The problems of this article that you recently failed has been addressed. -- Mithril Cloud 03:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I am new at this. I hope that I have not put this in the wrong place. I am concerned about the Edward Said article. I saw that it received a "Pass" in five of six catagories, yet the article represents an extremely partisan view of a highly controversial figure whose veracity -- especially regarding his personal history -- has been widely challenged. In fact nothing in the biographical section can be regarded as neutral, much of it may be convenient invention.

Can you please explain to me how this article was chosen as a potential "Good Article"? Scott Adler 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I've fixed what you said needed to, but by no means am I an Ipod editor, just saw what needed to be done. AFAIK, 2G, 4G etc refers to 2nd/4th generation ipods rather than a unit of measurement. Thanks, RHB 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You recently promoted Campbell's Soup Cans to GA. It is my belief that all of the images in that article violate Wikipedia copyright guidelines. A photograph of a piece of artwork should not be claimed as the work of the photographer, and I believe it should have failed GA on that basis. Is there a line of reasoning that I've overlooked? Appraiser 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response. I'm discussing the image issue with some other people. I'm certain the "main" image will ultimately be removed. Looking more closely at the others (in the gallery), one of them states, "The source is edu.warhol.org. They are the copyright holders and expressly permit personal, informational, educational, and non-commercial use of this photo on their website." This seems to apply. But the others say, "The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as: 1. It is a historically significant painting. 2. The image is only being used for informational purposes. 3.Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the image depicted is familiar to the general public. 4.The image is readily available on the internet." I am a bit more troubled by that rationale. If they were all downloaded from edu.warhol.org, then that should be cited. (Otherwise, I agree that the article meets GA criteria) Appraiser 15:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I've gone ahead and expanded the article, with citations from some reliable sources (with pretty good potential for more, from a LexisNexis search. Would you please have another look, and see whether you'd be inclined to change your opinion on the AFD? - Hit bull, win steak ^(Moo!) 17:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reviewing the GA nomination for Byzantine-Arab Wars. As you requested to be informed, the article has been improved per the changes recommended on the article's discussion page: no months or days of the week are linked; 24 years and decades were delinked per WP:MOSNUM, because they did not provide relevant context to the events in question; "The" was removed from the heading "The Wars in North Africa", per WP:MSH; and three minor fixes to the article were made in the process of delinking. -- Grimhelm 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC) reply

The comment on GA hold was not clear enough for me...I require clarification. Tropical cyclone rainfall is a topic that a number of scientists have investigated, though documentation concerning data on a country-by-country basis remains lacking. I would rather not combine a number of countries just to reduce its "stubiness". Is what you're saying that it still requires the inclusion of more information on a country-by-country basis? Thegreatdr 19:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Tarret,
Thanks very much for the barnstar! Thanks for pointing to WP:TOOLS - I'll add it there. I wanted to make sure the script would do what it was supposed to before I spread it too far. You have encouraged my fledgling javascripting! (Some other ideas I'm looking at include showing the WikiProjects present on the talk page, by means of mouseovers for example.) If you have any requests, let me know. – Outriggr  § 04:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I had a look at the article you nominated for GA, Radon. There are, unfortunately, a few problems with it and as such I have put it on hold until these things are done. Please check out the talk page for more info. Thanks! Smomo 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Drat! Sorry! I saw your message, but wasn't feeling well, then I forgot about it. I'll go look after lunch. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Excellent work, and I do apologise for taking so long about this. It was pretty clearly GA except for the referencing all along, so... =) Do poke me when the rest of the elements you did are referenced. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I have improved the article since your initial review. Would you look at it again and see if it is a GA now?-- 十 八 09:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The article Argon you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Argon for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. — Indon ( reply) — 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I have submitted your assessment of Spore (video game) for review, as I believe you did not assess the article with correct use of the GA criteria. Feel free to add your input on the review section, where you will find my objections to your review detailed. Thanks, -- 163.1.165.116 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Is it possible to make the rating selector hidable so that when it isn't being used it doesn't clutter the top of the page? Tarret 01:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not when you asked, but I have added this functionality. You will see the options "[On]/[Hide]/[Off]" now. – Outriggr  § 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Tarret, you delisted five A-Class articles of the Chemicals wikiproject for the technical reason that they didn't have in-line references. As old A-Class articles they have enough references, most even with referring notes. So, I simply made the references in-line now, and renominated them on WP:GAC. Please would you be so sportive as to re-list them as GA too. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC). reply

