User talk:Geometry guy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mayer–Vietoris sequence 2 Children in content review processes 3 RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again 4 Check out the last three sections 5 Mayer–Vietoris sequence 6 Fitting the GA into place 7 Civility

Welcome to my (rather minimalist) talk page: please leave comments, questions, complaints, or just general chat below. I can't promise to reply, but if I do I will reply here: if I take a while I will drop a note on your talk page. Please provide direct links to issues you raise. I like to help out and have experience with templates, but my wikitime is limited. I have access to admin tools, but I don't use them to deal with vandalism or editor conduct.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

[edit] Mayer–Vietoris sequence

Any input you could provide to Talk:Mayer–Vietoris sequence/GA1 would be appreciated. Happy Christmas, Martin 15:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey you missed it. I have just listed it as a good article. Hope you're having a good break. Martin 08:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I saw the review, but you did a great job, so I didn't feel the need to add anything. Geometry guy 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks. It wasn't too arduous, so if any more come up that you'd like me to look at, I'll be happy to. Could I also draw your attention to this discussion? Martin 15:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I will take a look tomorrow. I see also that the article is now at FAC. Geometry guy 21:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Geometry guy 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Children in content review processes

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#NYC meet-up video. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again

Hello,

You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This was originally raised in October 2008. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.

This link is to the new request for comment on the reliable sources notice board. (You may have to scroll down to see it)

Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)

Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Check out the last three sections

...at Wikipedia talk:Controversial articles. You've done a lot of work on WP:Words to avoid, so I thought you might be interested, since this concerns moving the "terrorism" material over to that guideline. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Commented. Geometry guy 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mayer–Vietoris sequence

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mayer–Vietoris sequence

Well. Displaced that easily :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reviewed. Geometry guy 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fitting the GA into place

The WP1.0 scheme is used by most WikiProjects and is widely understood. The GA criteria fits right into it. What I am seeing is a number of editors who are jumping from Start class straight to a GA review without having considered that the article they have put forward doesn't even meet B-Class requirements. FA candidates are frowned upon if they have not already passed GA criteria, and we should be at least indicating to people that GA is a level above B-Class and articles which don't meet those requirements are unlikely to pass GA. SilkTork *^YES! 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't. Don't be fooled by the stupid historical insertion of GA-Class into the Wikiproject ratings. Those that did it hate it, and GA-Class only persists because of inertia. The GA requirements are very simple: the article should comply with basic policy, and be well written, factually accurate, broad, neutral and stable, with images if appropriate. That does not require any specific compliance with WikiProject guidelines. Your proposal is a can of worms in which any WikiProject can add to the GA criteria with no accountability. You are completely wrong that FA candidates are frowned upon if they have not already passed the GA criteria. As for B-Class before GA, the question is, according to whom? Geometry guy 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. I thought that GA was integrated into the wider Wikipedia project, but you are suggesting that it is not a part of the community. Is there an advantage to GA not working with the wider community? I understand difficulties - the more people one has to deal with the trickier any project becomes - however, the whole ethos of Wikipedia is that we embrace the can of worms because we recognise the huge benefits of cooperation. SilkTork *^YES! 09:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting no such thing. Obviously GA is integrated into the wider Wikipedia project. Indeed from the WikiProject perspective, GA is an example of the wider community. So obviously GA should and does work with the wider community. The question is how. A fundamental principle of GA is that it is a lightweight process. Incorporating 100+ WikiProject guidelines into the good article criteria is neither lightweight nor healthy. The tail should not wag the dog. WikiProject and good article assessments serve completely different purposes. The conflation of these purposes in the form of GA-Class is an unfortunate historical accident. Geometry guy 10:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In what way would you regard an assessment of how an article achieves its aims becomes a different purpose when it gets to higher criteria? It appears to me that all assessments serve the same community wide and public purposes - a)to guide and motivate editors to create worthwhile content and b)to indicate to readers how reliable an article is. I don't see how WikiProject guidelines, the community-wide WP1.0 scheme, or GA and FA substantially differ from these purposes, certainly not enough to suggest that they are incompatible. Are there politics here that I am not aware of?

