just aren't creating enough new articles these days, so let's focus on good quality articles rather than ones that merely happened to have been written recently. AGK [•] 13:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  118. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 18:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  119. DYK should include recognition of good work in articles which are not new and already long. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  120. Superb idea. Full support. - Jayadevp13 15:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  121. WaggersTALK 10:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  122. Support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  123. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 19:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  124. Support - I'm in favor of higher standards (and closer supervision) of DYK to help prevent commercial abuse. This helps. Carrite (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  125. Support Rcsprinter (rap) @ 10:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  126. jonkerz ♠talk 23:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose (main)[edit]

  1. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Poeticbent talk 23:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC) — Not fair to DYK regulars racing against time.
  3. --William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC) -- see discussion below
  4. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. Royalbroil 02:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 04:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  9. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC) - GA should have it's own spot rather than muscling in on DYK.
  10. Prioryman (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Lacks any coherent rationale for why GAs should appear in the DYK slot as opposed to in FA or their own slot.
  11. Warden (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  12. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — For the same reasons that have been stated before in this perennial proposal. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  13. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  14. Again, I dislike this idea. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  15. Allen3 talk 19:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  16. Manxruler (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Per Yngvadottir.
  17. My comment is here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  18. Ironholds (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  19. SnowFire (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  20. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  21. Bloom6132 (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  22. Unless there is some provision to ensure that the GAs featured are substantially new. Orlady (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see this as necessary and it will take away from the traditional DYKs. However, you could consider this a weak oppose. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  23. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  24. Merely a backdoor method of getting GAs on the Main Page since the idea of having their own spot has perennially failed to get consensus. AgneCheese/Wine 19:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  25. I'd rather see a daily GA spot. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  26. DYKs encourage new articles, quite often short ones. Quality articles should be featured in depth, as FAs. --GRuban (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  27. Undermines the fundamental purpose of DYK in recognizing and drawing editors to improving the Wikipedia's newest content. Cbl62 (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  28. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  29. There's a reason we distinguish GA from FA. Babakathy (talk) 07:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  30. No reason to have such an arbitrary level of requirement. It's not fair to others who find sources to create new articles. Flabbergasted at the amount of support here. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  31. Techdude3331 (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  32. An article that became GA not because it added sources, but because just copyedited is not 'Newest content' and thus inelligible for DYK.Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 10:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

General Discussion (main)[edit]