...has been promoted to featured sound status. Thanks for your nomination. MER-C 10:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I saw you delisted List of Oregon State University alumni from the GA list, but you didn't explain why, nor did you open up a discussion on it at Wikipedia:Good article review. The article has been listed as a GA for several months now and I don't see what could have changed. VegaDark 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, sorry, I see that you did explain why at the bottom. In either case, Lists were allowed to be reviewed as GA's at the time it was reviewed, and just because they are no longer allowed does not necessarily mean it should be delisted. I've listed it at GAR. VegaDark 22:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't dispute that the Catalia Yachts article lacks the polish to qualify as a "good article"; however, I do dispute the allegation of single sourcing. The notes section is heavilly weighted with statistical references to the Catalina website, but the history of the founder, the company, and the line is well referenced to three substantial and informative sources: Good Old Boat magazine: Volume 4, Number 1, January/February 2001, Sail Magazine: August 2004 pages 54 - 57, and Heart of GLASS , Fiberglass Boats And The Men Who Made Them by Daniel Spurr pages 244 - 250. The performance statisitcs are cited from an independent source, the Northern California Yacht Racing Association, with published ratings based on and consistent with other worldwide rating organizations. -- Kevin Murray 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the advice. It tried following the multiple note instructions, but got this result: [1]. After the thord repetition of the note the rest of the page is blank. By eliminating the third reference, the fourth appears, but the rest of the page is blank. Any ideas? Or is this function limited to 3 repetitions? -- Kevin Murray 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I believe that I've addressed your concerns, although I can't see any dates in the article that would be suitable to link. - Malkinann 06:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The article Article you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Article for things needed to be addressed. Doctor Sunshine  talk 22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, I saw that you last helped my endevor of getting the Strawberry Panic! article up to GA status by reviewing the article and ranking it as a GA article. Now I have a tiny request to make; would it be too much trouble for you to review Kashimashi which is currently up for a GA? In the section it is in on the candidates list, the one above it has been reviewed and is on hold (I reviewed it myself), so there shouldn't be a problem in terms of waiting in line for the articles above to get done. I've been waiting paitently for a week, but still no one has reviewed it and I believe it's been GA quality for a week now and just need someone to review it to make the final say and this is where you come in. I completely understand if you choose not to do the review; just thought I might as well ask.-- 十 八 07:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I left a note at Talk:Kashimashi about some changes; wasn't sure if you noticed.-- 十 八 03:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I have answered your nomination statements here. — Deckill er 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Please tell me how exactly this article was in-universe. Vikrant Phadkay 14:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Tarret! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{( talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all GA members and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{ GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. -- Nehrams2020 23:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC) reply

While I do understand that having a development section and influences section would be great, these sections are very difficult to find information on, especially with an utter lack of staff interviews for this game. I have staff interviews for Kanon, Air, and Clannad, but they never released a visual fan book for Planetarian and anything that would contain interviews were probably gaming magazines way back in 2004 when the game was first released and are thus next to impossible to find. Not only that, but even if I did find some it would be just as difficult (if not more) to translate them into English as I am not well adept to translating Japanese yet.

As for influence on pop culture, I'm not sure what you mean. This is a visual novel, so I doubt it had any influence on Japanese pop culture. If you meant influence on Japanese otaku/Japanese gaming culture then maybe, but then again it wasn't one of Key's most popular titles, and sales figures are terrible to guage because the game was released for downloading over the Internet first and the numbers just don't seem to be anywhere. When the game was released on disc for the PC, it didn't even get on the national ranking for bishōjo games on how well they sold in Japan while all of Key's other games have so far accomplished this feat. And as far as I can tell, the PS2 version was never reviewed by Famitsu for what it's worth.