Also, I am not convinced that a significant outcome should rely upon a lightweight process. GA status matters, internally and externally. It matters rather more than WikiProject assessments precisely because there is some formal and accountable process. And I would dispute that spending several hours (or days) assessing an article, and then several days (or weeks) working with others to build the article up to standard, is a "lightweight" process. SilkTork *^YES! 13:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) please forgive the eavesdropping. :-) If you think GA isn't lightweight, you haven't seen the serial FACs of Roman Catholic Church or the marathon FAC of Samuel Johnson. Though admittedly some FAcs are far far far far more GA-ish in length and depth of comments. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Since we're stalking Gguy's talk page...) I see GA as "lightweight" in terms of the bureaucracy involved in assessing rather than the assessment itself, which can be pretty much as rigorous as the reviewer makes it. IIRC there were some abortive proposals during the C-Class introduction debate to decouple GA entirely from the -Class assessment scheme, though if they were revisited I missed the discussion. It would make sense though; it's an unhelpful quirk of WP:ASSESS that places it between B and A when really it lies outside the scale altogether. EyeSerene^talk 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(Another stalker, this topic is getting interesting!) There are various opinions on article assessments and about how GA fits in. In my opinion, there are two possible logical conclusions to these views:

1. The assessment scale is made community-wide rather than project-specific. Wikiproject-specific criteria are abandoned (although they would still have guidelines on how to interpret the global criteria). Each article would have one quality-class and projects would have to agree on it. The GA would fit into this scale (probably between B and A).
2. Assessments are kept project-specific and GA/FA is decoupled from the scale. Each project assesses articles in their own ways; projects should not interfere with other projects' assessments of an article.

I wouldn't be able to judge accurately but opinion seems roughly 50/50 between these. I can see the merits of both and don't have any strong preference. But I think we need to decide which way we're going and stop the confused mixture ;) Martin 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ASSESS is a community-wide assessment into which GA and FA fit, and WikiProjects make use of this scheme. Some WikiProjects have their own assessment guidelines which they blend into the WP1.0 scheme (some more successfully than others). As GA is already on the scheme, I'm not sure of the advantage of saying it isn't. Nor am I sure what benefit would be gained from making an effort now to remove it. I certainly see the benefit of the community working together for the same aim, and integrating assessment schemes together. Wikipedia:ASSESS is part of that integration. SilkTork *^YES! 18:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I perhaps expressed myself badly - what I should have said was that in practice GA lies outside the hierarchy somewhere parallel to B and A, although exactly where depends on the Wikiproject in question. Martin's assessment is spot on in my view. The second option would, I think, cause less disruption, and if GA is decoupled it makes sense that FA should be too, as the only two community-wide review processes in the scale. I believe part of the problem is that FA would rest naturally at the top of whatever scale we cared to devise, whereas fitting GA into a strict hierarchy is difficult because Wikiproject assessments aren't consistent. EyeSerene^talk 18:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec with edit below) "Difficult" is not a genuine reason for not doing something. And your comments are more indicative of a need to look at creating consistency. Removing GA from the WP1.0 scheme wouldn't help that consistency but would encourage greater inconsistency. I've yet to hear any genuine reason why GA should not be part of a community wide assessment scheme (or rather why it shouldn't be acknowledged as being part of the scheme - it is already part of the scheme). I think, also, that there is some misunderstanding of the term "community-wide" if you feel that FA and GA are community-wide reviews while the other assessments on the scheme are not. All assessments are equally open to the whole community. GA and FA have a more formal structure, and some projects have assessment teams, but all assessments up to GA can be done by any single member of the community as far as I am aware. SilkTork *^YES! 21:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GA was never in the WP1.0 scheme, so it doesn't need to be removed. GA-Class is in the scheme, but it currently means "Good articles which are not A-Class", which is a pretty rubbish class descriptor of anything. Most of your other questions may well be answered by my earlier post below. Geometry guy 22:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting "Good articles which are not A-Class" from? That's not what I read: Wikipedia:ASSESS#Grades. SilkTork *^YES! 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That is because, I'm shocked to discover, HappyMelon staged a coup in June 2008. Look at the prior version. Geometry guy 22:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I hadn't noticed that either :O As I see it, the deceptively simple linear layout of the current assessment hierarchy implies that there is a consistent graduated quality ladder all the way from Stub-Start-C-B-GA-FA, with each step on the ladder leading to a corresponding incremental improvement in article quality. I think we all know that, in practice, there's nothing of the kind. I agree that ideally such a thing might be desirable, but I also think that making it so across the encyclopedia would be like trying to herd cats. It would mean preventing the various Wikiprojects from using their own variations on the scale and their own assessment methods, and also significantly rewriting the assessment criteria for some of the steps (since as Gguy says, GA and project assessments generally look for different things). To take two examples, for pragmatic reasons at Milhist we haven't adopted C-Class at all, and the Maths Wikiproject has no C but a pre-existing B+ rating. Regarding 'community-wide' assessments, all that means is that GA and FA are assessed by editors from outside the Wikiproject assessment system so are awarded by the 'community' rather than the project. EyeSerene^talk 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Please, interest editors, improve my fix if necessary and watchlist Template:Grading_scheme. Geometry guy 22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Destalking is always welcome at User talk:G'guy. Indeed all contributions are welcome. Here are mine.