  • I disagree with the suggestion that passing a GA review automatically means the DYK review will be easier; I've seen some very shoddy GA reviews which, if done at DYK, would have led this talk page to catch fire. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Your point is correct, however, I have not suggested that undergoing a review would automatically make DYK reviewing easier, just that it would be likely to make it easier, which I hope we could agree on.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Actually, I don't think we can. GA articles tend to be longer than your average DYK submission, which means a proper DYK review is going to take longer because you have to start from scratch: assuming that the GA review was fine is, as Crisco notes, the way to get into trouble. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    Given how little DYK reviewers are actually required to check, as opposed to GA reviewers, I find that rather hard to swallow. Eric Corbett 23:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • @Eric: The criteria for GA and DYK are different (referencing, for one, is actually more strict in DYK as there is a rule of thumb of one reference per paragraph, as opposed to the bare minimum at WP:GA?). As an active GA reviewer, you're sure to have noticed the sometimes piss-poor reviews that pop up, in which an article with obvious problems gets rubber stamped (I've seen you complain before, actually, though I don't have a diff). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
      Where have you got the strange idea from that GA requires a bare minimum of citations? Or that one citation per paragraph is any kind of sensible requirement? I've seen a few piss-poor GA reviews, and I've addressed a fair few of them, but I've seen far more piss-poor DYKs on the main page. Eric Corbett 00:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Eric, I think you misunderstood me above. I was saying that a proper DYK review of an article that has come from GA is generally going to take longer at DYK than the review of a new article here because there is so much more in the article to check: the majority of DYK nominations are currently new articles rather than expansions, and a comparative few of either type are of a size similar to successful GA submissions. Because of this, the assertion that GAs will take less time to review than regular DYKs simply doesn't hold water; in fact, it's sufficiently misleading that I've just struck it from the lead material of this RfC. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Eric, recheck the criteria. "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;" - That's nowhere near "minimum 1 reference per paragraph" at DYK (or as now expect for FA) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Believe me, I really don't need you to remind me of the GA criteria. So let me be clearer. The rule that every paragraph, regardless of its content, should have a citation is a brain-dead one, and FAC certainly has no such expectation. Whether a paragraph needs a citation depends on what's in the paragraph, which is at heart of that silly DYK rule; to anyone who's looked through main page DYKs it's very evident that DYK reviewers don't bother to read the whole article, hence this one citation per paragraph rule, as it's easily checked with the minimum of labour. Eric Corbett 10:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    "FAC certainly has no such expectation." - Not codified, perhaps, but I'd like to see an article pass with uncited bland statements such as "(book) is taught in schools". GA, I can see it happening (and have seen it, though not in my reviews). FAC, not likely (at least one reviewer would "shout"). As for your reading of the reason behind such a DYK rule, it's quite possible, though I prefer to assume good faith on the issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    There's a limit to how much good faith it's sensible to assume. But on your general point, "(book) is taught in schools" would come under the GA criteria for requiring a citation, paragraph or no. There is absolutely no rational reason why a citation per paragraph should be mindlessly demanded. Eric Corbett 13:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Alright. I think we are not going to find any middle ground here (my personal editing style is to cite everything, because on this website anything can and will be challenged at higher levels). I see that Gildrien has scratched out the point I disagreed with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    What has your personal editing style got to do with either the DYK or GA criteria? Eric Corbett 22:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
@Crisco: I'm interested, would you have failed this GA, or required removal of the uncited content which I allowed to remain? Talk:Malvern College#GA Review Begoontalk 05:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking at the version promoted, I'd have required heavy lifting... but not for citations (I'd have added one or two CN tags ["At least two of the school's former pupils have become Nobel Laureates." is begging for one). The main issue I'd take with this is the structure... we should not have one-sentence "sections". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok - it's a very old review, and I probably agree with what you say. But that wasn't really the question I was asking. I allowed an uncited section to stand - do you disagree with that particular aspect? Begoontalk 07:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd have tagged what strikes me as needing a reference as needing a reference, and given the author time to add a reference. I would not have failed the article immediately, because it did not fall under the quick fail criteria (wherever those have gone and gotten themselves lost) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Face-smile.svg Begoontalk 07:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's always bugged me that I can pump 10 or 20K of text into an article and not have it be eligible because it started with 10K already when that same amount of text (and work!) could translate into 12 or so DYKs if I choose to expand stubs or create new articles instead.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    That actually happened to me recently. Took a very ordinary start class article from nothing to FA, and at the end of the process it was still barely a 4x expansion. Eric Corbett 23:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    This is a problem for me too. This summer I found myself less motivated to expand an article because it was already long and my expansion wasn't going to get it on DYK. I think 10k/15k expansions of articles under 35k/40k should be made eligible, but that's another story requiring another discussion. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Not sure why that should "bug" you. IMO that's apples and oranges, DYK serves as an encouragement to create new articles and expand stubs. The "reward" is DYK. The "reward" for "pumping 10-20k of new text into an existing article" or "taking an ordinary start class article to FA" is the GA or FA status. Including GAs in DYK would be like (sports analogy incoming!!!) giving a bowling league trophy to the winner of a soccer match. With that said, I'm totally in favor of giving new GAs recognition with their own area on the Main Page. That makes much more sense. GAs and DYK are two separate areas, meant to encourage/recognize two separate kinds of editing.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, that has been suggested a couple of times in the past, and has been rejected every time, most recently a month ago. Also through this we are using GAs better to serve our readers.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 01:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    This makes a lot of sense, William Thweatt. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Already supported this before. Improving existing articles is one of the most important work done here on Wikipedia, now that we've matured enough. Like expansion and creation, it definitely deserves more exposure. The aim really is to encourage more people to attempt GAs on important topics and improve the overall quality, rather than just the quantity, of our articles. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 23:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Poeticbent, could you elaborate on your reasoning here? "Normal" DYK submissions can be worked on indefinitely in userspace, and articles can be nominated when not "finished".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You're correct, DYK submissions can be worked on in userspace, but they don't get to be reviewed there by DYK volunteers ever. New articles must meet the criteria at the time of DYK nomination and nothing is ever "finished". It's like comparing oranges and apples. Poeticbent talk 00:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Erm, even at FA nothing is ever "finished". I am confused by what reviewing articles in userspace has to do with anything, as the DYK date for such articles starts after an article is moved to main space (compare Sudirman and Albertus Soegijapranata, which were both essentially in their current state when they passed DYK and GA). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I said that in response to Poeticbent's assertion that this proposal would be unfair on the "DYK regulars" who have to "race against time". Firstly they would still have to do that whether or not this is successful, and secondly DYK regulars can work on something in their userspace for as long as they wish, which means there isn't really a "race".--Gilderien Converse|List of good deeds 00:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What I said is that at the time of DYK submission, all nominated GAs would have been a collaborative effort with timely revisions done in slow motion while, at the same time, the DYK regulars usually just begin their first true battle for the quality controlled end product. That's not a level playing field. Poeticbent talk 03:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • PB, there is no "race against time" if you know your material and develop in user space. The articles I linked above (as well as Oerip Soemohardjo) were developed in my userspace, on my own, while I compiled four or five different books and acquired images. The GAs were all fairly easy too, not much to change, and next to no additional information. There is no "rush" or "race" inherent to DYK, just a misunderstanding of how to use DYK, within the rules established, to showcase quality content.
Gilderian, I agree with your main point. I just don't see any article as "finished". (There are always tweaks which can be done, as is perfectly evident when TFA comes... some of the tweaks are even net positives) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's time to give GA's some exposure on the Main Page. Readers can get a lot more out of high-quality articles than lower-quality ones, and we should always think of the readers first, not the regular prolific editors. Graham87 01:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There are some excellent GA pages which might still have to wait months or years for FA approval. They deserve some front page space. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • (multiple e/c, I must have been reading Graham78's mind) As someone who has written GAs (3) and DYKs (27), the idea of this being fair or unfair is hard to understand. I think we should always put the Wikipedia reader first. Sprinkling some GAs amongst the DYKs will be a major improvement in the quality of the articles listed there. That's a big win for the reader. First Light (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think the DYK process should be changed completely for Good Articles because I don't see what is wrong with DYK only having new or recently expanded content. I would be fine with a Good Article being nominated for DYK and I don't think it would even need to be new content from within 5 days or 5x expanded content in 5 days. I think that if Good Articles are allowed in DYK, at least a certain amount of new content needs to be in the article at the time of nomination. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I opposed this last time around and still do. The fundamental premise of DYK is "There's a new topic in the encyclopedia, and here's an interesting fact about that topic." The fundamental premise of GA is "Somebody has improved an existing article to a certain level of overall quality." The two are very different and shouldn't be mixed. The reward of GA isn't to get a brief appearance on the main page, it's to get that green symbol above the article and have readers know that this is a better-than-usual article they are reading. Better would be to get increased reader awareness of that symbol. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a very good point. I wonder how much the average reader is aware of the significance of the green symbol, and this proposal wouldn't aid the reader to a clearer understanding, as it mixes GAs with DYKs. Having GAs on the main page under their own process would aid the reader to an understanding, and may also draw in more people to get involved in writing and reviewing GAs. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I would disagree with that. The phrase "Did you know..." only says "here's an interesting fact about a topic". That is all. There is nothing in that phrasing that requires that the topic be new. While yes, DYK was originally created to promote article creation, the format of the slot itself can easily accommodate the promotion of article improvement. So why should we limit it? Both are activities that are extremely important for Wikipedia's continued growth, both are even done mostly by the same people, and both can result in truly interesting facts for our readers (who really do not and will never care how long ago something was written nor why some articles have green crosses). That looks like more than enough shared goals to me.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 09:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The three words "did you know" do not refer to newness, but immediately below "Did you know?" It says "From Wikipedia's newest content:". That word "newest" is part of the basic charter of DYK. The current proposal would have the effect of discarding that basic charter. --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The treatment of the main page should really be for the entire community to decide, which it is doing here. That language would of course have to change if the community decides to include Good Articles there. While that language is under discussion, I want to point out that "newest" is not accurate. The newest article was probably created while I was typing this, while the DYK articles are five days to a month old, or longer. First Light (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has moved on from a goal of quantity to one of quality. 4.3 million articles on WP, and 25k of them are FA, FL or GA. We have done a fantastic job, and revolutionised the internet; let's take the next step and become a more respectable and reliable source of information by placing more emphasis on quality - including GAs in DYK makes sense. Adabow (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I opposed this last time and still do. The two have different aims that are at odds. GA recognizes articles that have reached a certain level of quality, pure and simple. DYK recognizes both new articles and recent improvements to existing articles (5 times expansion; this almost always involves expanding a very short stub, or what was previously a one-paragraph sub-topic within an existing article), with a related aim of encouraging and assisting new editors through a workshop process, and also intends to offer readers a smorgasbord of varying articles illustrating our breadth, at least some of which they will find interesting. DYK also exemplifies the standards we endeavor to maintain throughout the encyclopedia. I have said before and say here again, I see nothing wrong with the GA project having a Main Page slot of its own. But if we include GAs in the DYK section on the Main Page, we are in effect telling the reader: "Here is some of Wikipedia's newest content ... and stuff we think is good, too!" It's not the same thing and should not be presented as the same thing. As I said in the earlier RfC - and I also have quibbles about the summary, to the extent that the close was contested as mistaken in addition to being a non-admin closure of a contentious RfC, but two postings at the admin noticeboard failed to produce two uninvolved admins to re-examine it - DYK already gets flak for having multiple aims; this proposal adds still another aim, and one I consider does not fit. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Good points, well made. I hope people will read your comments on the proposal and take them on board. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a bad thing though: Making your article reach GA before reaching the Main Page within the 5-day eligibility criteria won't be as exciting as before. Time to move on to FAC... — ΛΧΣ21 04:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Gilderien has once again failed to explain just why GAs should be wedged in with DYKs. It's disappointing that despite having had months to think about it he still hasn't come up with a coherent rationale. Prioryman (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, I have to you specifically and elsewhere in the intervening time. Could I also ask you to remove or change your misleading notifications here and here, as neither of your proposals feature a "hook" format, and if they did, they would be better suited to going into the DYK section anyway.--Gilderien Chat|Contributions 09:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to know why GAs should muscle in on DYK's area? Why can't it get it's own spot on the front page instead of invading anothers? DYK is something for newer editors to showcase their work to the community and the world, if you let the seasoned editors come in with GAs, it risks diminishing the value of DYK being newer content and could potentially drive people away from contributing if they feel their contribution is nullified by the advanced GAs being given centre stage that could overshadow the newer editors contributions. Plus when it comes to the Wikicup, people will nominate GAs to go in the DYK as a cheap way to gain extra points. I think that attention starved though GA might be, given their large backlog of articles that could swamp DYK as they pass through. I still don't see why GAs should become part of DYK and I still think a better way would be for GA to have it's own part on the front page rather than going into DYK. They should get their own house in order before they try to knock down the house of another. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • With regards to the WikiCup, I would imagine that if this proposal is successful then a note would be added to say that DYK articles which were eligible due to their GA promotion then points could not be claimed for the DYK. Furthermore, they have tried to get their own slot in the past but it hasn't gained consensus.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 10:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I think characterising this as a combative approach, one process "muscling in" or "invading" another, is not helpful. DYK and GA are different aspects of a broader way of rating and highlighting articles, rather than competing factions that need to square up against each other. From a holistic and collaborative standpoint, a shared space on the main page seems more efficient than two seperated ones, given that the style (short, thematically unconnected unconnected hooks) is going to be very similar to the reader. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Expanding DYK criteria to include GAs alongside the currently included material, in the same section and with the same popular hook format would increase the quality of the section, without necessitating the creation of another new section on an already overloaded front page, and without introducing the need for another selection procedure or mechanism. Better quality articles for the reader, recognition of more good content and no ongoing maintenance overhead sounds good to me. Begoontalk 10:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Would it be worth clarifying that existing GAs are not eligible for this, and that it will be used for newly listed/relisted GAs going forward? I don't think anyone actually wants to drop ten thousand newly eligible articles onto DYK. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Easier to implement (in terms of layout/space) than a separate section, but just as useful to readers. Interesting facts from newly promoted GAs would be a good way to expose readers to good (as well as Good) articles. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As said above, we need to focus on making quality content. I hope this will help shift incentives such that less new(ish) editors start off by creating a crappy article. MER-C 13:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know where the heck this came from all of a sudden, but I find it poor form that the RfC proposer did not in his/her introductory statement mention the numerous past discussions in which this exact same proposal has been opposed or no-consensus'ed: Nov 2008, Dec 2008, Jun 2010, Nov 2010, Dec 2010, Jul 2011, Jul 2011, Jul 2011, Nov 2012. And there are others that I can't find right now. I know the add-GA-to-DYK camp has for years just been trying to throw the same thing at the wall repeatedly until it sticks, but it would have been more polite and constructive to at least acknowledge the sheer number of times this exact same proposal has been made, and the issues that have been raised regarding it in the past. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I was not aware of a number of these discussions, but I linked the last one since consensus can change, and in that one certainly seemed to be shifting towards inclusion. I have been drafting this virtually since the last one, and all the DYK regulars at least were aware of it and have made sensible amendments. At least one of those discussions was about replacing DYK with GA, which is not what this is about at all, and most of the concerns in previous proposals have been adressed in this one.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that the fact that this is a perennial proposal speaks more to its legitimacy than against it. We have to be careful not to ghettoize ideas to the p.p. bin just because they have been proposed and not gained consensus in the past. Consensus can be a very elusive beast, especially where major change to established processes is concerned. The Interior (Talk) 17:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And I never said its perennial-ness is what makes it bad or good. I said that it's not civil to present just the supposed benefits of a proposal and pretend that the numerous cons which have been discussed just don't exist. That's called campaigning (see WP:CANVASS). rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The main reasons I support this proposal are (1) extra input into GAs that may propel them towards FA status....and this is especially useful in broader articles, which we should be promoting their improvement in any way, shape or form possible. (2) There are loads of topic areas that one just about never sees at DYK as their material has been substantially expanded early on in wikipedia's history. We've had runs of many quite specific topic areas (I know as I am guilty of much of it!) - and this should be all about the readers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I support the proposal mainly because we are probably at a point (I guess) where improving our vast existing library of articles is at least as important as creating new articles, and we should valorize that also. I've believed this for awhile. As a minor second point, it might improve the interestingness of the hooks, which are sometimes rather dull. (Militating against adding GA to DYK is that it'll likely be used for commercial purposes -- that is, there's an added incentive for corporate flacks to bring their client's articles up to GA with corporate-drafted material, since the Wikipedia main page is valuable territory. A lot of editors think that's fine or else don't care, but then some editors do have a problem with that, and even if one thinks that those editors are wrongheaded, it's divisive, which is not good -- recall Gibraltarpediagate. But oh well. I still support the proposal.) Herostratus (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Because the English Wikipedia has 4M+ articles, DYK has long ceased to serve its original function: to encourage people to write new articles which may be interesting to the readership. Nowadays every single DYK is like "Did you know... that [something really boring and doesn't interest me]?" "No. And I don't need to." I don't think we should actively encourage the creation of new articles on the English Wikipedia anymore (we should expand existing ones instead.) Allowing GAs on the DYK box will encourage people to improve articles on topics that will be more interesting to the readers. Deryck C. 16:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    EngWP may indeed have 4M+ articles, but DYK isn't just about writing new articles. It is also about expanding the stubs which are probably the majority of the 4M+ articles (see Short Pages). Giving GAs their own space on the main page will accomplish your stated goal of "encouraging people to improve articles that will be more interesting to the readers" as well as allowing DYK to continue to focus on the more obscure/less visited/less-worked-on pages. This is an encyclopedia, not a popular journal. All topics are equally important, not just the ones that are "more interesting to the readers".--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the goal of Wikipedia should be to produce quality instead of quantitiy. The number of existing articles is impressive, the overall quality is not. Therefore, facts from good articles should also be eligible to be presented on the main page. The fact that this proposal has already been brought up times and again should not be used as a counter-argument, because im my opinion the issue gets more and more important as Wikipedia is further growing. For instance, the overall situation in 2013 is not comparable to 2008.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think anybody is arguing that facts from "good articles" shouldn't be on the main page. The question here is should those facts be included in the DYK process. A more sensible solution is to give GAs their own space on the front page.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • DYK is an incentive for article production/improvement. It also brings articles to many eyes, resulting in both cleanup and further collaboration. Currently, we limit this process to a limited set of topics - either subjects with no coverage (redlinks) or topics with very brief coverage (stubs). While it is laudable that the more obscure topics get decent articles, we do need to start building up the quality of that huge swath of topics that already have articles, but are poorly written or spottily covered. This change will not only improve the quality of content available to readers of the section, but will make the DYK process attractive to a larger body of content creators. The Interior (Talk) 17:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If GA is mature enough as a project to place material on the Main page then it should be mature enough to take responsibility for that content. This proposal is about letting GA have it's cake (in the form of Main page access) and eating it too (forcing DYK to do the implementation work and then deal with the inevitable problems). There ain't no such thing as a free lunch and no compelling reason has been provided as to why DYK should be forced to pay for GA's meal while receiving no benefit in return. --Allen3 talk 19:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised and disappointed to see how this is being turned into some immature and petty turf war, between DYK and GA. As someone who has contributed to both (3 GAs, 27 DYKs) I don't have a dog in this fight. Or maybe I have both dogs in the fight. Actually, neither. I'm putting the reader first, which is why I support adding GAs to the main page as part of the Did You Know? section. First Light (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have a concern that this would put an unreasonable burden on DYK for no apparent benefit. The criteria that an article should not previously have been at DYK may be counter-productive, as some editors may prefer not to have a stubby article linked on the main page, when it can be linked a little later when it's more developed and impressive as a GA. If the aim here is to highlight on the main page the work of the GA project, that should be a process independent of DYK, which has a different purpose to GA. GA articles linked on the main page should come under the GA project, either as part of the process, or as an additional process. People can work in both projects, but the processes should be distinct. SilkTork'✔Tea time' 21:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • re/ burden, I had presumed the GA-DYK nominators would still be expected to review other nominations as with any new-DYK. As such, a moderate increase in submissions (per stats above, we're talking about perhaps 20% more subs & nominators on top of current rates, and most are likely to be relatively unproblematic) shouldn't have much impact either way on workload. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • SilkTork, I think it is important to remember that these processes exist, ultimately, to serve our reader. Is undergoing a ~20% extra burden worth it when it provides more interesting hooks and much better articles to our readers, as well as leaving a longer legacy with more important topics left at GA going upwards rather than lots of 1500 character start-class articles.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure what the need for this is, in the sense that unless DYK has been clearing quite quickly, we easily have enough content to fill it up. Adding yet-more stuff that needs to be considered, reviewed, evaluated, listed seems a good way to increase the backlog, and I've not seen a demonstration of what material gains this would provide the encyclopedia. Ironholds(talk) 21:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    You need to put your reader hat on, and think of those presented with actually interesting DYKs, as opposed to the usual "did you know that baseball coach Mike Yamarrwr was born in Oregon?" Eric Corbett 22:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sure, but GA status doesn't always equal interesting, and non-GA status doesn't always equal non. That argument would seem to call (perfectly reasonably, imo) for some kind of prioritisation of articles gauged to be fascinating, or to have fascinating hooks. I remember that my first DYK was Sidney Weighell; not a great article, but the idea of a prominent unionist as, in his younger years, a professional footballer was somewhat blink-inducing. Ironholds (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Yes but a greater pool of articles increases the chance of interesting hooks and less chance of boring ones. It will ensure we are more selective about what is mainpaged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Furthermore it would be more interesting to the reader to find something surprising about a topic they might know about (like Sea, or Paris, for example, new GAs this year) than about a topic they will never have heard about.--Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 23:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Sure, and sure. Casliber: as of right now we've got hooks waiting from May. I have no doubt that they'll eventually clear, but the fact of the matter is that DYK is and has been perennially backlogged, hence the relatively new rule that demands a review for a review. I have no doubt that GAs would improve the potential interestingness of the average hook, but the fact of the matter is the sheer number of nominations means we currently have the freedom to pick and choose if that's what we're looking to do, without opening the floodgates even wider.
