Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report

Allowed to change anything?[edit]

Just a question, ‎Rcsprinter123: Are editors who participated in the signpost allowed to change anything to their posts before the signpost debuts? I'm not stating that I'm looking to change anything; I more so want clarification on it. I know that I often nitpick my replies in general on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are, it's your words. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 19:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But not after the signpost debuts, correct? Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it really doesn't matter. As long as there are no significant content changes. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I would think that an interview should remain as it was the time it debuted, not have an editor significantly changing things after that point in history. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LT910001, I take it that this IP is you? Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes it is. I suspected there was more than 10 GAs now. I've updated the assessment table for our project, too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The G-spot article is also a WP:GA. But as you can see here and here, CFCF and 97198 have very recently disagreed on its listing. CFCF currently has it unlisted on the WP:Anatomy scale. It's not a great article, but it is assessed as a WP:GA and already recently went through WP:GA reassessment. It's good enough for the topic it's covering, in my opinion -- a highly disputed area of the vagina; a subject far more tied up in culture than in anatomy. I and others have cleaned it up; Zad68 especially helped me with that. And while it does need more cleanup, which I aim to do at some point soon, I don't see the article as needing to be as strict with sourcing as some of our other anatomy articles. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that any article that has passed a review at GAN (and, if relevant, a reassessment at GAR) is thereafter assessed as a GA for all of the WikiProjects it belongs to. I've changed this a number of times, but CFCF has continued to reinstate the article's B class rating despite its being a GA, and I've subsequently stopped trying. 97198 (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that this is how the quality assessment works, 97198 (pinging you again in case you don't think to check back at this talk page in a timely fashion or have not put it on your WP:Watchlist). CFCF is not pleased with the quality of the G-spot article (and I'm not 100% happy with its quality either; in fact, I often see room for improvement with Wikipedia articles), but, like I stated, I will be further improving that article soon (either this weekend, or in another week or two). In the meantime, and certainly after further improvement, the article should be listed as WP:GA on the anatomy scale; I'm not interested in WP:Edit warring over it, though. Either way, and I've stated this to CFCF in the WP:GA reassessment, it's not the type of article that I think needs a standard WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy layout, given that the G-spot is not definable like other anatomy parts. I reiterate that its existence is highly disputed, whether as a distinct structure or as existing at all. The vast majority of the G-spot topic, at least in scientific literature as opposed to sex guide books, concerns whether it exists. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]