Forum:CT Archive/Removing the under 3000 word GA rule

My first attempt at a CT, here goes. Following up from this SH thread, I'm proposing that we lower the maximum 3000 word count for GAs to 1000 words, since this is unnessecary because pretty much all of our writers will take articles they've written over 1000 words to Featured status, and from what I understand this rule only really applied when Good articles could be articles that weren't comprehensive in detail. The following GAN rules will have to be changed if this passes, the parts highlighted in bold indicate that they should be removed
 * Rule 7 ...have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic if the length of the article supports it. This is essential in articles over 1000 words but may not be appropriate on articles with limited content.
 * Rule 9 ...have significant information, especially a biography for character articles. For articles under 1000 words in length, comprehensive detail is required with all information covered from all sources and appearances. For articles over 1000 words, broad coverage addressing all major aspects of the topic is sufficient.
 * Rule 17 ...counting the introduction and "Behind the scenes" material, be at least 250 words long (not including captions, quotes, or headers, etc). Alternatively, a good article cannot exceed 3000 words.
 * This second sentance should be revised to Alternatively, a good article cannot exceed 1000 words, articles that do so should be nominated for Featured status

I'm going to divide this vote into two parts, semi-copying Trak's formatting for the other current CT, sorry.  Commander Code-8  G'day, mate 10:25, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Main vote
Okay, main part of the vote, should the GAN limit be lowered from 3000 words to 1000 words?

Support

 * 1) As the proposer.  Commander Code-8  G'day, mate 10:25, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Side vote
If the above change is implemented, what will happen to GAs that are currently over 1000 words in length? Should they be stripped of their status effective immiediately? Should the original nominator, if not, someone who is knowledgable about the source the article appears from, be asked to nominate them for Featured status? Maybe they could be automatically taken to FA status without need for a nominator? There's multiple options we can explore here. I'm actually unsure which option to pick, and some of the options suggested are a bit radical, so if anyone has any other ideas just say so.  Commander Code-8  G'day, mate 10:25, January 27, 2013 (UTC)