Wikiquote talk:Good articles

Organization
I am not sure I understand how this works. As I think of the concept of listing "good" articles, I would think that there should be two lists and three actions for articles under consideration for "good" status:


 * Lists
 * Approved as "good"
 * Suggested for "good" status


 * Actions
 * Suggest an article
 * Discuss an article
 * Approve an article

I don't quite see how to sort these out with the current process description and groupings. For instance, "Good entries of English Wikiquote" is where we say "You may list your recommendation", so it would seem to be a candidate list, not an approved list — the place to start, not to discuss or finish. The "Review" section is said to be where we would discuss articles. So where is our list of approved articles? Is it intended that the first section include both articles that have successfully survived discussion and brand-new candidate articles? That seems confusing to me. Or maybe I'm missing something. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Should there not be a good entry candidates? And also guidelines as to what composes a good entry? Dev920 21:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And if we are going to develop guidelines, I suggest they be based on the principles at Wikiquote: Comprehensive, accurate, and notable. Dev920 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They should also be well-formatted and well-sourced, per our guidelines. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely. Shall we create a draft at What is a Good Entry? or just create a section on top of Good Entry candidates? Does anyone disagree with this (as it occurs to me that it's just me and Jeff holding this convo)? Dev920 12:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there are three reasons of my first draft structure: 1) we were once stucked to build a review system two years before. 2) there is no detailed proposal of review system on VP. 3) In Japanese Wikipedia I experienced this kind of list "without review/vote" aside of FAs with strict vote process. So in my intention it would be mere a pile of recommendations from one editor to another. If you are interested in building a review system, it would be nice. On my part, I take it not serious as you might take it. But I think on the other hand it would be nice to have a system which allows us to remove miserable entries (just as below. I think "Speedy remove" might another solution).  That is why the page started in this way. But it is still a draft, and your merciless edits will be welcome :)--Aphaia 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How about we just list articles our ourselves, and debate any that seem inappropriate here, and then when we have an arbitrary number, say, 100, we then rethink implementing a review system? What do people think of that? Dev920 07:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'm going to be able to put in much time here any time soon, even to comment or object to candidates. I'm always uncomfortable about adding whole new mini-projects requiring a lot of attention, especially as I was just reminded that we have some basic issues affecting all our editors that are still overdue for that kind of attention. On the other hand, I don't want to stand in the way of something that might help us provide editors will good examples, since we have so many articles that aren't. &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just over at Wikibooks and saw their Good books criteria, their version of Featured. It might be more helpful than looking at featured criteria. Dev920 20:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your information! --Aphaia 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Rules
I combined the rules on having a account and being an editor for at least a month since they are redundant (you can't be a registered editor for a month without having an account).

Why do we even have these rules? We should be judging good entries on their own merits, not the status of the nominator. Koweja 16:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Aphaia was trying to avoid a spate of self-nominations for new articles involving obvious unnotables or otherwise poor articles. In principle, I think Koweja is correct. We might phrase the text to emphasize this, but we would probably also want to be able to "speedy-remove" candidates that are obviously not in line with the general guidelines, so as not to waste time discussing extremely unlikely "good" article candidates. One obvious guideline: any deleted article can be immediately removed. &#9786; ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy remove sounds good to me - we have speedy close for VFD afterall. However the rules as they currently are strike me as way to elitist (which I realize was not the goal). Koweja 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My original intention is well explained by Jeffq and somehow sophiscated (Thanks!). I myself think it redundant ... but I would have liked to stress "no anon vote". Improvement of wording is welcome.
 * Speedy remove sounds good to me too. As for the rule, elitism is not our way, but I thought a metric criteria could be help kicking out some people who make only to vote. Imagine a TV show staff makes an article about it and submit it to this page ... I think we avoid this kind of promotion carefully. The requirements could be reduced but "anyone can edit" wouldn't be okay now, sadly. --Aphaia 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-promotion by notable subjects seems to be more of a problem with Wikipedia than here - our problems involving self-promotion are with pages about non-notable people (high-school teachers, garage band members, and so on). These types of pages get deleted very quickly, meaning they would never reach good article status anyway, so it isn't really an issue. I think my biggest problem with the rules as they are right now is that we are saying a group of editors can't participate because they cause problems when they haven't caused a problem yet. Why not just make these our rules:
 * You are not allowed to nominate an article that is either about you (or an organization you are part of) or that was created by you.
 * Your vote will be discounted if:
 * You are not a registered user
 * You have made few edits outside of the article being discussed
 * Your account was created to vote here
 * Discussions of articles of obviously poor quality will be closed immediately
 * That should help prevent self-promotion and joke noms without assuming bad faith on the part of new editors. I belive we are going to have more of a problem with people nominating bad articles than self-promotion and speedy closing obviously bad articles will solve that problem. Koweja 16:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Koweja for your version. I seconded. If you don't mind a minor modification, I prefer to say "you are invited to make a comment, if:". Thank you for your consideration. --Aphaia 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. It sounds a bit more positive that way. Koweja 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Standards of what is a "Good Article"
We should have guidelines on what makes an article good so people can be clear on what articles they should [not] be nominating. For example: These are just just suggestions for standards that I'm throwing out, but I think we need to decide what makes an article "good" rather than "we like it" and "it looks nice". Koweja 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Television shows: At least one quote for each episodes, all quotes tied to a specific episode (so no "unknown episode" blocks), no copyright violations from too many quotes
 * Political/social issues: balanced quotes from both sides
 * People no (or at least few) unsourced quotes
 * I would add our sister project policy as suggestion. German Wikiquote is now going to restrict unsourced quotes. In their rule it was/is proposed to limit the number of unsourced quotes in an article up to five. --Aphaia 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I like putting an absolute value on the number of unsourced quotes. Five unsourced quotes on a page with 15 quotes in total is a lot, but on a page with 200 quotes then even 15 unsourced quotes isn't excessive. Perhaps at relative limit, like 5% or 10% instead. The exception would be on articles about people, especially living ones, where we might want to more tightly control the number of unsourced quotes (in the case of living people maybe it should be no unsourced quotes at all). Koweja 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Starting ball rolling
Ok, I've just put up two film articles I've worked on - do these meet what we were thinking by good entries? Dev920 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. We have four articles nominated now, so I would suggest that nobody else nominate another article until we a)figure out the rules, standards, and project title and b)decide if these four are what we want to consider good articles/entries. Koweja 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming
I believe this project page should be moved to Good articles, for two reasons: I'd like to do this before it gets too popular. Are there any objections, or other preferred titles? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea concerns quote articles, not just any page on Wikiquote.
 * "Entries", in a Wikiquote context, has a connotation of "cited quotation", whereas "article" is unambiguously about a quote collection on a titled subject. (I suspect the "entries" term is inherited from Wiktionary, where such a term makes more sense for its articles.)


 * I'll give you my support, Good articles is fine as a title for me. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I started this page in the current name, it was a compromise; personally I prefer "articles" to "entries", but there was a proposal to name it "entry". So it is equal to me, but if we choose one of them, I am for naming it "article". It also matches our current tab naming convention imo - main name space is tagged as "article" not as "entry". --Aphaia 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Aphaia 19:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)