    Gilderien: that's an excellent point, and one I hadn't considered. I'm not sure if it's as cut-and-dried as that; my GANs, at least, have never been more mainstream than my DYKs (with one exception), and a look at WP:GAN shows the usual plethora of fascinating (but relatively obscure) topics, mixed in with occasional topics of widespread interest. I think, again, that we'd certainly have more interesting hooks and articles this way...but I remain to be convinced, with the backlog, that this is the best way to solve for obscure hooks or articles. We have the freedom to choose between those articles currently submitted. If instituting such a rule means we run dry, then I'll be the first person to sign up for this proposal, but in the meantime it looks like (to resort to cliche) a hammer to smash a nut. Ironholds (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    "Hooks waiting from May" is IME a quirk of the way DYK currently handles old material; it drags the reviews on for a long time, fiddling back and forth, rather than simply letting them expire or saying "sorry, not this one, too messy". There's a single hook waiting from May, but it doesn't mean the queue is two months long - it just means we keep the edge cases around. If you look at this time two years ago, the oldest one was 10 July, but I strongly suspect the average time to be posted was much the same. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I just had a flick through and saw Pope Benedict XVI, Birth Control, Milky Way, The Pirates of Penzance, Muammar Gaddafi, Moment of inertia, ADHD, United States Bill of Rights, even Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. These are all hugely important articles that would educate and interest the reader more with a hook than some of my own DYKs, Sperris Quoit, Autographa sansoni, Mahee Castle for example. I know that the possibility of getting DYK motivates me in choosing which articles to expand, and often if there are two similar articles I shall go for the smaller one, even if it is "less important", because I can get a DYK for sure. Question my motivations if you wish, but I sincerely believe this will help us get our core and most important article up to scratch, which benefits our readers much more than writing about small and relatively insignificant topics.--Gilderien Talk to me|List of good deeds 23:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I oppose, because this proposal of refurbished old is a new 'new' further blurs the original idea of promoting the expansion of Wikipedia by new pieces knowledge. It also apply a heavy disadvantage unto new users, who surely cannot compete against GA-writers, and thus decrease the chance of a new user getting recognized and encouraged. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Staszek Lem, as I'm sure you've read in the discussion about limits below, this would probably only be a few a day, so arguing there would be a heavy disadvantage to new users is erroneous. It will improve the enclyclopaedia by helping us get more important articles up to GA status, which is arguably more important than writing more 1500 characters starts.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I am afraid your logic is erroneous in looking contradiction where is none: First, pursuing a noble goal should not amount to abandoning another one. Second, are you saying that we don't need new editors to write GAs? Or are you saying that new editors suck and better not attract them? If you want more attention to GA/FA, find other means, without destroying old purpose. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Last semester I was a campus ambassador for a course where writing a Wikipedia article was a major assignment. Since the students put a great deal of work into their articles, and the quality of their work was generally very good, I worked with the students to nominate as many as possible for DYK. However, I found that the factors that influenced whether a student's article could become a DYK were often disconnected from the quality or quantity of the student's work. Two students could each add about 10kB of text, but one would be entitled to a DYK where another would not because because the first chose to work on an article that had 2kB while the second chose to work on an article that had 3kB. It seems unfair to me that two editors can put in roughly the same amount of work, and provide roughly the same product to Wikipedia (taking a stub and transforming it into a well-researched article) and yet one is eligible for main-page recognition and the other is not, based entirely on the word count of the version that they started with. I absolutely support providing more opportunities for recognition for editors who significantly expand articles that may already have a decent amount of text. For one thing, since we already have 4.3 million articles, we should probably incentivize people to improve existing content as much as we incentivize the creation of new content. I appreciate that this proposal shifts DYK to focus more on quality than on (what seems to me to be) an arbitrary 5x figure.GabrielF (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    Quality is rather harder to judge than quantity, hence the rather mechanical DYK rules that can be applied without much thought. Given the discussion above, out of interest I looked at the current batch of DYKs to see how they would fair against the GA criteria. None of them were even close. Eric Corbett 05:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal partly because I beleive consensus was acheived in the previous RFC and the close should have been respected or overturned, not just ignored. I also support because although I don't think this will benefit either the DYK or Good articles processes individually, I do think it will provide a major benifit to Wikipedia as a whole. The encyclopedia has advanced to a point where we should be encouraging more good content over more content and this is a way to do that. AIRcorn (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Bloom6132 (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC) – this is just going to open up a whole new can of worms, especially with the 5× expansion rule being ignored here. How many exceptions to this rule are we going to accept now? Rules are rules and 5× has always meant 5×; let's keep it that way.
    Bloom6132, I'm not really sure what you mean here - the 5xs expansion is not followed in the majority of cases already - most articles are new or have been 2xs expanded if they are a BLP. We also fairly routinely allow ~3-4xs large expansions as an IAR case and all this will do is allow articles that have been substantially expanded in quantity rather than quality.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Really? I can't name any examples off the top of my head, but I do remember that there were several DYKs that were recently rejected because they were under 5×, even after IAR was pleaded. The reasoning behind the rejections was that approving them would set bad precedent and allow other articles that were not 5× to be promoted. The rules have always been firm on enforcing 5×. I don't see why we should provide exceptions for GAs at this point. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, found an example here. 3.4× expanded and still rejected. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Gilderien is incorrect in asserting that the 5x expansion rule is often not followed. First, please note that the rule does not require 5x expansions for all DYK. The rule is that an article should be either be new or have recently been expanded 5x. Secondly, the inclusion of previously unreferenced BLPs that were expanded 2x was not an IAR situation, but rather was a rule change that was adopted in order to help encourage cleanup of the backlog of unreferenced BLPs. That backlog was cleared some time ago, and I don't believe I've seen the special 2x rule invoked in a long time. There are occasional exceptions made to the 5x rule. For example, DYK would likely make an exception for expansion by a new DYK contributor that came close to 5x (such as 4.8x) and had vastly improved what had been an appallingly bad article on an unusual and interesting topic. That kind of exception is a far cry from routinely ignoring the rule. --Orlady (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC) As for Bloom6132's example of an article that was expanded 3.4x and still rejected, note that 3.4x is not very close to 5x, the rejection was in 2011 (not recent), and the topic (a fairly mundane fact about a professional baseball player) is not wildly interesting nor unusual for DYK. --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps "routinely" was misleading, but I do recall having seen 3 or 4 this year which were not quite 5xs and yet still accepted. Still, this is not about ignoring the rules, but adding one - 5xs expansion is one of three routes into DYK, this simply adds a fourth.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 16:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We are supposed to be improving the encyclopaedia The opposition to including GAs on the grounds that they are too good is completely laughable. It would be no bad thing if this proposal results in the complete dross being elbowed out of DYK but I doubt very much that that will happen; DYK will just reduce the time each set is on the main page so more can be churned out. That's how the backlog has always been reduced in the past. And user:Bloom6132, rules are rules, but that does not mean we cannot ever change them if there is something to be gained by doing so. SpinningSpark 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "[R]ules are rules, but that does not mean we cannot ever change them if there is something to be gained by doing so." My question to you is – what'll be gained by changing the rules now? A larger backlog? More pleading for exceptions to the rules? —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We will gain a better encyclopedia by encouraging more articles to be improved to GA standard. If that also means fewer crappy stub+ articles then that is also an improvement in my view. SpinningSpark 16:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "More pleading for exceptions to the rules"? Au contraire - GA status is a cut-and-dried situation where there is no room for wiki-lawyering.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 16:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Speaking of backlogs, how's GA's going? Much larger than DYK's but all too ready to flood DYK if the barrier preventing them is removed. Hence why GA should get it's own house in order before knocking down another's. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There is a large backlog at GA, but allowing new GAs to be DYKs is not going to "flood" DYK - if you read the statistics being discussed you would realise it would be perhaps several a day, so repeating the same rhetoric is not helpful. If there are problems with it after implementation, then suitable clarifications (limit per set, GAs requiring 2 QPQs, whatever) can then be discussed.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "[R]epeating the same rhetoric is not helpful" – the reason why we're bringing up this valid concern (not rhetoric) is because the only legitimate "stat" we've been provided is that out of the 100 most recent GAs, "about 1/3 would be ineligible." That's pretty vague, and although I'll assume good faith on your part, how do we know that stat wasn't just made up to trump up support for this major reform in DYK? Is there actually any solid evidence (i.e. a link to such stats), or is your word the only thing we can rely on? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well there are other stats below such as promotion rate per day etc... I added that on March 24 after talking to Blue about it - I opened the 100 most recent GAs and scanned them with DYKchecker and 31/100 were not eligible. I'm not sure what you want me to do to verify that, repeat and list each article and its eligibility? I suppose I could do that but it seems unnecessary.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Nah, that won't be necessary. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Gilderien, I don't see you mentioning the periodic backlog reduction projects at GAN, when very large numbers of GAs are passed in very short periods of time. It's been a while since one was done, but the pass rate doubles or trebles or more during these, as I'm quite sure I pointed out last time. (As for your March 24 addition about GAs not requiring as lengthy reviews, you will note that both Crisco and I were extremely skeptical, and I have struck the claim from your list at the head of this RfC, as I consider it to be misleading: longer articles take longer to review properly than shorter ones, and GA reviews can't be relied upon to catch DYK requirements, so proper DYK reviews of typical GAs will generally take longer than those for the typical new article.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I haven't because in calculations of average pass rate, that has included the "drives". Obviously this will lead to periods of more nominations and periods of less, but I'm sure that this can be balanced out and we have the same with normal DYKs due to the cup and the time of year and whatever.--Gilderien Chat|What I've done 23:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Gilderien, you are remarkably sanguine about this; I am less sure than you are in this regard, as well as about some other things resulting from this proposal. Murphy's Law tends to factor itself in... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • @Gilderien – Sorry I didn't make myself more clear. When I said "More pleading for exceptions to the rules," this referred specifically to existing DYK rules (i.e. 5× expansion, etc.), not the GA process. By adding this "fourth" route into DYK, what's stopping others from asking for 4b, 4c (i.e. exemptions) or even a fifth? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, I get you - you are opposing because it could open the door for more and more additions to the rules? I appreciate the point, but think that it is very unlikely: it has taken long enough for this to happen (if it does) and I think consensus would be firmly against any extra changes.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a benefit to showcase improved articles on encyclopedic topics of broader interest that might've been created years ago from substandard sources. The DYK lead-in could read From Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Recent additions|newest]] and [[Wikipedia:Good articles|best articles]]. If at some point GAs outnumber viable new articles, that would just be a sign that the encyclopedia had reached a new level. My main concern—that the GA process is sometimes too lax (I've been told more or less that a GA is supposed to be a "good" article not a good article)—is not an objection to featuring GAs among new DYKs, which are not reviewed to higher standards. I agree with the two comments from First Light about serving readers. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • When I compare the reader's experience for a GA to, say, a C-class article in our assessment criteria, I find it difficult to see why GAs should be excluded in principle. The practical concerns are very valid (will GAN take responsibility for the ground work? will this marginalise traditional DYK candidates? what proportion of GAs and traditional DYKs? what level of recent work will be required for a GA to qualify?), and each and every one would need to be determined before this could be implemented. But I support the main RfC because I have not seen one single argument against the principle of a recently expanded and promoted GA being featured in a DYK-like way. The opposition is valid, but based entirely on practicality. —WFCFL wishlist 22:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes the DYK team, in my experience, seem to find it very difficult to fill up their alloted slot on the home page without including seriously bad articles: ones which show Wikipedia in a terribly bad light. (No, in case its main contributor is watching and worried, I certainly do not include the one I edited today as a bad article!) They also usually manage to include good new articles by first rate editors. Giving them a wider and deeper pool to fish in could only be a good thing —Ian Spackman (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess it depends on your perspective. To me, the message sent by inclusion of more basic articles is that you don't have to be an accomplished writer or have arcane knowledge of wikimarkup etc. in order to contribute a valued new article to wikipedia. That message was already diluted to some extent by the decision to have all content cited, but if all articles on DYK were at or near GA quality, it would be lost entirely. Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Contrary to Ian Spackman's perception, DYK does not select articles for inclusion. Essentially all of the articles that are nominated and determined to meet the inclusion criteria (including compliance with WP core policies) end up with a hook on the main page. Many nominations are rejected for failing to meet various criteria, but there is no "picking and choosing" of only the "best" of the eligible nominated articles. Increasing the number of articles eligible for DYK can be expected to increase either or both the number of hooks in a DYK hook set or the number of daily updates to the feature. --Orlady (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • A couple of points. Firstly, those who think the addition of GAs to DYK will somehow lead to "better, more interesting hooks" are deluding themselves. The quality of an article has absolutely no relationship to the quality of a hook - brilliant articles may scarcely have a hookworthy fact to highlight, while the opposite may be true of poor quality articles. Also, good hook writing - even good hook identification - is a skill that many otherwise accomplished writers seem to lack, so bad hooks continually get proposed and promoted at DYK regardless. Probably the only way to ensure better quality hooks would be to have a DYK directorate giving a small number of experienced reviewers veto powers over hooks and articles lacking a viable hook, but even that would not necessarily lead to noticeably better hook quality overall if only because many new articles just don't have a scintillating fact to highlight in the first place. If hook quality is made paramount over all other considerations, then many very fine articles would have to be failed, and conversely, if article quality (like adding GAs) is made paramount, then proponents will need to resign themselves to some very ordinary hooks. In short, all those who !voted yes for adding GAs to DYK on the basis that it will improve hook quality should go and strike their !votes right now.
  • Secondly, one thing I have noticed about GAs is that the range of topics written about appears to be quite a bit narrower than the range of submissions to DYK - for example, there always seem to be a ton of warship/military history GAs coming down the pipeline. So the addition of GAs is if anything likely to lead to less variety than DYK currently has, which may well become a new cause for complaint.
  • Finally, Gilderian, I really don't think it was appropriate for you to initiate a new RFC on this topic without consultation with the DYK regulars. The best way to deal with an RFC of this type IMO, is to allow both sides to make a summary statement of why they think the change is a good/bad idea, and then to open the RFC. Does everybody !voting in this RFC really have a grasp of all the pros and cons? Somehow I doubt it. Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that you don't either. Eric Corbett 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I dare say I have a better grasp than you, since I've never actually seen your nic at DYK in the six years I've been participating there. But then, I'm not claiming to have thought of all the possible pros and cons. What I'm saying is that a summary of the pros and cons should have been arrived at via discussion before this RFC was opened. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Then you clearly haven't been paying attention and have no grasp at all. Eric Corbett 16:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow, how nice of you to assume good faith. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Gatoclass, unfortunately your whole first paragraph seems to be an unintentional Straw Man. Noone has been arguing that increased article quality will result in better hooks (although you probably could, as larger and more researched articles would probably have more of a chance of turning up an unusual fact) but instead that better hooks will come from articles on more important topics that have already been created and so are unlikely to meet current DYK rules. Therefore it is very likely that including GAs will increase average hook quality, as well as increasing average quality of the articles our readers will see.
On your second point; how will adding more articles reduce our variety? This doesn't really make sense to me.
Finally, although I did not notify you specifically about this, I did mention it in several places. I would class myself as a "DYK regular" but I sought opinions from many others, including BlueMoonset, Dr. Blofeld,Yngvadottir, Prioryman, Tony1 and others. These and others have made their respective statements on the pros and cons in this section already.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Notifying a handful of people on their talk pages is not an appropriate preparation for an RFC of this scope. The place to discuss issues of significance to DYK is the DYK talk page. I went to bed one night and woke up the next morning to find this RFC with about 150 signatures already added. In spite of the fact that the last RFC was malformed, you have gone ahead and made exactly the same errors this time. Every major RFC I've ever seen has had a "pro and con" section preceding it, so that !voters are properly informed of the issues before they !vote, you have violated that principle yet again.
how will adding more articles reduce our variety?
As Orlady pointed out, apart from exceptional circumstances, all eligible DYK nominations eventually get promoted, so if there's a preponderance of articles on one particular topic at GA, that will come to be reflected at DYK. Having said that, after browsing the current GAN list, I don't see too much of an imbalance in topics so this may be less of a concern than I anticipated. In fact, I would say the current list looks pretty similar in scope to the current DYK list.
Will the addition of GAs to DYK improve the overall quality of DYK articles? Theoretically it should - although many of our contributors eventually take their nominations on to GA in any case. It's not going to have the kind of impact on DYK hook or article quality that many !voters here appear to be anticipating however - not without substantial changes to the way DYK is run, and past polls have shown that contributors simply don't want to change the existing criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What we are having here, in effect, is a WikiProject (DYK) being forced to alter its scope through an RfC. I don't recall ever having seen anything like this before (other than Gilderien's previous efforts, of course). I thought WikiProjects had autonomy over their own scope? What is stop DYK WikiProject members from holding their own vote and rejecting this one? Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This is an excellent point and needs to be bolded/highlighted/emphasized/etc. Taken directly form WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN: "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project..." I believe this renders this RfC moot.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Who's a "DYK WikiProject member", though? There is a list of names at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK participants which says "Any editor may volunteer and assist with DYK, simply by contributing to the department operations." It's clearly not an exhaustive list of those with an interest comment - neither you or I or William are on it, and we have well over two hundred DYKs between us! It's hard to get a clear figure of DYK-active editors, but there are literally thousands who've edited that page (=nominating an article) in the past three years. It's probably the most heavily used of all our content-assessment processes, the one users are most likely to have engaged with or considered engaging with in some way, and that's showing up in the number of people with opinions about how it should work. I don't believe there are many people in this discussion who don't feel some interest in and connection to the DYK process, and I think it's unlikely that there's a large set of "DYK people" who feel entirely differently and yet haven't commented here. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
William Thweatt, that is in reference to article banners. Hardly relevant...
...that is very disingenuous of you. The words are unambiguous and speak for themselves: "A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project..." That is a fact. That fact was used to justify placing/removing banners but that fact is not limited to banners.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
"if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner" is what it says. As I mentioned in my reply to Prioryman, the community can and will impose their will on individual projects.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Prioryman, the community has in the past altered or shutdown projects. Saying it is being "forced" would be true if I did not see so many DYK regulars in the support column. "What is [to] stop DYK WikiProject members from holding their own vote and rejecting this one?" Nothing, apart from the fact that if this passes and that were to happen, then DYK as a project would be declaring the intent to go against the wishes of the community. It is the community as a whole, not DYK, who have the power to choose what to display goes on the main page, and at the moment it has chosen to delegate some of that power to the DYK project to act on its behalf, just as it has with TFA and OTD and ITN, but it could choose to take back that power very easily. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, a consensus among a large number of editors (such as might be found on this page) should always override that of a smaller group.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • As English Wikipedia becomes more and more complete our DYKs become more and more obscure. This would return major topics to DYK and thus IMO is an excellent idea.Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK has always had a preponderance of obscure topics, because that is what people write about. When I look at the current list of GANs, most of them are likewise on obscure topics. People tend not to write about mainstream topics because they usually require a great deal more research and effort. I'm not sure why mainstream topics would be considered preferable in any case - those pages usually get plenty of hits anyway, and hardly need the additional exposure. Gatoclass (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If this proposal turns out the way that I am hoping (DYK eligibility for newly promoted GAs, but not old GAs), I agree that there would be few "mainstream" articles on DYK. There would be the occasional sprinkling of broader topics in the mix – it's hard to envisage Jefferson Davis, Torchwood, birth control or McLaren making it onto DYK through expansion alone (Benedict XVI is also a current GAN, although would presumably be exempt due to ITN). Having said that, the larger pool that newly promoted GAs would provide should at least ensure a wider variety of topics available at any given time. —WFCFL wishlist 18:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I am very pressed for time right now and will read this more fully later; pardon me if it's been said. If not, I would like to consider the recent GA eligibility to only extend to articles that were DYKs when the were new that have now made GA. This is because my first love and greater support is for DYK. :) John Cline (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Limit the number of GA in each set[edit]