All I'll say is that both Kanon, and Air (visual novel) passed GA without these sections you are asking for in the Planetarian article even though I agree with you that it would be great to include them.-- 十 八 22:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know about the pop culture part, as I've stated my reasons above, but I added in a development section at the top.-- 十 八 10:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Just thought I'd ask if could either fail or pass Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume now, as you've had the article on hold for nine days now, over the maximum allowed hold time of one week. Sorry if you were already going to do that. Thanks, Green451 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey there Tarret. First off, thanks for getting around to reviewing Manitoba. It's been a candidate for a week, or something, and it's been starting to REEEEALLY bug me that it wasn't getting reviewed.

I was wondering if you could perhaps clarify what MOS issues you had with the lead section. I didn't quite understand what you meant. :) Thanks, GrooveDog ( talk) 03:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{ GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. -- Nehrams2020 23:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see the fair use issues I've raised under you GA pass. Also, please consider a more in-depth review when passing/failing/whatevering articles. Thanks, Giggy _U ^C P 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Um, why did you pass an article I put on hold a few hours before? - Flubeca ^Talk 21:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Trcalogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yea, sure thing. Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Pac-Man in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Pac-Man in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pac-Man in popular culture (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Pac-Man in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I award Tarret this barnstar for the 117 articles categorized in order to help eliminate the backlog at Category:Uncategorized good articles. Lara ♥Love 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there!

I've done a separate section for the band's musical style, its progression, etc. I don't think that a criticisms section is necessary, or possible at all, besides the reviews of albums, that are included in the body of the article. Also, why is a "Performance on Charts" section necessary? The band has released 4 albums so far, they don't need and don't have a separate discography page, so the chart performances are included in the article and the discography section too. Their first two albums didn't chart at all, only the next two charted, so I don't really see a point in making a section just for these two positions... I hope the article is ready now. Gocsa 15:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply

I have left you an optional question that you may want to answer on you RfA. T Rex | talk 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Vandalism is bad. I know this. You also know this. Updating Wikipedia and ENHANCING it is good. I know this. Do you know this? You reverted my edit. It needed to be FIXED. I wanted to fix it but I am only a visitor to this site. I don't spend so much time here that I think I need a special nickname. You should look at "disappearing gun" again. Look at "fort casey" too. cheers.

You reverted as vandalism an effort to shorten and remove redundancy from a section in the Large Hadron Collider article, which was explained on the talk page. Please be more careful in the future; the message you left on the user's talk page could easily be off-putting to a knowledgeable user who was trying to improve the article. I know occasional mistakes are inevitable, especially with automated tools, but I urge you to go slower to keep the rate down. One bitten newbie hurts more than a hundred vandalism reverts helps. -- SCZenz 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Regarding your color changes, I agree with the fact that it should be a different (although I haven't quite got to the stage yet). I was wondering if you wouldn't mind changing the grey to yellow instead? The broken failed image is already grey, and I think yellow would stand out a little bit better, and be a bit more indicative of what we're trying to accomplish; red indicates the review has STOPPED, waiting for fixes/input from the nominator or other editors; yellow would indicate that the review is slowing down, so that other reviewers can take a look before going full forward with a pass. Or something along those lines? Thanks! Dr. Cash 02:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The above article isn't even close to ready for GAC. Not sure why you would nominate it without consulting the sole author. Please reconsider your nomination at this time. Thanks. IvoShandor 05:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Now that I have your attention...