• In any corner of Wikipedia, those who believe in its benefit to the encyclopedia naturally want to extend its influence. This is true of FA, GA, WP1.0, active WikiProjects, and other places. The assertion that WP1.0 is "a community-wide assessment into which GA and FA fit" is a statement that several editors at WP1.0 want to advance, because they believe in the value of such a community-wide assessment. However, such views do not represent any kind of broad consensus. What you see at WP:ASSESS is the consensus of editors at WP:ASSESS, nothing more.
• What WikiProjects have done is to take the basic Stub-Start-B-A structure (as it was) and adapt it to their needs. WikiProject ratings are a mechanism for WikiProjects to track progress. They focus on content improvement, because that is what WikiProjects are most interested in and is what they do best. By contrast, GA is a quality control mechanism, which focuses on policy-compliance and style. I have worked extensively with both, assessing thousands of mathematics articles, and contributing to hundreds of GARs, so I do know what I am talking about.
• GA is lightweight because it only requires one nominator and one reviewer, and the criteria are extremely simple. The article should be well written and structured, verifiable, broad, neutral and stable, with images where appropriate. In short, the article does a decent service to readers and complies with policy. That isn't rocket science. I rail against the idea that "GA is a big deal" on every occasion. It isn't. Let me repeat my argument (well this is my talk page :-)
  • There are over 2.5 million articles on Wikipedia. At most 10000 are good or featured (about 0.4%). Most of the rest do not even comply with policy. GA is the only community wide process that stands a chance of addressing this before the third millenium. The number of FAs increases by about 50 per month, a growth rate which has been static for almost a year. GA growth is growing approximately linearly. I attribute this to the fact that the one-on-one process means that reviewer numbers grow with article growth. And I've made graphs to prove it.
  • To every editor who says "Some GAs are crap", I would say, "1. Delist them" and "2. Do something about the other 2.5 million even more crap articles".

Chalk is my favourite writing instrument to deliver lectures; cheese is my favourite food to wind down with of an evening. I wouldn't eat chalk, or write my lectures using cheese. WikiProject assessments and GA are just like that.

The current blend of chalk and cheese is a mess. We get "this article can't be a GA because it isn't even B-Class according to WikiProject X". Well no, if it meets the GA criteria, it is a GA. Meanwhile, WP1.0 tries to adapt its scheme to fit GA somewhere between B and FA, but WikiProjects need to be able to rate articles as A-Class without going through GA, because A-Class is their ultimate content-check. Consequently when a reviewer delists an A-Class GA, they have no idea whether to demote it to B-Class or not.

Almost every democratic nation in the world has separation of powers, often several, and for good reason. Why can't we separate WikiProject and community assessments?

To Martin, I say good luck. I have tried to promote the second of your two options (in agreement with EyeSerene), but without success so far. Even a more recent proposal to redefine GA-Class to mean "B-Class + good article status" (so that it can be explained easily to GA reviewers what to do when they list or delist an article: change B to GA or GA to B and ignore everything else) was stonewalled.

Much as I love both GA and WikiProject assessments, in the current climate, as long as I have influence, I will oppose any attempt to merge them. I don't fancy having chalk for dinner or writing my lectures with cheese. Geometry guy 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've long held the view that there are several orthogonal review schemes. Projects use the stub-start-B-C-A scheme, and each can decide what the criteria are for each level. GA, as an indepent review process is entirely separate from that, and doesn't necessarily fit between B and A, or A and FA, as is the conventional wisdom. Hence, whenever I've delisted a GA I've never altered the project ratings. Perhaps even more radically, I don't even see FA as necessarily being the pinnacle of the assessment scheme. It is quite possible for an A class article, for instance, to be at least as representative of wikipedia's best work as an FA. All that FA means is that the article has been through the FA assessment process, so that too is an entirely separate process from that used by projects. In other words, Martin's second suggestion above is exactly what I believe the present situation to be. The CD assessment rankings just muddy the water to no benefit. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(to Geometry guy)

