![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am reviewing Clint Eastwood for Talk:Clint Eastwood/GA1. I am wondering if GABot should be assigned the task of monitoring talk pages for GA review talk pages that are in excess of a certain size and changing the talk page inclusion to just say the review can be found at Talk:articlename/GA#.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether GA reviews should be transcluded onto the talk page is a matter of debate. The bot's role is to automate wherever possible the procedure that has been agreed upon. That being said, is there an existing rule that states that reviews should be un-transcluded once they get to a certain length? If not, we could debate having such a rule, and if such a rule is agreed upon, the bot handling it would follow naturally. harej 05:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a lot of readable prose is hidden in bulletpoint text. I would guess that just saying any review that reaches 25KB of wikitext is something that should be truncated like they do at WP:PR (probably for a number below 25kb).-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This article has been created as part of the British Library editathon ( WP:GLAM/BL) with suggestions from the BL curator for the collections. I am unsure of where to classify this for review, it might fit somewhere in Social Sciences, could someone advise? I am hoping that GA review comments will help progress the article and we can ask for parallel expert comments from the curator, getting to a higher quality will also help the relationship with the BL for future collaboration events. Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 11:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been almost totally rewritten from a neutral POV using scholarly reliable sources only. In the past it has been a very contentious page and a POV battleground, and I want to try to take it to FA status, which I think would help stabilise it to keep its neutral POV.
Thanks, Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Rereading the debate above, there is much debate against untranscluding. I am not proposing untranscluding. I am proposing truncating like they do at WP:PR. Thus far, no one has stated opposition to this. What I am suggesting is taking an overly long discussion and truncating it down to its bare essentials in transcluded form. Here is a sample of the kind of diff that the bot could do for discussions that are too long, which is the way things are handled at WP:PR. The result is transcluded above. No one has stated any opinion on truncating overly long discussions so that in transcluded form as they are on talk pages they are short. Since there is general consensus that talk pages should not get too long, which is why so many talk pages are archived, and the GA process can by itself with a single talk page section make a talk page longer than is conventionally desirable, we should consider alleviating issue this as WP:PR does.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 09:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Could someone delete the Dog review page, at Talk:Dog/GA2? An anonymous user seems to have created it by mistake, perhaps wanting to edit the article, which is semi-protected. -- Beloved Freak 13:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to request that a particular individual not review an article, when submitting it? (This is normal with journal submissions. For example if there is a conflict.) Would think that no one would expect submitters to run through a review with someone they have ongoing conflicts with or to allow reviewers to "grab" articles to hold them up. TCO ( talk) 06:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
(undent) I don't think it's just the nominator's problem to have to bring up that they've had a conflict with a certain reviewer in the past. If a person is going through the list looking for one to review and sees an article written mainly by a person that they have had a major conflict with in the past, they should skip it. Don't review it. That's really just common sense. There are many other articles on the list, and other people will eventually review it. There's no reason to jump into an area where you know there's a good chance of an argument starting when it's really quite easy to avoid it. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The current GAN page says that this article is being reviewed, but it is not. The editor in question made one quick remark and hasn't edited wikipedia since. I tried to change the nominations page to let others know that this article is not being reviewed and a bot undid my edit. Can someone please help revise the entry so that people know it is not being reviewed and needs a reviewer. Thanks. Remember ( talk) 14:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever Dana boomer did, does not appear to have fixed the problem because it still appears as if the 1907 article is being reviewed when it isn't. Can someone let me know whether the bot is going to fix this or whether there is something else that needs to be done. Remember ( talk) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there going to be another GAN backlog drive anytime soon? I think it would be a great idea if someone organised another one of these, because were back in the same position... 3-4 month waits.. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 18:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a rough consensus is forming for the next GA backlog elimination drive to be in March and then another one six months later in September. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#April 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive for more details. Also, some other comments there would also be appreciated. – MuZemike 02:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm doing a PR on Torchwood. the fourth season debuts in the summer of 2011 on Starz. I'm sure there's a guideline about articles that are likely to change significantly in the near future. Can anyone making this clear either way. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like a second opinion for Talk:Olivia Shakespear/GA1 which is being reviewed by a first time reviewer. Does the reviewer have to request the second opinion, or can it by done by the nominee? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 21:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This plea is unacceptable. Truthkeeper88 is making improvement on the article difficult, specifically in the development of a neutral tone and cutting excessive detail that impedes the flow of the article. She suggested I fail it, which I should on the broad in coverage and neutral tone criteria. I understand "where she's coming from". She has spent considerable time and effort writing the article and does not appreciate the suggestion that a single word be cut from the article. She apparently has great faith in her abilities and appears to be hoping a reviewer will drop by who will agree with her and give her an easy time. 56tyvfg88yju ( talk) 22:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've had several wrongly failed GANs (in my opinion) in the past… Am I aloud to like repost it in GAN (at it's original place, like cutting in line) and asking for a second opinion? If not that should REALLY be allowed… Thanks, keep any comments cool,,,, Crowz RSA 01:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I was randomly looking at some of the GA reviews when I noticed this, the Cristiano Ronaldo review page has essentially nothing on it. I originally chalked it up to a reviewer taking their time on the review but I noticed that it has been two weeks since the page was created. To make matters worse the the nominator has been blocked and the reviewer has made no edits of any kind to Wikipedia in the last 6 days. One of the edits they did perform was to change their signature on the GAN for Robin van Persie to an IP address. Should anything be done with this situation or am I making mountains out of mole hills? Thanks-- Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
An anon has commented WP:OR on the Talk:Kamadhenu/GA1, creating the page. The bot has updated the GAN page making the anon the reviewer, which is not true. This will deny the article's chance to be in the backlog, if it languishes on the GAN page. How to fix this???? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
What should I do when an article is mostly or completely based on offline sources which I cannot access? Or when the sources are online but in a foreign language I do not speak? Should I be reviewing such articles at all? It's difficult the check the article's factual accuracy without having access to the sources, unless the reviewer has relatively deep personal expertise about the subject. But this I think is rarely the case (I, for once, don't have any real "expertise" about any of the nominated subjects). I'd like to help with clearing the review backlog but this problem is preventing me from reviewing most of the articles. What is your advice? Nanobear ( talk) 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Offline sources are perfectly acceptable, provided that they meet WP:RS guidelines. There's these buildings called "libraries" which store these things made of paper called "books", which might help you. As far as non-English sources are concerned, the English Wikipedia does prefer English language sources, so those should be used preferably. Occasionally, it is necessary and/or appropriate to use a non-English source, so it depends on the article and the context in which it is being used. Google Translate may be of use here as well. WTF? ( talk) 18:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Same issue as the previous section. Miyagawa (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I accidentally created the page Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 when I'm the one who has contributed to the article. On the page it says that the reviewer is myself. Can somebody please revert my action. Thanks Sp33dyphil ( T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been away for more than a year, and I see that a bot has taken over the process of updating the GAN queue. How do I ensure it indicates the article I'm reviewing is on hold and uses my signature? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Silverskylines has been inactive for over a month. Would anyone mind if I took over the review? Adabow ( talk · contribs) 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As my former supervisors would say, we have an "opportunity" here. Racepacket ( talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked earlier today for copyright violations, and he's since retired when his unblock request was denied. He has currently nominated the following here at GAN (nominations reviewed and on hold in italics):
I guess I'm asking the community what we'd like to do with the nominations. Given the recent concerns raised about his editing, I think some caution to look for copyvios may be warranted. Imzadi 1979 → 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
hello,
could someone review the articles in the section "Sports and recreation". It doesn't progress prudent like it should. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why did GAbot "failed" and removed this entry? AJona1992 ( talk) 18:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The review for John Endecott has not been listed by the bot on this page. Magic ♪piano 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
After a six-month absence from WP, TeacherA ( talk · contribs) showed up four weeks ago and took on two reviews, Talk:Mitt Romney/GA1 and Talk:Christchurch, Dorset/GA1. The Christchurch one was never done, leading the nominator BarretBonden to ping TeacherA without response. The Romney one was done initially (in TeacherA's erratic and often cursory style; see his reviews in the past), and the nominator (me) and other editors quickly responded with comments and article changes as best we could, but TeacherA has been unresponsive since then, except for some brief comments a week ago that (as another editor pointed out) showed he hadn't actually looked at the changes that had been made to the article since the initial review. Nominators are expected to respond to GA reviews quickly (the 'hold' period is usually a week); shouldn't reviewers be held to the same?
Now, I and others have pointed out before on this page that TeacherA doesn't know what he's doing with GA reviews, and I've indicated my suspicions that TeacherA is actually a sock operation of some kind running a low-grade disruption game against the GA process. Regardless of whether that is true, is it possible to get a ban on TeacherA doing further reviews? And regardless of that, is it possible to get the two current and largely abandoned reviews reassigned to someone else? Thanks ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
page
parameter from '1' to '2', and remove the "onreview" status? That way the bot recognises a new review. Or you could change the status to "2ndopinion".
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
hello,
I reviewed the article Talk:2011 Australian Open/GA1 and all what I got are words like "thick" and "silly" even if I were friendly. I think I won't even start to review articles in GAN if I get such comments. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
GOP has agreed to withdraw from the review, so I've collapsed the previous discussion and edited the "|note=" parameter to request a new reviewer, although it will be a while before KnowIG is able to attend to it. Bencherlite Talk 14:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Where do notable past news events go on the nominations list? I'd like to nominate Manila hostage crisis. It looks like GA standard to me but probably won't get through first time round, however I'd like an impartial editor to review the article with GA criteria as it currently stands. -- Der yck C. 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be ready to review Conan_(TV_series), but List of Conan episodes shows that the 1st series started on November 8, 2010 and as of today (8 Feb 2011) shows 46 of to 56 (February 24, 2011) the titles and, for the last few shows, the music / entertainment have not been identified. I'm concerned that it may be premature to go for a GA - in addition to the titles and music / entertainment, I feel it would be to wait until we see further critics comments, whether there's a 2nd series, etc. What to others think? -- Philcha 14:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Would someone please do a neutrality check on Gery Chico? Currently the article has a cleanup banner that mentions "COI" and "news release" concerns, and WP:RGA says that cleanup banners may make an article more likely to be quick-failed. I've tried my best to comply with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV standards, but I feel that I cannot remove the banner because I have a conflict of interest myself (I'm involved in one of the mayoral campaigns, not necessarily Chico's). Thus, I would appreciate it very much if an unbiased contributor would take a brief look at the article to see if it doesn't meet the quick-fail criteria. Geread ( talk) 06:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
User Bzuk has put up his hand to review it this page. However, when I requested him to actually review after a few days of inactivity, he said, "I am not the reviewer, merely an editor getting the article ready for review" on my talk page. It looks like that he doesn't know the process of reviewing that well. Could someone please delete the page Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 so somebody else will review the page? Thanks Sp33dyphil ( T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 09:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Under which subtopic would a medieval fair ( Tewkesbury Medieval Festival) be listed? Although it features a re-enactment of a battle long-past, the fair is more than that by now (and more of a social celebration/enjoyment along a medieval theme). Jappalang ( talk) 03:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor initiated the review at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./GA2, but provided no actual review. As the FAQ on this page recommends for this case: it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions can be posted at WT:GAN. So here I am, posting the request for deletion so this article can get a proper review. Thanks. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Steph Cunningham, a soap character, at Talk:Steph Cunningham/GA1. I'd like other reviewers' opinions about section Steph Cunningham#Storyline. You may find WP:WikiProject Hollyoaks useful.
Can someone else put an opinion in please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintheone ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
Cite episode}}
(broadcasts) or {{
Cite video}}
(DVD). This fulfills
WP:V and is inline with
WP:PS, provided the summary is simply descriptive of the events with no interpretations or conjectures.
Jappalang (
talk) 11:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)At Talk:Steph_Cunningham/GA1 the nominator has asked for a 2nd opinion. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, why is the bot insist on moving Maniac Mansion from "Video games" to miscellaneous? I think the bot is seriously acting up. – MuZemike 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
GA nominee}}
was messed up,
manually.
Jappalang (
talk) 09:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)I see that most articles have to wait 2.5 to 3 months. And I see it was as bad at the end of Dec 2010. Any ideas on how to remedy it? I've suggested before that any one who nominates an article must review one before nominating another - except that new nominaters get 2 reviews for free, so they learn how reviews work. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I just initiated a review of Dog, at Talk:Dog/GA2. However, a review had accidentally been initiated already by somebody else, who blanked the page after realizing the error. I added the basic review-cruft to the existing blank page and started my review. My question is, will the bot pick this up, or do I have to do some hand-editing to get things to show up correctly? Looie496 ( talk) 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
User Arsenikk has not responded to Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 for a number of days. About 90% of his comments have been fulfilled, and more changes have been made. Those unfulfilled have been given reasons. I have posted many times on his talk page, but no responses have been made. Can somebody please deliver an ultimatum on this article; I'm confident it's going to be a pass. It's stable, neutral, well-written, broad in its coverage and factually accurate. Can somebody comment or pass it, please. Many thanks Sp33dyphil ( T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 06:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
National Ignition Facility fell off FA because of questions concerning the licensing of the images. It is not clear even now what the exact answer was, but it seems it just sort of fell off the list. So then what is the requirement for GA? The images could only ever be used under fair use, the lab has strict licensing requirements and won't consider CC-by-SA or similar (yes, I tried). Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
In Sinyavin Offensive (1942), it seems a more Common name, Siniavino Offensive (1942), should have been used (see Talk:Sinyavin Offensive (1942)/GA1). Considering the GA process is sort of semi-automated by GAbot, our question is whether the article should be renamed now or after the GA review is concluded? Jappalang ( talk) 00:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
While reviewing Battle of Tabu-dong I forgot that we have a functional GA bot now and manually changed the WP:GAN page. It did some sort of maintenance, and so has not passed the article which I have. What needs to be done to fix it? NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 02:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I am curious as to whether an orphan such as Rose Catherine Pinkney is eligible for WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I want a second opinion on the review for Steph Cunningham. More it's probably best if it is someone who have reviewed a fictional character article before. The review it recieved is impossible. Asking for all the storylines to be sourced when it's not a requirement per the MOS. Everytime I change something the editor desputes it. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose that WP:Good article nominations/guidelines#How to review an articlebe amended: Current text:
# On the article talk page, follow the link in the {{ GA nominee}} template to start a review subpage. Leave an initial comment, and save that subpage.