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Iwimi.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Richard001 09:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm considering nominating this for deletion considering it's inactive and redundant. Do you, as the creator, object? Lara Love 02:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC) reply

A couple weeks ago you sent me a message asking me to augment User:StatisticianBot to keep track of GAN second opinions. This is now implemented; if you take a look at the report page, starting with tomorrow's run, you will find added information dealing with 2nd opinions (a section for old second opinions, and added stats in the Backlog report and Summary sections). — Daniel Vandersluis^{( talk)} 23:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your interest in the GA WikiPrioject, and for undertaking this review. Using the GA criteria, I have looked over the article and your comments, and there are a few more issues you could raise with the editors:

• Manual of Style compliance: most of the inline citations will need to be moved to sit outside the punctuation rather than inside it (so they look like the one at the end of the first para of Historical background).
• It's not strictly a GA criteria, but we recommend editors use the templates on WP:CITET to format references. This lets them be parsed by bots for things like tracking down archived versions of dead web-page links, or converting 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digits.
• There are a few instances of possible editorialising that need to be rewritten (or sourced). For example:

"Today, Goethe's Theory of Colours is still remarkable for its phenomenological observations." Who says so?

"His claim that colour arises from the interplay of light and dark has caused almost all of modern physics to reject Goethe's theory as unscientific..." Prove it

• I spotted at least one contraction in the prose ("didn't"). This should be written in full.
• The article is in British English, so spelling should be consistent ("analyzed" could be changed to "analysed", and the same for "characterized" - editors might see this as nitpicky though!)
• Section order: this should be Lead; Main body; See also; Notes; References; Further reading/Bibliography; External links (the See also section needs moving)
• Only full dates should really be wikilinked; there is no need to link years unless it adds depth to the article... which in my experience it never has yet! (there is an instance of this in the lead). Linking decades is fine.
• There are a number of gaps in the referencing (this partly relates to my 'editorialising' comment above). The rule of thumb for GA is currently to have one cite at the end of each paragraph to cover the content of that paragraph, with additional cites where needed (eg quotations, controversial statements etc). For scientific articles the cite-per-pragraph may not always be necessary (some theories etc are commonly accepted), but the content should still be referenced somewhere.
• More wikilinks would help the reader and add depth to the article.

I think that's enough to be going on with! My personal feeling is that this could have been quick-failed, since as you rightly pointed out it also needs a thorough copyedit and possibly a reorganisation (I'm not sure about the Quotations section for one; the entire article is basically quotations). However, it never hurts to give editors as much information as possible ;)

Hope this helps; all the best, EyeSerene ^TALK 19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I've failed it, 15 days passed after the 2nd review and no action was taken by the article's editors. See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#To fail or not to fail... . Yamanbaiia 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi - I believe it was you who introduced the Wikipedia 1.0 hierarchy into the GA list. In view of this, and your comments last month at WT:GA, I thought you might be interested in a little workshop I've set up to try to harmonize the GA and WP1.0 lists at the subtopic level. Geometry guy 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Tarret. I've replied to a comment you left at Talk:quadratic equation. I'd appreciate it if you could reply there. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 19:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash ( talk) 04:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 3 - January 2008 December issue | February issue Project News There are now 3,301 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. With 1,789 current featured articles, that brings the total of good and featured articles to 5,090! The most recently promoted articles are: Hurricane Daniel (2006), Tarbosaurus, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Wicca, Seth MacFarlane, Stanley Internment Camp, Hurricane Karen (2007), Interstate 155 (Illinois), Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007), Brian Sings and Swings, Winston Churchill, Mzoli's, John Kefalas, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Attachment disorder, Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, Byzantium under the Angeloi, Wowowee, Tyrone Wheatley, Mina (singer), Jon Burge, Mercury Hayes, William Lowndes Yancey, and Toni Preckwinkle. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! Reviewer of the Month Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include: Awadewit ( talk · contribs) Canadian Paul ( talk · contribs) Derek.cashman ( talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 ( talk · contribs) Elcobbola ( talk · contribs) Jackyd101 ( talk · contribs) Kane5187 ( talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad ( talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 ( talk · contribs) The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) VanTucky ( talk · contribs) Wassupwestcoast ( talk · contribs) Member News There are now 166 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of December: Majoreditor ( talk · contribs) Bernstein2291 ( talk · contribs) The4325 ( talk · contribs) Pepsi2786 ( talk · contribs) Monowi ( talk · contribs) Rankun ( talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! GAReview Template Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{ GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer. To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article. GA Sweeps After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details. At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep. Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA. Did You Know,... ... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000? ... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"? ... that there is a bot ( StatisticianBot) that gives a daily report on GAN? ... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed? ... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star? From the Editors Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA. OhanaUnited Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers! Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Madame X (album) ( talk | history | start review) • Gedling Town F.C. ( talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) ( talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) ( talk | history | start review) • Jude Law ( talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Louie Caporusso • Northallerton • Patrick Omameh • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list |