• "What you see at WP:ASSESS is the consensus of editors at WP:ASSESS, nothing more." Is there history of discussion on this topic between GA and WP:ASSESS? If so, would you be able to point me to it?
• "They focus on content improvement, because that is what WikiProjects are most interested in and is what they do best. By contrast, GA is a quality control mechanism, which focuses on policy-compliance and style." That's not my reading of Wikipedia:ASSESS#Grades. I see the same aim throughout the scheme. I'd be interested in your analysis of where you feel the criteria indicate the difference in aims that you suggest. I see awareness of policy and style throughout the criteria. Example from Start-class criteria: "the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability.; example from C-class criteria: "need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research."
• "I rail against the idea that "GA is a big deal" on every occasion." My wording was "significant outcome" and that "GA status matters, internally and externally." People do consider GA status significant. Some people put green discs on their user pages for every GA they have been involved with. And a perspective would be drawn by a casual reader that an article which has been through a formal and accountable process, the record of which is attached to the article, has some kind of significance - otherwise why the accountability record? I acknowledge that you don't like this significance. But you personally not liking the significance will not make it diminish for others.
• "GA is the only community wide process that stands a chance of addressing this before the third millenium." I like that you are passionate about the project that you involved in, but I think you need to acknowledge that GA is not the only project that is attempting to improve Wikipedia.
• "To every editor who says "Some GAs are crap", I would say, "1. Delist them" and "2. Do something about the other 2.5 million even more crap articles"." I agree.
• "The current blend of chalk and cheese is a mess." I'm not seeing where the aims of improving articles is a mess and where there is a such a chalk and cheese difference. Be helpful at this stage, as I am willing to help out where I can, if you could point me to specifics.
• "as long as I have influence, I will oppose any attempt to merge them" I have got very strongly your personal feelings on this issue. What is not clear is why. I'm aware that I may be asking a bit much, but I am genuinely perplexed by your reaction to my edit to Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and in all the words spent on your talkpage I'm still no clearer to understanding your reasons. Are there discussions on this that you can point me to? I've found evidence of where you have worked together with the 1.0 Editorial Team in order to reach a consensus on categories, but not yet of the matter we are discussing. SilkTork *^YES! 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to answer these comments, but it will take some work to dig through the archives. Meanwhile there is a good article reassessment which would benefit from some work on your part. Geometry guy 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(to Malleus_Fatuorum)

I had to look up "orthogonal" - and I'm still not sure of what you are saying. Like Geometry guy's assertions on the topic, I've yet to understand the reasoning behind why people feel that GA has a different assessment aim. I see all the assessment aims as being the same - to assist in the building of the articles by giving editors guidance on how to improve an article, and motivation to do the work needed; and to give readers of the article some indication of the reliability and quality of the article. GA and WP1.0 assess the same thing - content, style, presentation, policy, verification. How are they different? And please guys, don't assert "They are" - be nice to have some arguments to discuss! SilkTork *^YES! 23:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

WP1.0 doesn't assess anything so far as I'm aware, relying largely on wikiprojects to assign the stub-start-C-B-A ratings and the GA/FA projects to assign those rankings. But the overwhelming majority of wikiprojects are not geared up to carry out consistent reviews, like MilHist does, so project rankings are usually arbitrarily assigned. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, because FA and GA are available to give independent reviews against community agreed standards. That's what I mean by othogonal, the separate strands have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and are in no way related or connected. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt at greater clarity, my view is that an article has (at least) two separate ratings, not one as WP1.0 suggests. In other words, an article can be a B and a GA simultaneously, or a C and and an FA simultaneously, for instance. FA doesn't necessarily sit above A, or vice versa, because they inhabit different dimensions. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think both proposals (enforce uniformity of ratings and decouple GA, FA, FL) will a nice addition to WP:PEREN. Ruslik (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Please review Wikipedia:Civility and consider apologizing for this edit. – SJL 18:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I apologize. Geometry guy 19:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia ought to run remedial classes explaining this civility policy, because I for one have never understood it, and I doubt I ever will. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look uncivil, but apologies are free, never hurt and often can help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree with that. I was just thinking out loud ... --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What is considered civil or incivil varies from user to user and forum to forum. I have never quoted WP:Civility at any user, and never intend to for that reason. My remark was made in a highly contested !vote on a binary choice about an issue (flagged revisions) with many subtleties (they can be used in many ways!). It may or may not have been incivil, but SJL found it so, and as Sandy points out, it never hurts to apologize. Geometry guy 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Still agreeing (you'll get bored with it soon). To paraphrase Stephen Redgrave, if you ever see me take anyone to task over the civility policy, then you have my permission to shoot me. But to play Devil's advocate, what you're really apologising for is for making another editor feel that you've been incivil, not for being incivil. Yes? Nothing wrong with that of course, but probably not what the other editor was demanding. Anyway, I'll shut up on this topic now, nothing else to say. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader. I was asked to apologize for an edit, and I did. Geometry guy 21:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)