Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Reform

General discussion of these issues should take place on the project's talk page. Firm proposals can then be added to this page.

Concerns and proposals have been raised about the following issues:

• Encouraging new reviewers to join the project
• Encouraging good, detailed reviews by reviewers
• Ensuring a level of consistency across the reviews
• Ensuring those that pass GA noms are of a good standard
• Ensuring transparency, so that it is easy to see how, when and why an article passed (or not)
• Simplifying the nomination and notification processes, perhaps by automated bot, or categorisation.

The following links to old discussions may also be relevant:

• "Green dot debate"

The main bar to awarding "green dots" appeared to be a lack of confidence in the GA process

• (add others as appropriate)
• plus others indicated through section headings

Next steps

Various aspects of the process need to be discussed, before conclusions can safely be reached. In order to keep the various aspects in some order, the discussion has been broken into various sub-topics.

• Encouraging new reviewers: how to encourage contributions, enhance accessibility to the project and provide support to reviewers.
• GA criteria: considering if the GA criteria is appropriate, or needs to be altered, expanded or clarified to show standard required, or if subject guidelines need writing
• Review process: how to structure the review process, to ensure consistency between passes, and a high standard of reviews. Might involve discussion of open reviews, second opinions, validation, pass and fail processes and so forth.
• Transparency (incl- subpages): how to make sure people know what went on during reviews. This has been addressed by the introduction of subpages, but some of the nuts and bolts still need working out.
• Automation and simplification: how to make the process simple to use, for nominators and reviewers. May involve bots, categories and so forth. Difficult to address until decisions have been made about other issues.
• (add others as appropriate)

This working party is not a cabal, but merely a group of editors interested in GA, and who wish to improve the current processes. It is not a closed group. Those involved in these discussions include:

• OhanaUnited (talk · contribs)
• Derek.cashman (talk · contribs)
• Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs)
• Gwinva (talk · contribs)
• EyeSerene (talk · contribs)
• Dank55 (talk · contribs)
• Jennavecia (talk · contribs)
• Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
• Gary King (talk · contribs)
• ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk · contribs)

Encouraging contributions, enhancing accessibility to the project and providing support to reviewers

• Thoughts from a new reviewer

Considering if the GA criteria is appropriate, or needs to be altered, expanded or clarified to show standard required, or if subject guidelines need writing

• Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Roads vs. Other GAs

Structuring the review process, to ensure consistency between passes, and a high standard of reviews. Might involve discussion of open reviews, second opinions, validation, pass and fail processes and so forth.

Making sure people know what went on during reviews. This has been addressed by the introduction of subpages, but some of the nuts and bolts still need working out.

• Sub page process (and following sections)

Making the process simple to use, for nominators and reviewers. May involve bots, categories and so forth. Difficult to address until decisions have been made about other issues

• GAN talk: Could you make this harder?