I am looking into helping out on cleanup and started with Category:Cleanup from January 2006, where I came across what looks like your translation of a french article Modification of political parties under the Restoration. It needs help. It looks like it survived one deletion discussion. I know enough french to help, but it looks like the original article was part of a timeline set of articles on the french wikipedia and I'm not sure this one will work as it is. I suspect some of this is covered in other ways in the english wikipedia. Do you have any plans to improve it your self? Would you have objects if I were to bring it to AfD again? (John User:Jwy talk) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello, Tarret. Since you recently contributed to the lively deletion discussion for Template:Non-free promotional, I thought I'd let you know that I've continued the discussion about this template at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Template:Non-free promotional. The result of the deletion discussion was to keep the template, but there are still some questions about whether the current template serves a useful purpose and how to prevent its misapplication. Please contribute to the discussion if you are interested. — Bkell ( talk) 17:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. I just spent some time on the Earth Abides page, and I need an opionion as to whether I have fulfilled what is needed to remove the unverified claims tag, in the "Analysis" section. Jacqke ( talk) 04:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 05:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 4 - February 2008 January issue | March issue Project News There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Johan Derksen, Trafford, J. Michael Bailey, Greg Skrepenak, Paleolithic-style diet, Alan Dershowitz, Natalee Holloway, Slovenian presidential election, 2007, San Francisco Municipal Railway, and Marcela Agoncillo. The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 8 articles up for re-review. If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated! GA Sweeps Update During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles. Reviewer of the Month Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January! Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include: AnonEMouse ( talk · contribs) Canadian Paul ( talk · contribs) Casliber ( talk · contribs) Derek.cashman ( talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide ( talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 ( talk · contribs) Jackyd101 ( talk · contribs) Johnfos ( talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad ( talk · contribs) Miranda ( talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 ( talk · contribs) VanTucky ( talk · contribs) Member News There are now 176 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 15 new members that joined during the month of January: Atlantik ( talk · contribs) Auawise ( talk · contribs) Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide ( talk · contribs) Ddstretch ( talk · contribs) Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs) FamicomJL ( talk · contribs) Hamiltonstone ( talk · contribs) jackturner3 ( talk · contribs) Kbthompson ( talk · contribs) Keilana ( talk · contribs) Miranda ( talk · contribs) pcbene ( talk · contribs) Skeeker ( talk · contribs) Snowolf ( talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! On Hold versus Failing an Article This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article: Passing – it meets all six of the good article criteria; add it to WP:GA and add {{ ArticleHistory}} or {{ GA}} to the article's talk page. Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ ArticleHistory}} or {{ failedGA}} to the article's talk page. On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page. Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page. So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be: the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory). minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes. mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references. a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags. On the other hand, an article should be failed if it: is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section). contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose. there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{ cn}} or {{ unreferenced}} tags. has evidence of an active edit war in the article history. has major neutrality issues. has any {{ cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places. Did You Know... ... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days? ... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA? ... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)? ... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles? ... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles? ... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status? From the Editors Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Madame X (album) ( talk | history | start review) • Gedling Town F.C. ( talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) ( talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) ( talk | history | start review) • Jude Law ( talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Louie Caporusso • Northallerton • Patrick Omameh • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list |

Thanks for uploading Image:Vnickle.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 03:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Alberta.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Template:GAcc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply