31:
82:(Yes, because they identify general areas that still need to be improved; if too many articles about one subject are crappy, that may be cause to make some outreach outside Knowledge (XXG) to get subject experts to edit. Importance tags allow editors to prioritize their time.)
364:
There's no single, specific criteria (similar to the FA & GA criteria), and instead, the criteria vary depending on the multitude of subject-based wikiprojects out there, which could be confusing to a reviewer that is not familiar with the individual
357:
No real records are kept of how many articles have undergone PR, nor are there any statistics of how many articles later underwent FAC or GAN and how many of those were successful. So we don't really know exactly how successful this program really
147:(Article length should have little to no bearing on article quality. They are two separate attributes. It is possible to have a very good, relatively short, FA; but also a long GA that doesn't meet FA standards.)
264:
with over 100 members supporting the program. This allows a better organization of reviewers and it's easier to coordinate things like sweeps and review drives, which have proved fairly successful in the
313:
GA reviewers who may not be familiar with FA standards refer articles immediately to FAC upon passing the article GA, resulting in disappointed nominators who arrive at FAC with an unprepared article.
77:(Yes, can be a very quick way to find substantial articles to further develop for FA or GA; also a top or high importance article that is lowly ranked may be quickly picked up and improved.)
291:
The "easy to promote" aspect is counteracted by the fact that any user can pass an article, causing some rather lousy articles to occasionally slip through (GA's solution to this is
176:. This listing is intended to provide a brief listing of the pros and cons of each. Others are encouraged to add or modify these lists as they see fit (remember this is a workshop).
64:. Here, editors may add criticisms and suggestions of the various content review processes; they may be incorporated into the main page once it is precisely defined its scope.
278:
Clear "stepping stone" in improving an article to have a crack at FA. Very useful for an article for which there is no existing format of existing similar FA to follow.
374:
The use of bots generating automated reviews is sometimes the only "peer review" that an article gets, and most of the time, this is not helpful at all.
45:
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the
361:
There's no organized wikiproject so that regular reviewers can communicate about recurring issues and other matter of concern to the project.
304:
The project has become a bit more bureaucratic recently, with more instruction creep and other things adding too many details to the project.
46:
210:
Rigorous process raises the standard in article depth and clarity across the internet, upskills editors in rigour and prose-writing skills.
61:
331:
Fairly long and established role on wikipedia (perhaps as old as FAC, though I don't have specific figures for when it was established?).
368:
There appears to be a decentralization of PR going on, and separate PR pages are being setup and organized by individual wikiprojects.
106:
Peer review is an agreed upon process but it has a poor record in generating content improvement: too many noms, not enough feedback.
138:
Despite the various processes there is still no process that explicitly recognizes good, short articles that are unlikely to grow.
73:
Do the stub, start, and B tags achieve anything of real value? Do importance high, mid, low tags achieve anything of real value?
390:
Is there a need for a centralized review process? A single review stream? A central clearinghouse of articles seeking reviews?
406:
239:"Fan support" can result in articles passing FAC without rigorous review of sources, content, neutrality and MOS compliance.
196:
Recognition beyond those involved in wikipedia (main page featured articles, the "FA star" added to the top-right corner).
152:(FA can and has handled this properly in the past. GA and FA should not segregate articles based on subject or length.)
301:
Little to no recognition to those outside of wikipedia (no main page coverage, no "GA star" in the top-right corner).
275:
are made available, published, and appear to be followed fairly well, particularly by the more experienced reviewers.
17:
393:
Is rating different than reviews? Should ratings be secondary to quality reviews aimed at continuous improvement?
220:
General lack of enough reviewers participating in the project. High backlog (though not as much as GAN or PR).
328:
Reviews are done fairly informally, and no specific "grade" is assigned to the article, unlike FAC & GAN.
229:
There's no wikiproject organizing regular reviewers and the project is basically maintained by one person (
307:
Parallel development with FAC not conducive to coordination within WP - may lead to schism and acrimony.
38:
30:
164:
Currently, there are three major projects on the english wikipedia that focus on reviewing articles;
127:(Hmmm...many don't have the confidence to go for FA initially - I've pushed a few onwards this way)
310:
Constant infighting between FA & GA reviewers takes time away from actually reviewing articles.
193:
Widely accepted (ideally, every editor on wikipedia wants to see their article being "featured").
272:
200:
371:
Low activity and lengthy wait for feedback results in further lowering of use/profile/activity.
292:
97:
261:
169:
165:
88:
110:(Yeah, but can be a good unblocker at any time. Very versatile and can be useful this way)
384:
Is there a need for more collaboration between the various review processes and projects?
281:
Great way to introduce new editors to having a go at producing a cohesive 'good' article.
173:
132:(Additionally, FA and GA provide redundancy checks on each other... more eyes are better)
400:
230:
204:
351:
Little to no recognition to those outside of wikipedia (no main page coverage).
96:{It can be used by a WikiProject to monitor progress and set goals, as used at
257:
Easier for an article to be promoted since it only requires one editor to pass
348:
General lack of enough reviewers participating in the project. High backlog.
298:
General lack of enough reviewers participating in the project. High backlog.
226:
Slow rate of growth (there's still only 1,633 FAs on the english wikipedia).
91:
project uses this information extensively in putting together collections)
268:
Faster rate of growth than FA (2,887 GAs currently; nearing 3,000).
254:
Organization of nominees into categories (easy to find and sort)
203:
are available and followed reasonably well, and enforced by the
25:
387:
Should there be a more unified means of article reviewing?
142:(This should be where GA assumes more of a prominent role)
334:
Great flexibility; advice can be asked for and given at
338:
of article development, unlike two previous entities.
295:, and the occasional sweep of GA's to check quality).
123:
There is redundancy between the FA and GA processes.
190:
Long-standing (oldest) method at reviewing articles.
37:
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
236:Rigorous process can be acrimonious and draining.
8:
354:Lack of "expert" involvement in reviewing.
223:Lack of "expert" involvement in reviewing.
7:
160:Pros and Cons of each review process
24:
180:Featured Article Candidates (FAC)
29:
244:Good Article Nominations (GAN)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Content review
1:
100:where the system originated}
166:Featured Article Candidates
423:
170:Good Article Nominations
62:Content review workshop
60:page is adjunct to the
407:Inactive project pages
379:Unified review process
115:(What does that mean?)
260:Has an organized
54:
53:
414:
318:Peer Review (PR)
50:
33:
26:
422:
421:
417:
416:
415:
413:
412:
411:
397:
396:
381:
320:
246:
182:
162:
70:
68:Specific issues
44:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
420:
418:
410:
409:
399:
398:
395:
394:
391:
388:
385:
380:
377:
376:
375:
372:
369:
366:
362:
359:
355:
352:
349:
345:
344:
340:
339:
332:
329:
325:
324:
319:
316:
315:
314:
311:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
288:
287:
283:
282:
279:
276:
269:
266:
258:
255:
251:
250:
245:
242:
241:
240:
237:
234:
227:
224:
221:
217:
216:
212:
211:
208:
197:
194:
191:
187:
186:
181:
178:
161:
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
149:
144:
136:
135:
134:
129:
121:
120:
119:
118:
117:
104:
103:
102:
93:
84:
79:
69:
66:
52:
51:
43:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
419:
408:
405:
404:
402:
392:
389:
386:
383:
382:
378:
373:
370:
367:
363:
360:
356:
353:
350:
347:
346:
342:
341:
337:
333:
330:
327:
326:
322:
321:
317:
312:
309:
306:
303:
300:
297:
294:
290:
289:
285:
284:
280:
277:
274:
270:
267:
263:
259:
256:
253:
252:
248:
247:
243:
238:
235:
232:
228:
225:
222:
219:
218:
214:
213:
209:
206:
202:
198:
195:
192:
189:
188:
184:
183:
179:
177:
175:
171:
167:
159:
153:
150:
148:
145:
143:
140:
139:
137:
133:
130:
128:
125:
124:
122:
116:
113:
112:
111:
108:
107:
105:
101:
99:
94:
92:
90:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
74:
72:
71:
67:
65:
63:
59:
58:brainstorming
48:
42:
40:
35:
32:
28:
27:
19:
365:wikiproject.
335:
163:
151:
146:
141:
131:
126:
114:
109:
95:
86:
81:
76:
57:
55:
47:village pump
36:
262:wikiproject
205:FA Director
174:Peer Review
87:(Yes, the
41:reference.
39:historical
336:any stage
401:Category
273:criteria
201:criteria
293:WP:GA/R
231:Raul654
98:WP:Chem
172:, and
89:WP:1.0
265:past.
56:This
16:<
343:Cons
323:Pros
286:Cons
271:The
249:Pros
215:Cons
199:The
185:Pros
358:is.
403::
233:).
168:,
207:.
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