It has been suggested, with some support, that if this passes, a limit on the number of GAs in each set should be imposed.

  • Should there be a limit?

Yes (and what should it be?)[edit]

  1. Two, I think; we should still focus on the new content. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Nominations permitting, I think effort should be made to represent new articles more than GAs. Though that might not really be a problem as there are usually less GAs passing than there are new articles. It's probably just a matter of applying that bit of subjectivity we already do when assembling new DYK sets for the main page in order to prevent swamping a set with all-GAs. -  OBSIDIANSOUL 23:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. None or one Royalbroil 02:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. We mustn't let GA railroad over DYK, I'd say one or none too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. One, in a clearly marked separate box. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. I agree with User:Piotrus above: One, in a clearly marked separate box. -- cyclopiaspeak! 14:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. Weak support for no more than half of any given set of DYKs being GAs, because I do worry a bit that the effect could be inflationary and increased numbers of GAs could inflate the criteria for all DYKs. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. The Good Article must not be a former Featured Article. If that doesn't work, the Good Article should not have been Today's Featured Article in the past. For example, Lindsay Lohan. --George Ho (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  9. None, or a maximum of one, clearly marked. Manxruler (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  10. None, or one that is clearly marked and separate (as per Piotrus). —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  11. One and in a dedicated slot if possible. Slowing things down will enable better hooks to be chosen and allow editors to make sure no incorrectly passed articles make it through. AIRcorn (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  12. No more than the slots available for DYKs on the day in question. Ian Spackman (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  13. A maximum of three per day (regardless of whether there are three or four batches in a day) out of concern for the higher level of workload that a GA-re-review would entail, and the fear of creating a bottleneck for "traditional" DYK content if the limit were much higher. —WFCFL wishlist 22:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  14. Without a limit the proposal loses a lot of its sensibility. One per batch. Wizardman 02:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  15. It would be useful to know the number of eligible GAs per day before rendering an opinion here. I am guessing there might be talking about 5 or 10 per day. If we are adding 5 or 10 per day, Are we talking about going to a 4 set per day situation. If there are 7 eligible GAs per day, we will probably be moving to 4 sets per day and a max of 2 might be reasonable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  16. Also agree with User:Piotrus that at most it should be one per set in a separate box. AgneCheese/Wine 19:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  17. I support a limit; ideally one per set. If a backlog exist that could not clear by that limit exceeds 4 months I would support increasing it to two per set until the backlog was within four months then returning to one. Regardless of the backlog I would not exceed two per set. :) John Cline (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  18. One per set, and make sure it was expanded.Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 10:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  19. One per set. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  20. One per set. DYK runs too many articles as it is; one of the biggest problems with the process that is any article that meets the bare minimum standards is accepted, clogging up the system with mediocre pages. I'd like to see a more discriminating approach to choosing DYK articles, and that means that not every new GA should appear on DYK, which is what will probably end up happening if no limit is set. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No (limit)[edit]

  1. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Eric Corbett (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. No need to complicate things with another rule. --ELEKHHT 23:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. I think just saying "spread the GAs around" as an instruction for the DYK queues will be enough. First Light (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. The quantity of GAs is so small in comparison to DYK this is never going to be an issue worth worrying about. SpinningSpark 00:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. I agree in spirit with not allowing GAs to dominate DYK, which is primarily about new content, but in practice I think the effect will likely be small enough that it's better not to have a rule for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. Per David and FL, agree that it's a good principle but a statement of intent is probably more appropriate than a firm rule. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  9. I am pretty sure they will not swamp due to numbers going through. A bit like how expanded articles do not swamp new ones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  10. Per Elekhh. Graham87 00:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  11. I doubt there will be a problem with too many GAs flooding DYK. If there is, we can revisit the question at that time. No need for an extra rule right now. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  12. Per Binksternet. Mohamed CJ (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  13. per Elekhh and Spinningspark. Begoontalk 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  14. I like this idea in principle, but I am registering opposition because I don't think it would be workable in practice. See "discussion" of this item for my reasoning. --Orlady (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  15. The number of GAs promoted is self limiting. Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  16. Don't see a need for a limit, as even if every GA that passed were submitted, that would still only be about one third of the total, so the focus would remain on the "older style" of DYKs. —Torchiest talkedits 03:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  17. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  18. ΛΧΣ21 04:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  19.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  20. The number of new, non-DYKed GAs each day pales in comparison to the number of DYK hooks run. If the rate of new GAs increases as a result of this (which I think would be a huge jump in the right direction for the project), then think about new article:new GA ratios. Adabow (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  21. I agree with First Light that adding a note in the instructions for the DYK queues to "spread the GAs around" should be sufficient to keep them from bunching up too often. Also, perhaps it would be useful to have one slate full of GAs once in a (rare) while, for a special event. - tucoxn\talk 05:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  22. DYKs are often bad, GAs rarely bad and often good. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  23. What DYK needs is greater diversity of content and some editorial control to filter out boring repetition. Restricting the number of GAs is unlikely to help with either problem. ϢereSpielChequers 07:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  24. AFAIK there are only enough GAs for an average of one or two per DYK set anyway, so why bother with a limit? It will only make more work for updaters. Gatoclass (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  25. It'll self regulate as editors submit, review and prepare the DYK listings. Some days will have more than others, some will have none. Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 09:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  26. I see no reason for this. Imposing a formal limit is unnecessary as prep set builders should be able to able balance it anyway and if they forget it's not the end of the world.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  27. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  28. Plarem (User talk) 10:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  29. If this really became a problem it could be considered, but I expect some days to have more, some to have none. Balancing it per day is not useful effort. Dennis Brown |  | WER 11:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  30. I think it'd be better to try it out first and see how it goes in practice. Miyagawa (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  31. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  32. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  33. MER-C 13:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  34. Per Miyagawa. NW (Talk) 13:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  35. Let's minimize the number of rules. The DYK folks will be reasonable I'm sure. Herostratus (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  36. Will be a nightmare to select x GAs and y non-GAs for a DYK queue. Simplify the rules for filling a queue. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  37. --Andreas JN466 19:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  38. Im not in favour of a rule at this stage; common practise will evolve, and we can have another RfC if there are problems determining consensus on what is acceptable. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  39. A meaningless and arbitrary restriction. Kurtis (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  40. The number of GAs is surely self-limiting, but an abundance would be a sign of progress. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  41. From the Good Article Nominations Page, I counted 43 articles passed in the five day period from July 25 0:00 UTC to July 29 23:59 UTC based on GA Bot's edit summaries (though sometimes the bot promotes multiple articles in one edit). As for DYK, with three sets of seven hooks a day over a five day period, 105 slots would be open to DYKs and GAs under this proposal. Even if all the new GAs were nominated for DYK and passed, the average number of GAs per set of DYKs would be three, hardly an overwhelming amount. And Dennis said, we could always set a limit later. Altamel (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  42. Steel 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  43. Why limit the number of higher-quality articles displayed in the DYK slot on the main page? Sasata (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  44. Not needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  45. I don't see any reason for a limit.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  46. --99of9 (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  47. Faizan 03:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  48. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  49. As per Brianann; I don't see why a limit would be necessary. Can you decipher this acronymical code? CYDTAC (Hint: It's really easy!) (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  50. We simply don't promote enough GA's on a daily basis to make the work of a limit worth it. (Even setting aside that many new GA's will never be nominated at DYK.) Courcelles 20:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  51. No need for a formal limit; the flux of GAs is much smaller than the flux of DYK-worthy new articles, and we're quite capable of using common sense each day with each batch. bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  52. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  53. Laser brain (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  54. Unnecessary bureaucracy. Applying common sense should be sufficient, no need for more rules. WaggersTALK 10:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  55. Per SpinningSpark and Dennis Brown. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  56. jonkerz ♠talk 23:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

General Discussion (limit)[edit]

  • One option would be to have all-GA and all-DYK sets in rotation, switching the tagline each time (eg/ "Wikipedia's newest content"; "Wikipedia's newly improved content"). Andrew Gray (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That is actually quite an interesting suggestion, although I would fear that the GA promotion rate wouldn't be enough to sustain this unless it was only a set a day or less frequently.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, "newly improved" is frequently inaccurate: the GA improvements could have been months ago, at the time of nomination; some articles sail through with little in the way of edits. It's newly certified as being at a level, not newly improved to that level. Except during some sort of drive, I doubt there would be enough to fill even a set a day; during a drive, things could get quite messy. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Newly improved is misleading already. Our current backlog stretches back over two months and that is much shorter than it has been at times this year.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    It's only misleading if improvements aren't required during the GA review, and I've certainly never seen a review where they weren't. Eric Corbett 23:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I like this suggestion. If numbers are an issue, we could always do "GA Wednesday" or something. Adabow (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If the proposal passes, it might be worth figuring out some example methods (batching, X hooks per set, as-and-when, etc) and running them for a couple of weeks each to see which is most practical. A set day per week seems unusual, but I think it works out okay for FL. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is quite a neat idea worth experimenting with. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Some stats: Ignoring the effect of de-listings (which is relatively small), Wikipedia:Good article statistics suggests that there are about 7–8 new GAs per day (based on change from 15143 to 17885 articles over last year). This means that if all GAs ran on DYK (ignoring overlap with already-run articles), we would have a supply of 2–4 articles per set (depending on degree of overlap, number of sets per day, etc). Chris857 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I know I can't speak for all GA writers, but 3/4 of my GAs would be ineligible because they had already been on DYK.--Gilderien Chat|Contributions 23:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Judging by the history of Wikipedia:Good articles/recent, I had estimated 5-6 articles a day over the past fortnight, but I guess we're in a summer lull. Once we account for those that have previously been DYK and those that are terminally dull, I think we may be down to two or three a day. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Looking at the same stats, in the year to 1 July 2013 besides the 2,742 new GAs we also had 282,000 new articles, a ratio of 1:100. I find it unrealistic to assume that all eligible GAs will be nominated for DYK. Many editors will not be interested to nominate just as only a small fraction of new articles are nominated. I see no evidence that would warrant this fear of DYK being potentially overrun by GAs. --ELEKHHT 00:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • So far, two people have said they think new content should be favoured. I'm open to having my mind changed so can someone explain to me why new content should be favoured over GA's? I've only done one DYK so I don't know much about how you work here. Do you generally favour new articles over 5x articles when promoting them to the front page? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • As a prep set promoter and reviewer, I can say I have noticed no difference in the way new articles, 5xs expansions and 2xs BLPs are treated.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Comment: A 5x expansion has always been considered "new content" because it is at least 80% new content. (Also, when a previously unreferenced BLP is given reference citations and is expanded by 2x or more, it's reasonable to consider it new content. However, I haven't seen one of those in a long time because the unsourced BLP backlog was eliminated.) --Orlady (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Cheers Orlady. Can you explain the rationale behind favouring new content over GA's? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
DYK has always been for new content. That's why the lead-in on the main page says "From Wikipedia's newest content". As I see it, FA celebrates some of Wikipedia's best content (showing the world some high quality articles and encouraging contributors to contribute work of similar quality), while DYK celebrates some of the newest work that may still be a bit rough around the edges (showing the world that the encyclopedia continues to grow, displaying the diversity of the new content, and possibly enticing people to contribute by expanding or improving those new articles). While FA is "best" and DYK is "newest", there are no superlative adjectives to characterize GA. --Orlady (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Why I don't think this would work in practice:
DYK is a high-throughput operation, posting between 14 and 36 hooks (some of which are based on multiple articles) to the main-page feature daily (number of DYKs can vary, depending on the flow of new nominations; we post two to four sets of hooks daily, with 6 to 9 hooks in a set). This means that there's not a lot of time for thoughtful deliberation on the specific content of a particular set of hooks, which may contain somewhere between 6 and 9 hooks. We contributors who assemble hook sets and we admins who review and approve assembled hook sets for the main page often are challenged to ensure (or try to ensure) that each set has a reasonable balance of topics and geographies and hook lengths, an image that is interesting and appropriately licensed, and an absence of other issues. Those attributes can be reviewed fairly quickly by looking at the hook set, but determining whether a hook set has the right quota of new articles and GAs would require delving into article histories. Also, adding this requirement would make it harder to maintain balance of topics, hook length, etc. --Orlady (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't like the idea of restricting the number of GA hooks. Lets not strain the preping and approving admins for such a trivial thing. Nothing would go drastically wrong if no GA hook appears or if all GA hooks appear in a set. Basically, if we consider readers and readers only, i don't think they even notice if the article is GA/FA or what. Its only in our editor's world. So no restriction is good. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Just as the current guidelines recommend limits for types of hooks within a single set—bios and US hooks should never be more than half of the hooks, other countries and subjects should be even less frequent—I imagine that a similar "not more than half" would be easy enough to include in the guidelines. Obviously, if there are only eight or nine approved hooks and most are bios, or US articles, or recent GAs, then you work with what's available, but it should usually be easy enough to balance the sets. Unlike the other categories, where we try to alternate types and locations of hooks, I don't think it matters whether GA hooks are adjacent in the sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In answer to Tony, daily GA promotion rate is 5-10 depending on time of year. Around 1/4 to 1/3 of those have been DYK before, so it might be as low as 3 eligible articles/day and probably not much more than 6. Not every eligible GA will be nominated for DYK, for various reasons (much as not every new article is nominated for DYK), so it might be lower in practice. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • You could have a bot or a tracking category that marks new GAs that have never been DYKs and puts them in a category as they are promoted. All new GAs could get on the main page that way. I use this at WP:FOUR for all new FAs that have been DYKs or GAs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Consider GAs only if they were expanded recently (in association with the GA review)[edit]

In the earlier GA, I stated that I would support DYK eligibility for new GAs if this eligibility were limited to articles that were substantially expanded (but less than 5x) shortly before they were nominated for GA. For the sake of discussion, I suggest a 2x expansion threshold. That is, new GAs could be considered for DYK if they had a 2x expansion in prose size (measured according to the standard DYK protocols) during the time period beginning 5 days before the GA nomination. This would allow DYK to accept nominations for articles that had substantial expansions in content (and thus could still be claimed to be "new" content), but it wouldn't give DYK eligibility to "old" articles that received other types of improvements (such as addition of images and reformatting of citations) in order to qualify for GA status. --Orlady (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes (expanded only)[edit]

  1. Support as proposer. --Orlady (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. To avoid dilution of DYK with non-expanded articles. If all an article needed was polishing and referencing, GA is all the recognition it needs. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. If this goes through, some newness should still be required. Manxruler (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Agreed. To maintain the spirit and purpose of DYK there should be at least some newness. Otherwise, what is the point? AgneCheese/Wine 19:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No (expanded only)[edit]

  1. No, the point is to feature strong and interesting articles that have recently been promoted. There should not be additional requirements and thresholds. Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. No, we're trying to provide educational articles to our readers. What difference does it make whether the article was expanded if it advances the goal of providing educational content? This seems like an arbitrary requirement at odds with the goals of making Wikipedia a serious reference work. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. No, and mostly because articles are not expanded at GAN, but polished and verified. Any article that comes to GAN and needs to be expanded will obviously be failed under the 3a point of the GA criteria. — ΛΧΣ21 04:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. No. Why penalise editors who have to wait a month for a library book, or who diligently work up an article over six or twelve months? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  5.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. Usually the article is expanded significantly for the GA nom. In any case that's irrelevant; the "addition/newness" is the quality, which is more important than quantity. Adabow (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. No, per SSilvers et alia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. No. There could be months between the expansion and the review. ϢereSpielChequers 07:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  9. No, per Hahc21, Ssilvers, WereSpielChequers. Begoontalk 07:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  10. The expansion would be too difficult to measure. GA reviews can sometimes span weeks or months (not including the wait for a reviewer) and in addition the relevant improvements take place prior to the GA nomination. SpinningSpark 08:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  11. No, for the reasons stated above. Eric Corbett 09:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  12. Plarem (User talk) 10:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  13. Gilderien Converse|List of good deeds 10:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  14. Per Ssilvers. No need to fix what isn't broken at this stage. Dennis Brown |  | WER 11:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  15. No per Ssilvers and Spinningspark. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  16. Overcomplicating, I think. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  17. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  18. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  19. no - policing or adjudicating on this would be a nightmare. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  20. Per Dennis Brown NW (Talk) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  21. Per Hahc21. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  22. Per Ssilver: "No, the point is to feature strong and interesting articles that have recently been promoted. There should not be additional requirements and thresholds." Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  23. Per Anthonyhcole. Andreas JN466 19:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  24. Not at this stage, but I do think there is merit in a 2x requirement for GAs, and should be reconsidered if there are problems with the number of GAs being nominated for DYK. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  25. I don't want to put a time limit on the expansion that happens during the build up to GA, but that's what DYK imposes. For 5x expansion of short stubs, it's ok, but for the sort of expansion considered here, maybe more typically doubling of already-healthy-sized articles, forcing a rush job seems like a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  26. What matters is long and nonsensical text with no meaning improvement. --ELEKHHT 03:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  27. This could lead to issues of editors adding extra unneeded text just to make an arbitary expansion limit. AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  28. Nothing good can come out of rushing what's meant to be a Good Article. Altamel (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  29. Steel 21:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  30. I agree with the intention – to prevent "stale" articles from displacing ones that people have recently worked on, but cannot support the proposal as written. A proposal that the GA has to have been promoted recently would get my support, and just might achieve consensus. —WFCFL wishlist 22:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  31. DYK needs a paradigm shift to "new and improved content", instead of just "new or expanded content". Sasata (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  32. To be a GA the article needs to be improved not expanded. To bring many articles to GA requires removing large amounts of poorly sourced content. Quantity over quality is a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  33. --99of9 (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  34. GAs are promoted because they have been improved. DYKs because they have been expanded. "Improved" is much better value for the reader than "expanded". First Light (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  35. We don't need an expansion rule if it is a new GA and has never been exposed on the main page, that is sufficiently new.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  36. Improved ≠ Expanded Kaldari (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  37. As several others have said here, the point is to showcase newly promoted GAs; a healthy expansion of the article is good when it's there, but it's not the primary point of this feature. Can you decipher this acronymical code? CYDTAC (Hint: It's really easy!) (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  38. As per Aircorn, Wilhelmina, :A Quest For Knowledge -- Shudde talk 03:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  39. Harrias talk 06:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  40. As long as it's clear that only new GAs are eligible, I don't think a further restriction is needed. Let me add that new GAs that have already run in DYK should be ruled ineligible, as DYK has rules against articles running multiple times. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
  41. There is nothing intrinsically better about an expansion for GA than a reduction which removes poor text. Some of the best work done on existing articles is judicious trimming for relevance and reading flow. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

General discussion (of a minimum expansion threshold)[edit]

  • This scheme would be similar to the special protocol that was followed for previously unreferenced BLPs. --Orlady (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Though does this really relate to "newness" when GA nominations can take weeks, if not months, before someone passes them? Because it would be after that that they would submit the GA to the updated DYK process. SilverserenC 02:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The situation wouldn't be much different than the current situation at DYK. It can also take weeks -- and sometimes months -- for some DYK nominations to complete the DYK review process. If newly approved GAs have been properly vetted in the GA process, they shouldn't need to linger long at DYK before being approved and published on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have !voted no to this, it would just be too difficult to assess the expansion. How is this to be measured? From the start of GA review? From GA submission? Neither of those are really suitable as the relevant improvements may well have been made prior to GA submsission over a fairly lengthy period. However, I do see that there are potential problems. It does occasionally happen that we get "drive by" nominations of articles at GA. That is, the nominator has had nothing to do with the article and, as will usually be discovered fairly quickly by the reviewer, has no intention of actually doing any work on it. It is does happen that an article is passed by the GA reviewer with no significant changes requested. I cannot recall a single example of both of these happening in the same review so possibly this is a non-problem, but if it were to occur I would be very dubious about passing such an article for DYK. The standard of reviewing at GA can be very variable and only a single reviewer is required. I think the DYK reviewer should be entitled to reject a GA for DYK on the grounds that it is "insufficiently reviewed" where the DYK reviewer feels the article quality is below standard and the GA review was merely cursory. Perhaps something could be mentioned in the reviewer guidelines on this. SpinningSpark 09:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    A GA that stumbles at DYK except for trivial or purely procedural reasons such as the one citation per paragraph rule arguably ought not to be a GA at all. Eric Corbett 17:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I'd agree - if a competently passed GA failed any of the DYK requirements other than timeliness I'd be concerned. It certainly sometimes happen that there are flawed GA reviews, but there are equally flawed DYK passes, so I don't think this is a GA-specific issue! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I can't recall the particulars right now, but I've seen GAs fail at DYK because the hook facts -- and, indeed, a lot of the article content -- failed verification. The articles had quickly passed GA, but apparently the GA reviewer had not checked for evidence that the content was valid. (That's not a criterion highlighted on the GA checklists -- supporting my impression that some GA approvals are more about appearances than contents.) --Orlady (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I think that falls into the class of "bad review". Trying to do more to support good-quality GA reviewing is certainly something we should also be looking at, but here is perhaps not the best place for it :-). Andrew Gray (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Regarding Spinningspark's comment about the difficulty of measuring the expansion, that kind of measurement is done routinely as part of the current DYK review process for recently expanded articles. It wouldn't be particularly difficult to measure for new GAs. My proposal indicates that eligibility should be limited to articles that were expanded 2x after an arbitrary starting date related to their GA review (I proposed 5 days before the GA nomination as that arbitrary starting date, to be consistent with current DYK protocol). --Orlady (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Most GAs are written/expanded over a much longer period. That's why an "expansion test" would be so difficult to apply. SpinningSpark 23:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Reasonable people can create reasonable criteria, I trust this will happen. For me, and I have said I prefer tying the GA to an article that was dyk'ed when new and the focus is on how it came from that DYK to the GA it now is. I would link the original DYK with a permanent link for easy comparison. :) John Cline (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Create a separate Main Page slot for GAs[edit]

Concept for how this would appear

Unfortunately, as with his previous proposal on this subject, Gilderien has again failed to address a key issue: why are GAs being wedged into the DYK slot when GAs are clearly a different category of content? It would make much more sense for GAs to either have their own slot or to be associated with Featured Articles. As the first of two alternatives, I am proposing here that a separate Main Page slot ("Newly listed Good Articles"), immediately under the daily Featured Article, should be created. It would list a small number (up to 3?) GAs, selected from Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. See also #Combine GAs with Featured Article slot for an alternative proposal.

Yes (separate slot)[edit]

  1. As proposer. Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. The best way that satisfies both sides. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. I don't get why this isn't just apparent as being the best option. Having all processes on the front page makes sense. I never understood why GAs weren't given their own section in the first place. SilverserenC 08:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. --William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC) -- per my comments above, makes much more sense than including GAs in DYK. An obvious no-brainer imho.
  5. Warden (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. This works well on pl wiki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. Makes a lot of sense. -- cyclopiaspeak! 14:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  9. Could be addressed later in more dept, but I think good articles deserve to have their own slot in the main page.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  10. Sure, but not so much so that it should overrule (possible) consensus for GAs to be included in DYK. GAs having their own section would be nice, but DYK's focus on things that are newly [written|expanded|promoted] is just as valuable as the focus on "this thing has been like this for ages, but today we want to show you it" that TFA and (potentially) TGA have. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  11. Possibly. I know that some other language Wikipedias are already doing this. (eg. zh:) Deryck C. 16:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  12. Echo with User:Piotrus. It works on es, ja, it, zh wiki too. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  13. Good compromise. —Bloom6132 (talk)
  14. This would also work and potentially be easier to manage from the Good article community end (I still support having them associated with DYK if this does not gain consensus). AIRcorn (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  15. --99of9 (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  16. Faizan 03:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  17. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  18. This would be good. In the future it will happen. Why not now? Maybe pair this with the return of WP:TAFI.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  19. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  20. QatarStarsLeague-Per TonyTheTiger.

No (separate slot)[edit]

  1. Connor Behan (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. And I'm rather disappointed that Prioryman decided to essentially repeat Gilderien's RfC notifications to advertise his new section. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    A large number of people have already commented. They won't necessarily be watching this page, so a fresh notification seems the fairest way of ensuring that it comes to their attention. Prioryman (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I posted on your talk page page before seeing this. I still think that it's just additional spam, but others may think differently. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Begoontalk 08:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. SpinningSpark 08:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. The main page is already too cluttered. Eric Corbett {talk) 09:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. This would either unbalance the main page (and clutter it in any case) or take space away from TFA, which I would be reticent to support.--Gilderien Talk to me|List of good deeds 09:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. Plarem (User talk) 10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. Adabow (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  9. Per Eric. This doesn't fix any problem and creates a new one. Dennis Brown |  | WER 11:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  10. See below -  OBSIDIANSOUL
  11. Too much clutter, and unnecessary if proposal #1 passes -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  12. To the reader, this is going to be very confusing (two similar sections with thematically unconnected short hooks). Without familiarity with our internal processes, there won't be much to distinguish them and it'll serve to lessen both. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  13. Not at this time. Better to be considered in any overall Main Page design talks. Miyagawa (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  14. As I have said in previous iterations of this beating-the-horse perennial proposal, GA is an encyclopedia-internal designation that means little to nothing for most readers. Unless someone has empirical data that readers understand what GA signifies as much as they understand what FA does (admittedly, not much), then I don't see how this proposal would benefit readers; it looks like a fairly transparent cry for attention for the sake of editors who write GAs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  15. No - mainpage does not need more sections on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  16. No. There is enough on the main page already. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  17. No need for this I don't think. If desired, the DYK folks could could do some light separation, such as keeping them them separate with a line between them or something. Herostratus (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  18. Lets redesign the Main Page first, shall we? — ΛΧΣ21 17:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Let's not get there so fast, since main page overhaul has a greater tendency of reaching "no consensus" or stalled when too many options are presented at once. Work on small parts first then get to the bigger stuff. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  19. Per Eric et al. Andreas JN466 19:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  20. Not the point of this RfC; plus, doing this would make the Main Page even more of a camel than it is already. NW (Talk) 19:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  21. No. GAs aren't "special" in the same way that FAs and FLs are, as they aren't subject to nearly the same degree of review, but a special section for GAs would give the impression that they are more fully vetted than they are. --Orlady (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  22. Per Orlady, pretty much. Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  23. per Cas, Orlady, etc, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  24. Per Dennis Brown. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  25. The main page is already heavily overloaded. If anything it could replace the astrologist trivia section, but that would be a different proposal. --ELEKHHT 02:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  26. Firstly, I don't think GA makes a strong enough case for a stand-alone section (compared with featured articles, featured lists, featured pictures showcasing the absolute pinnacle of our content, ITN and OTD dedicated to the timely and topical, and DYK intended to showcase the interesting). The argument for GA's on the main page are that they are too good to sideline, and therefore the question has always been how do we incorporate them somewhere, DYK being the obvious candidate. If the GA element of DYK does not provide the necessary amount of content, that section will run perfectly fine the old way. On the other hand, we have seen in the past with Today's Featured Picture, TAFI and even Today's Featured Article how noticeable it is when nobody bothers to update a section, even if it's less than an hour or so. —WFCFL wishlist 22:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  27. Seems somewhat arbitrary to me. Adds complication, both for users and editors, without any real benefit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  28. No (per Orlady). Sasata (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  29. Fits nicely into DYK. Does not need a separate slot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  30. Wouldn't mind a general GA section, but not "Newly listed GAs", and not directly below the FA slot. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  31. There are already too many slots on the main page. The recent failed attempt to add TAFI to the main page showed that, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  32. Too crowded. Typing General (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  33. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  34. Per lots, there is too much already. Harrias talk 06:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  35. Per Andrew Gray. Babakathy (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  36. It might add to the confusion. Already there are many. - Jayadevp13 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  37. I understand the rationale behind the suggestion but we need the main page to be clean and uncluttered. WaggersTALK 10:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  38. Combine DYK and new GA in same DYK slot. The Main Page is already full, almost too busy with sections. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

General discussion (separate slot)[edit]

I've noticed that those opposing giving GA it's own section haven't given a reason why it shouldn't have it's own section. And I wonder why. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for leaving you wondering... I oppose it because what I support is the expansion of DYK inclusion criteria to include GAs, in the same hook format as, and alongside the articles which currently qualify, and the consequent increase in quality to that section. I do not support another section in an already overloaded page format, presumably necessitating an additional selection procedure to be established and maintained.
Incidentally, I don't fully follow your own "support" reasoning, since I'm not sure what the "sides" you refer to are, or why it should "satisfy" them. I read it as a different proposal, which some people might prefer, and voted "No" because I don't prefer or support it. Begoontalk 08:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to the sides that want to force GA into DYK, and those who want to keep the status quo. The reasoning is that people who want GA in DYK do it because there is nothing for GA on the front page. Having a separate section gives GA the exposure that some people on GA crave and it also protects DYK from being diminished with GAs muscling in. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok, then if you read my comment above you'll see I'm on neither of those "sides" which you describe, which is probably why I didn't follow the reduction. Thanks for explaining. Begoontalk 09:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

GA should not have its own slot. There is a chasm of difference between the quality of GA and FA articles. To give GA its own slot would be to give it the same prominence as the Featured Article which it really does not deserve and would detract from the FA. Besides which the front page is already too busy, but no one has the guts to have something removed. SpinningSpark 09:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  • GA is not the best stuff we have as FA is. Hence there is no need to have a separate section for it. The articles are nevertheless good and should be presented to readers. And given the current format, DYK is the only section where these can be presented. Also, as GA isn't FA, one might come up with a proposal for separately exhibiting A-class or B-class articles and there is no way that is happening. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No, but more of a neutral really. I don't really care much how GAs get to the front page, as long as it gets there. The problem I see with separate slots (although it has its appeal) is that the main page is already cluttered as it is (that alone can kill this entire effort, leaving GAs gathering dust in the corner). And the time it would take to build the rules and architecture for a separate process would probably require another dozen RfCs before we agree on anything (again leaving GAs gathering dust). We already have a robust and popular process that can deal with it easily. One that has been featuring GAs for quite some time now (or at least proto-GAs). I don't think we need more at this point. At least not yet.
Maybe creating a separate slot will be necessary in the future, but for now, what's wrong with playing it by ear? Merging it with DYK would be a good enough trial run. One that doesn't really have any downsides except for the triviliaty that it's not exactly a "new article" anymore. But then again, it never was anyway. Most of the articles in DYK take a few days to a few weeks on average before they get featured.
The section itself begins with "Did you know..." and that phrase does not really require that the succeeding articles be new. Just that they be interesting.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 11:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
A point that many seem to be missing. This obsession with newly created content may possibly have been justified back in the day, but it's no longer serving our readers well. Eric Corbett 17:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There's a possibility I floated above to bundle the GA hooks and rotate them with normal DYK content - ie, in the same physical location, but some "new" and some "improved". It might be an interesting compromise with this approach; same effect without the need for redesigning the page. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, if GAs are to be allowed into any section, it makes the most sense to allow it into DYK - the "hook" format would allow an easy and painless way of getting Good Articles onto the main page, and our review process allows additional oversight onto what goes on to the main page. I cannot see a feasible way of adding GAs to any other section currently on the main page, and adding another section would firstly unbalance the page and secondly also be out of sight of the typical monitor screen, as well as probably not being sustainable without having only a small section and repeating items that had already been a DYK or ITN - I don't think small sections would draw the eye of the reader enough (TAFI) and probably wouldn't be flexible enough to deal with a changing workload, as DYK is. Furthermore, whilst there have been calls for a section to be replaced to allow a GA section, I cannot really see any section being removed (the inertia with editors involved being the main stumbling block) except for possibly DYK, which obviously most of us would not want. The idea that sections could be alternated is an intriging one, although with the FA promotion rate ticking along at more than one a day I cannot imagine the TFA section would agree to it. Likewise, OTD and ITN are topical and so having an alternating section with them would probably prove incredibly unpopular.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised that there hasn't been more thought given to what a GA section might look like on the main page if it had its own. Would it have to be a daily slot? Might it rotate with others (such as the once-a-week Featured List)? Since Good Articles are not up to the caliber of Featured Articles, showing less of the article would seem appropriate, as would taking less room for it—should perhaps a few of them show at once? Perhaps the contents could switch more than once in a 24 hour period? If GA had its own section, it could show some of the better GAs promoted in past years; by restricting GA eligibility to the five days following promotion for DYK, no GAs that now exist can ever be highlighted. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have read and tried to understand this, and still do not have a bit of understanding of this discussion!

Combine GAs with Featured Article slot[edit]

Concept for this proposal

As noted above, GAs are clearly a different category of content from DYKs and there is no obvious explanation of why they should be wedged together. They would seem to me to go much more naturally with featured articles. As an alternative to the proposal immediately above, I propose that the "From today's featured article" slot should be renamed "Today's featured and good articles", with a long content area - including an image - for FA blurbs and a shorter image-less content area below for GAs. It would list a small number (up to 3?) GAs, selected from Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. See also #Create a separate Main Page slot for GAs slot for an alternative proposal.

Yes (combine with FA)[edit]

  1. As proposer. Prioryman (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No (combine with FA)[edit]

  1. Connor Behan (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. Begoontalk 08:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely not, there is a chasm of difference between the quality of GAs and FAs. SpinningSpark 09:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. Exactly per Spinningspark. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. Spinningspark hit the nail on the head. This would diminish both the front page and the FAs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. Plarem (User talk) 10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. Per my above rationale.--Gilderien Berate|List of good deeds 10:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  9. Same as above, it is already too cluttered. Dennis Brown |  | WER 11:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  10. Per the above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  11. Quality aside, the FA slot is fundamentally for a single article (with very rare exceptions); the DYK slot is already used for multiple unrelated articles. It would look confusing to move additional unrelated short article links into the FA section. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  12. Leave FAs alone. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  13. Rigour of FA process much greater than GA or DYK and ensures our best content takes pride of place. There is a queue as is with some FAs never likely to be mainpaged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  14. No way!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  15. This would lower the general standard of our main page featured articles. The first proposal in this RFC would raise the general standard of our DYK articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  16. No thanks. Herostratus (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  17. ΛΧΣ21 17:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  18. As per Anthonyhcole. Eric Corbett 19:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  19. --Andreas JN466 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  20. NW (Talk) 19:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  21. Most definitely no. GAs aren't aren't subject to nearly the same degree of quality assurance review as FAs. Including them in the FA section would give the wrong message. --Orlady (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  22. No way! John Vandenberg (chat) 22:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  23. Don't get me wrong: I love the GA movement, but TFA is for a single article of near-perfection. Short, unrelated lists fit better for DYK. Adabow (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  24. As above. J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  25. Ridiculous A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  26. FAs are light years ahead of GAs in terms of quality, thoroughness, etc. Keep them separate. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  27. FAs are of a much higher standard and deserve to have the spot to themselves. AIRcorn (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  28. How absurd. – Steel 21:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  29. No. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  30. No FA requires a greater peer review which should be maintained for that much space on the main page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  31. No way, GAs shouldn't be coupled with FAs. It's a quality thing.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  32. Ridiculous. Wizardman 00:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  33. Nope, there is often a vast difference in quality between the two. GA is usually only reviewed by one person, who could subject it to any varying quality review. ceranthor 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  34. --99of9 (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  35. Faizan 03:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  36. Complete non-starter. FAs highlight the best Wikipedia has to offer, and we should have that on the main page at all times. GAs aren't in the same league. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  37. FAs are the highest quality articles on Wikipedia. They should stand by themselves. First Light (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  38. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  39. Featured articles are generally ensured to be the encyclopedia's best content, while good articles may be of some quality, but it does not amount to that of featured articles. They should stand by themselves, and besides, the main page is already clustered. TBrandley (TCB) 04:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  40. That would not improve the main page. Combining with DYK or adding separately improves the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  41. Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  42. The best of content (FA) can't be mixed with semi-best (GA), but GA can be mixed with the less than semi-best (DYK). SL93 (talk) 03:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  43. No way. This is not a proposal that should even presume a right to alter FA content main page presentations. :) John Cline (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  44. Wikiwayman (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  45. Good God no, per SpinningSpark. Harrias talk 06:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  46. Not at all a good idea. Both are different class of articles. - Jayadevp13 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  47. Do not subtract from the glory of reaching FA or FL. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

General discussion (combine with FA)[edit]

  • An article featured on the main page is by definition a featured article. We could start accepting GAs for this but all it would amount to is lowering the standards of FAs. Connor Behan (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Nice job on the art. But this is exactly what I was suggesting against: "featuring" articles that are of a slightly lower quality than FAs (and in the process changing the operational definition of the word "featured" to something more abstract).Connor Behan (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposing a separate section or a seemingly separate section in this RfC is going to be messy. Why not take this out to a different RfC? It sort of deals with whole Main Page layout and i don't think its appropriate to discuss that here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Spinningspark has it. A GA does not approach an FA for quality of content or consistency of review. Aside from adding more clutter to an already overloaded main page layout, that is reason enough to oppose this. Begoontalk 10:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I actually don't see any reason why FAs shouldn't be included in DYK as well, but I'm guessing that would be a step too far for many. Eric Corbett 17:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it's mostly because FAs will appear under TFA at some point, and therefore they'll get their "time-to-shine", so to speak; whilst GAs don't get this. That's not to say I disagree with you entirely; it's just why people would object to that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
FAs and GAs get to display a little mark of distinction (e.g., Symbol support vote.svg) 24/7, possibly forever. That's arguably a whole lot more positive exposure than DYK hooks ever get. They typically appear on the main page for only 8 hours. --Orlady (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • But the emphasis ought to be on our readers, not our editors; the time to reward editors for writing a barely minimal stub is surely far in the past. Why not focus on interesting hooks, as opposed to whatever boring stuff you can cook up based on recently written ... stuff? Eric Corbett 21:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I like this idea. However, considering how many DYK hooks are run each day, I think we would soon run out of FAs (assuming we only run each article once max). Adabow (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree with Eric Corbett. We should focus on interesting hooks. Most of the DYK hooks are uninteresting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
If we increase the scope of DYKs to include GAs, then we can have the privilege of rejecting more hook for their mediocrity. If less options are available, we naturally tend to let go so-so hooks. Recently we had to bring down 3 sets to 2 sets per day. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, rejection for "mediocrity" would instantly eliminate many of the articles about topics from outside the countries where English is most people's first language -- because articles about topics related to other parts of the world often are fairly rough, due to either their creators' limited English ability or their creators' limited understanding of non-English sources. It also could eliminate many contributions from newbies, who may be contributing content about an under-represented topic, but have not yet mastered all the niceties of article formats, linking, etc. Additionally, most of the time when someone suggests that DYK should be more selective, their concern is about topics that they personally don't find interesting. The consistent DYK position is that we avoid subjective judgments about interest -- one person's lack of interest in a particular topic (be it warships, mushrooms, Bollywood films, New Zealand politics, hockey, or any of the myriad topics that draw complaints of "uninteresting") does not mean that no one would be interested in the topic. (Similarly, the fact that images and hooks that allude to sex draw more hits does not mean that DYK should limit itself to those kinds of content.) --Orlady (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. The issue isn't the mediocrity of the articles, it's the utter banality of the so-called hooks. Eric Corbett 21:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
And adding GAs to DYK is going to fix that problem how exactly? Gatoclass (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
It increases the pool of articles that can get a hook. So if someone was inclined they could think of a good hook and then improve the article related to that hook to get it on the main page. Currently this is limited because the article may already exisit. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • While I am against anything that alters the manner of FA main page presentations, I am not against including FA with GA article improvements in the DYK slot. As I also earlier said I prefer this to mean articles that were DYKs when new that have made GA and for that matter FA. :) John Cline (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarify that copyvio/close paraphrasing check is mandatory to the GAN process[edit]

If DYK is going to include GAs, then it must be made clear that a WP:COPYVIO/WP:PARAPHRASE check is an essential part of the GA criteria, by adding the criterion to the GA review templates as a separate item in the template checklists, in addition to placing a clearer emphasis on the issue in the GAN general instructions. This is necessary not only because GANs should always be checked for these issues anyway, but because regular DYK reviewers are already struggling with the existing workload at DYK and will need more support if GAs become eligible for DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes (copyvio check)[edit]

  1. As proposer. Gatoclass (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. A no-brainer. GAs should be held to the same standard if they are to appear in the same slot. Prioryman (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. Make it explicit, even if some reviewers do check, a lot don't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. Incredibly obvious, should be in GA already - and in every review process. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  6. I think just adding it to the checklist templates would be sufficient. Miyagawa (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  7. Yes, it's already in WIAGA but we need to ensure that reviewers check for these things and a prompt in the review form will certainly help. MER-C 13:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  8. Makes sense; criterion 1a has always seemed to me a little too busy, and making a "1c" for copyright would parallel the structure of 6a and 6b (images and copyright). I'd suggest that if this RfC section "passes", though, this be taken up in more detail at a forum like WT:GAN or WT:GA? to hammer out the exact language before amending. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I'm fine with that. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  9. Yes OK. There's no harm in clarifying and underscoring that this an operative standard. Herostratus (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  10. Although it's already included in the criteria, it needs to be made absolutely clear to reviewers that they are expected to perform a copyvio check. Clearer than now anyway. Hut 8.5 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Wholeheartedly agree. — ΛΧΣ21 17:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, this is already in the GA criteria. — ΛΧΣ21 17:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  11. Seems reasonable, independent of this RfC. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  12. I guess it wouldn't hurt to remove from 1a and stipulate it as 1c, or even its own criterion. Adabow (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  13. Spotchecks also necessary to see if the source actually supports the material in the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  14. I don't see this as essential to the GA-DYK proposal (since the check will/should happen at DYK review time anyway) but in any case it seems like a good idea as part of the GA process. We still have big problems with plagiarism and close paraphrasing, especially in areas like GA and DYK where editors get credit for productivity and are incentivized to cheat, so more checks against that should help. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  15. Of course as it is now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  16. Faizan 03:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  17. --Allen3 talk 11:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  18. This should happen especially since it's already included in the GA criteria. - tucoxn\talk 08:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  19. Quadell (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  20. Bloom6132 (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  21. As it is now. – SJ + 21:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  22. Can't hurt to emphasize this point. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No (copyvio check)[edit]

  1. It's already in there (see WP:GA?#1a). What, exactly, would you like added/changed? Adabow (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  2. WP:WIAGA should stay the way it is, and as above. – Plarem (User talk) 10:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  3. It's already there. I'm unclear what this RfC proposes to change. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  4. No, it's already included. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  5. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  6. Changes (if any) to the GA progress should not be imposed by DYK as a result of discussions at DYK. If they are needed, they should be discussed at GA and agreed there. Pyrotec (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  7. This is the wrong venue, and furthermore seems to be superfluous. And also this proposal is completely irrelevant to the rest of this RfC, since DYK reviewers should still check for copyvios themselves as part of the review process, regardless of whether they can AGF that it has been checked in the past.--Gilderien Talk to me|List of good deeds 22:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    Adding an explicit copyvio/close paraphrase check to GAN is the appropriate thing to do in any case. Leave a comment below saying you think this proposal is irrelevant to the RFC if you must, but !voting against it on such grounds is just plain irrational. Gatoclass (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  8. Per Gilderien. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  9. Redundant per Plarem. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  10. "If copyright infringements are found in a nominated article then it can be failed without further review". That is in addition to 1a where it is spelt out again with wikilinks. How much clearer can the emphasis be. By all means add it to the templates, they are there to assist reviewers and in no way are part of the criteria, but the wording of the WP:GACR is sufficient. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    It says "if copyright infringements are found", but it doesn't say a reviewer is required to look for them as part of the review process. So I think the wording could still use some tightening. But I'm glad you agree the criterion should be added to the templates, because that is my principal concern, and I therefore consider this to be a de facto "yes" !vote. Gatoclass (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
    1a tells the reviewer to look for them as the numbered criteria are required as part of the review process. It used to be a quickfail criteria, but because copyright violations are predominatley found during the review the wording was changed to what I linked. My !vote is what it is. You asked two questions, I disagree with one but am ambivalent about the other. I don't think anyone will revert you if you add this to the templates now and I am sure the closer will close this along those lines anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion (copyvio check)[edit]

  • The check is already there: Criteria 1(a) is "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;" (my emphasis). --ELEKHHT 09:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes copyvio gets a passing mention there, but it isn't in most of the template checklists, which is what most people use when reviewing GANs. Also, AFAICT there is no mention of WP:PARAPHRASE anywhere in the GAN process. Checking for copyvio/close paraphrasing needs to be given full emphasis and it needs to be clear from the templates that the check is mandatory, just like all the other criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Whether it's in a template list or not is completely irrelevant. Many GA reviewers (most?), including myself, don't use those templates anyway. Eric Corbett 09:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:PARAPHRASE is an essay that supports WP:COPYVIO (the policy that is part of GA criteria) and is prominently linked to that. Checklists are only tools that help reviewers if they use them. You can add your own or suggest changes to the existing ones. --ELEKHHT 09:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This RfC seems poorly framed. The copyvio check is clearly stated in both the criteria and the template I use (Template:GATable). Could we make this more specific about what changes you want, and more accurate in its opening statement? The proposal to "Add a mandatory copyvio/close paraphrasing check to the GAN process" is extremely misleading to commenters when such a check is already mandatory. Is anybody clear on what is actually being proposed here? Maybe specific language ("replace X with Y") would help. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is one GA template out of the seven that are available to GA reviewers that mentions copyright - the other six don't mention it as a criteria at all. And even the one that does (Template:GATable) only makes a passing reference to "respecting copyright laws" within a longer criterion covering prose clarity, conciseness, grammar and spelling. What I am proposing is that all GA nom templates include a criterion for copyvio/close paraphrasing, listed as a separate item in the checklist so that reviewers must confirm that the article has been checked specifically for that criterion. As it stands, users can pass a GAN without addressing the issue at all, which is hardly desirable under a GA process, let alone for articles proposed for mainpage exposure.
In short, it should be made unambiguously clear to GA nominators and reviewers alike that an article must be checked and passed for copyvio/cp before being promoted to GA status. This will need to be done if GAs are coming to DYK because DYK barely has the resources to manage the existing workload. A GA reviewer already has familiarity with the reviewed article and is in a much better position to run a copyvio/cp check than the regular DYK reviewers who already have responsibility for a large number of nominations. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't you just be explicit about the change you'd like to see to the GA criteria? I don't think what you're saying is unreasonable, but changing the GA criteria doesn't seem like it should be done in haste or without a specific proposal. I agree with you that it's worth repeating the criteria in full on the other templates to avoid misunderstanding, but your proposal seems to go beyond that. Is it fair to summarize your proposal as to unbundle "respects copyright laws" from criterion 1a and make it an independent criterion, explicitly mentioning WP:PARAPHRASE as part of it? I think I'd support that, but I'd like to see the specific language before signing off.
I also think this RfC section should be retitled; there's no sense in which checking for copyright violations is not currently mandatory, so this title's just going to cause confusion. Even the templates you want to change contain links and instructions to look at the full criteria. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it fair to summarize your proposal as to unbundle "respects copyright laws" from criterion 1a and make it an independent criterion, explicitly mentioning WP:PARAPHRASE as part of it? - Yes, that is what I am proposing, together with adding the same criterion to the other templates along with putting a stronger emphasis on the issue in the general instructions.
I am happy to consider alternative wordings for this proposal if you have any in mind. Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I have reworded the proposal in accordance with your comments. Thanks for the suggestions Khazar. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You can make that proposal at GA, it is a minor and purely formal change that has nothing to do with this RfC which is about GAs featuring on the main page. --ELEKHHT 13:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I made it here because the issues are linked: if GA is coming to DYK, then it needs to be made clear that copyvio checks for GA submissions are the responsibility of GA reviewers, because DYK reviewers are already overburdened and shouldn't be expected to take sole responsibility for a new class of submissions. Gatoclass (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
But that is very clear because it is stated in the very first GA criteria 1(a), as you already well know, which also links to WP:COPYVIO. If you think we can get better reviews by presenting the criteria in a different format, that's an interesting proposal which is welcomed and can be discussed at GA. --ELEKHHT 13:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you think it is "very clear". Given that most of the GA templates don't even mention it as a criterion, I am obliged to disagree, but you are welcome to your opinion. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Once again, what have the templates got to do with anything? Eric Corbett 17:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I have boldly added a mention of copyvio in the checklist templates. Now, is the issue so pressing that we need to create a separate subcriterion for copyright respect, or can we do away with the song and dance and wind this section of the RfC down? Adabow (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please close this section so that discussion can be focused on more relevant issues. There has been already support for closure on the talk page. --ELEKHHT 12:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Given this is already in the criteria, and it's relevant whether or not GAs are on DYK, could we just go ahead, switch the standard templates to "1(a) (prose and copyvio)" and move on? I don't think anyone would really quibble had this been done without an RFC. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • +1. --Andreas JN466 19:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • +1. Though, "1(a) (prose, plagiarism and copyvio)" may be better. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Struck 01:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
      • The criteria only state "the prose ... respects copyright laws"; I think "plagarism" is generally a more meaningful concept to look out for, but we should probably stick to what the specific criteria say if the templates are meant to aid checking against it. (Expanding those critera... well, worth discussing, but I don't think this is the appropriate context to hold an RFC on it). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
        Plagiarism isn't any sense more meaningful, it's a different concept. It's rather easy to check a typically short DYK nominee for copyright issues, but so very often that's not done, sometimes resulting in DYKs having to be pulled from the main page. Admittedly that's occasionally happened with FAs as well, but the rush, rush, atmosphere of DYK inevitably leads to problems. Eric Corbett 21:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Besides rush, rush there's the problem that, in my experience, for some DYK nominators the review is frequently a kind of afterthought. I am not convinced that for those nominators (and I'm not saying this is due to ill will--it's often a matter of newness) there is sufficient competence to handle GAs since they are so much bigger then the typical competence. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The DYK process must be in addition to the GA process, rather than be dependent on the GA process, so I think this discussion should be moved to the relevant GA discussion page; if templates need to be improved to match the GA process, just do it! ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 22:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that. I am not exactly against GA having an explicit copyvio check, but DYK should have its own self-contained process. It may be that the DYK reviewer looks at the GA review, sees that there was a copyvio check and takes it on good faith, but that is up to them to do it that way. The DYK guidelines should remain unchanged on needing a copyvio check. Any change to the GA process is a separate issue and should be dealt with outside this RFC. SpinningSpark 23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
But GA already has an explicit copyvio check. The more usual problem is that DYK reviewers don't check for copyright violations, perhaps because everything's done in such a rush. Eric Corbett 23:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It's going to be done in even more of a rush once GA is added to DYK - unless, that is, GA reviewers are required to do their fair share. Gatoclass (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be very reasonable to automatically require QPQ from GA nominators. Even if they are new to DYK, anyone who has been through GA should surely have a clue how to review an article. In fact, given that GAs are likely to be longer than a typical DYK and hence require more reviewing, it would not be unreasonable to require GA nominators to review two submsissions. SpinningSpark 13:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I had assumed that requiring QPQ was an implict requirement same as for any DYK nom. Reading back, I think the failure to mention it is an oversight rather than a deliberate omission. I'll ask about adding a note to the overview. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Turns out I am clearly coffee-deprived this afternoon - it is in the overview at the top ("...for example a DYK nomination of a GA would still require a QPQ review of any other DYK nomination.") Encouraging people to review other GAs (if they're more difficult) seems reasonable, but making it a hard rule is going to be complicated especially if there is a low number of GA nominations at any given time. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know that QPQ is already a requirement, but the issue I was trying to address is that the DYK rules only require QPQ of nominators who have at least 5 DYK credits. I was suggesting that GA nominators should still be required to do a QPQ review even if they have no previous DYKs (possibly excepting if this is their first GA as well as first DYK). I further suggested that GA nominators should be required to do two QPQ reviews (of any submission). I was not suggesting that reviewers should be asked to preferentially review GAs. SpinningSpark 16:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Aha, that makes sense - I've never invoked it so I tend to forget about the new-reviewer exception. Seems reasonable to tighten the exception to only new-DYK; apart from anything else, GA authors are more likely to be experienced users. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This proposal seems unrelated to the rest of the RfC, and should be moved to the GA talk page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Actually it appears to fall well into the range of "what does GA need to do to bring itself up to DYK minimum quality standards?" As this RfC is about inserting GAs into the DYK process, the question of what GA needs to do to prepare itself for such a change seems to be very appropriate addition. Hiding this conversation on a GA talk page, where people with knowledge of the DYK process and quality standards generally do not spend much time, only removes access to needed institutional knowledge. --Allen3 talk 11:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Well if this section is really about "what does GA need to do to bring itself up to DYK minimum quality standards?" why is it being hidden away here from people with knowledge of GA reviews and quality standards? Perhaps the real reason is that if the discusions were being held on the GA talkpage, the topic would soon change to "what does DYK need to do to bring itself up to GA minimum quality standards?". Pyrotec (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    Hear, hear. I find the idea of DYK having higher standards than GA to be completely incomprehensible, as DYK really has no standards at all, just a few simple mechanical checks. Eric Corbett 22:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with that. I did thorough reviews for DYK nominations, but I was told off with the reasoning that such reviews should only be completed for Good Articles and Featured Articles. I reviewed two Good Article nominations recently and no one complained about me raising important concerns, which was refreshing. The ironic thing is that the only reason I am able to review Good Articles now is because I was told that my DYK reviews were not thorough enough, but then they became too thorough apparently, so now I need to meet it in the middle SL93 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Question What exactly do we imagine a copyvio check will consist of? Obviously if during the course of the GA review a copyright problem is discovered, (which is quite possible while checking references, or just from reading it carefully) it must be dealt with for the article to have any chance of promotion, but saying there must be a copyvio check sounds like it could require quite a lot more. So what steps would be expected? Monty845 20:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    In DYK terms it simply consists of ticking a box. Eric Corbett 21:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    Eric Corbett describes how the DYK review results sometimes are recorded, not how the review is done. DYK reviewers are supposed to look for possible copyvios by running automated checks and comparing articles to sources. Many DYKs get checked for copyvio by multiple reviewers. These are spot-checks, not comprehensive examinations of every source and every sentence in the article, so they can't catch everything. However, DYK reviewers find issues with a surprisingly large number of the articles that get nominated. In many cases, the issues get successfully resolved (by revisions to the articles) and the articles eventually appear in the DYK feature. --Orlady (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    Orlady describes how GA reviews are recorded, not how they're done. Eric Corbett 15:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be curious as to the answer to Monty's question. Copyvios are something that should be picked up during a competent review so what extra steps are expected if this passes. AIRcorn (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. I have seen plenty of cases where copyvios are not picked up by a competent review. We can run an automated tool, we can check a random sample of offline references. Things can and do get through the net. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have included "no copyvios" in the relevant template checklists. I think many people may be satisfied now; are there other issues, or can we wind this sub-RfC down now? Adabow (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know where you put it, because those templates look exactly the same to me. And you shouldn't be doing this unilaterally in any case - assuming this proposal passes, we can then have a discussion about the best way to include a copyvio/cp check in the templates. Gatoclass (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The list of templates can be found here. If I've missed any (highly likely) then point them out. I was being bold and adding what is already in the criteria to the checklists, to make the checklists more comprehensive. Editors are free to revert my changes; no-one has yet... Adabow (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I see you have added the phrase "no copyvios" to the "Prose" clause of three of the templates. I don't think that is at all adequate. Firstly, copyvio/close paraphrase is an important issue and should be listed as a separate criterion, not bundled with general prose concerns like "spelling and grammar", and secondly, WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:PARAPHRASE should all be specifically cited and linked in the criterion, just like the relevant policies are linked in the other table criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There's another, more fundamental problem with the criteria used during GAN approval. While its reviewers routinely check for proper reference formatting, spelling, grammar and general cohesion, they almost never dwell on the accuracy of the information provided "at source"... At DYKTALK we do it every day, and we pull articles from the queue if necessary. Adding the already bloated GAs to the list of required reading for our QPQ reviewers would turn DYK into virtual hell-on-wheels. Poeticbent talk 17:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
That's complete garbage. Eric Corbett 19:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Having submitted articles through 3 GA reviews and 27 DYK reviews, I can state unequivocally that the GA reviews were far more rigorous in every way. First Light (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


I've been asked (as an uninvolved administrator) to close this RfC. I'm reviewing the input on the proposal and subquestions, and expect to post a closing within the next couple of days. My thanks in advance to everyone who has participated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


I've now reviewed all the discussion on this page and am ready to close the RfC.

The outcome of the comments and !voting on each of the questions is clear enough that there actually isn't much work for the closer to do. I find no evidence of socking, bad-faith voting, frivolous arguments, or other grounds for disregarding the straightforward outcome on each question discussed.

Thus, I find that the consensus is:

  • Going forward (see below), articles recently promoted to Good Article (GA) status are eligible for inclusion on the Did You Know? (DYK) section of the mainpage, along with the other types of articles already eligible.
  • There will be no separate limit on the number of recently promoted GAs, as opposed to newly created or expanded articles, to be included in each GA set. (This does not limit the ability of those working on DYK on a given date to seek balance, however.)
  • Newly promoted GAs will be eligible for DYK regardless of whether they were recently expanded.
  • There will still be only one DYK section on the main page, not separate sections for new GAs and newly created articles.
  • This change will not have any effect on the day's Featured Article.
  • GA reviews should include at least a basic check for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. (However, I noticed that this portion of the RfC got fewer comments than any other. I expect that further discussion of how this procedure is to be implemented, and at what stage of the process, will need to take place on the GA review instruction page.)

The RfC did not include any discussion of how the transition from the current DYK system to the new eligibility procedure will work. It probably should not simply happen overnight. I suggest that the decision made in this RfC take effect in two weeks, which will allow a reasonable time for the editors active on DYK and GA to set up exactly how things will work. That would be on September 20.

If necessary, a follow-up RfC can be held in a few months to discuss whether the new procedure is working satisfactorily or whether any tinkering is needed.

I hope this close has been helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Finally. Does it really require a 2-week delay? Can't we simply change Wikipedia:DYK#Eligibility_criteria? Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue is the implementation of the policy change, not the change itself. NativeForeigner Talk 21:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
If everyone is ready sooner, I don't object to it starting sooner. But in my experience, working out the details of implementing a change like this takes a little time. Where possible, it's always better to start a new process off with clarity instead of confusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for closing this, Brad. Agree that a two-week period for working out the logistics and processes sounds a sensible idea. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria regarding the plagiarism and close paraphrasing check. Comments needed. Monty845 21:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The main problem is that Did you know clearly have no idea what they are taking about. Wikipedia, for instance, does not claim copyright so copying text from one wikipedia article to another one without a formal citation is plagiarism. I've yet to see a DYK that has formal citations for material copied across from other wikipedia articles. I'd also like to see formal evidence that such checks are done at DYK. Pyrotec (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not entirely true, Pryotec. "Copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page... It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination." (WP:Copying within Wikipedia) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Material copied from one Wikipedia article to start another should be properly attributed, but this is hardly the most serious type of copyright/plagiarism concern that we face. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.