Proposed new text:
# On this page follow the Start Review link in the {{ GAN entry}} template to start a review subpage. If you like, leave an initial comment, one line below the automatically inserted reviewer signature and timestamp and save that subpage. The GANbot will then change WP:GAN to indicate that you are reviewing the article.
My reasons for resuggesting this are that many reviewers enter text above the reviewer signature and timestamp which the bot cannot parse. Improvements to this propsed wording welcome. Jezhotwells ( talk) 11:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have been having issues lately at both GAN and DYK where random editors have descended upon my freshly written articles and nominated without talking to me first. In the case of my latest creation, Conservation of slow lorises, I was going to spend the evening touching it up before nominating it. However, I was tired when I came home from work and fell asleep. After waking up, I have discovered that someone nominated it for me. I left a note on the nominator's talk page, but I was wondering how best to handle this in the future. This is becoming an increasingly frequent problem, and it's not just one editor that's doing it. A lot of times, I finish writing articles at 3am, and although I have now started making sure that I stay up to complete the DYK nomination to avoid this issue, the last thing I want to do is either stay up even later to prepare my work for GAN or delay publication until the article is 100% ready for GAN. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
So what's the concensus here? Add my name to the nomination (and if so, where exactly?) Revert the nomination? Either way, I plan to finish up the article tonight. All that needs to be done is a proofread/copyedit. Also, I want to add a few pictures that need to be uploaded from Flickr. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Tony Blair/GA1 was originally created by an IP vandal and then deleted. Is subsequently came along and started the review properly, but the bot is listing the IP as the reviewer and reverted my edit (which is seriously bad form for a bot to be doing) when I changed it to my signature. Why is the bot the sole maintainer of GAN and why is it overriding human editors? And how do I get it to list me as the reviewer and not some IP vandal? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I started a review of South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe and the WP:GAN page link changed to "discuss review" instead of "start review". However, the bot did not change the status parameter of the talk page template to onreview or add the transclusion of the review page. I have manually added onreview and transcluded the review page in the hope that it will kickstart the robot into acknowledging the presence of the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racepacket ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The article on Tokyo was just nominated and while I don't review articles, and don't want too, I just looked at the article and noticed that a reviewer shouldn't even take the time to look at it. This article should have never been nominated. It's currently rated as a C and I don't even know if it would be a B. Large parts of the article, including full paragraphs and full sections, are not referenced once and there are multiple "citations needed" in other areas. I have an article here that I have been waiting to get reviewed which has already been skipped over by another article and I don't like the thought that it could be looked over again for an article that should have never been nominated. Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 16:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the bot may have fallen over so it would be wise to manually update the Wikipedia:Good articles/recent page. I have informed User:Jarry1250. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I've come across a few GA reviews from User:GreatOrangePumpkin ( talk | contribs), and have concerns. The first I've seen got somewhat out of hand on the respective users' talk pages, although the nominator (now indeffed) certainly had a part to play in that. But he then summarily promoted this nomination, and is on the verge of promoting Aruba at the 2008 Summer Olympics. I'm not sure if there are any other GANs that will need looking at. For what it's worth, I am convinced that he is an enthusiastic young editor acting in good faith, as demonstrated by his efforts at Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Regards, — W F C— 08:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Back to the topic, it's a stub, and promoting stubs as "good articles" is clearly incorrect. This needs to be addressed, and quickly, before it further undermines the GAN process. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree in that a biography of an obscure man may be a good article, if the information about him is properly organized... on the mere level of the hypothetical ideas. In the discussion hold here, this does not apply to the specific Aruba at the 2008 Summer Olympics. There's not even a single important paragraph bigger than three sentences. MBelgrano ( talk) 11:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I could do with a second opinion at Talk:Mince pie/GA1 if anyone has the time. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 12:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am not certain whether my role at Talk:Case Closed/GA1 has gone beyond what a reviewer should have done. Could any veteran GA reviewer take a look and advise? Jappalang ( talk) 03:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Can this article be eligible for Good article nomination? I have been told that "Timeline of..." article has ever gone through GAN. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 10:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just reviewed this article. Nice little article. Definatly will be a GA either if he does the improvements or in the future. My issue is. Is this GAC a bit too early. Is the article just a bit too much of a stub. I've hinted this in the review, and want to know what others thought before promoting/declining. KnowIG ( talk) 21:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed the Lost article Because You Left and feel it is ready for promotion as a GA. However, there is a minor ongoing edit war over four small words, which several anonymous IP users feel should be included. As I'm not accustomed to dealing with edit wars, I thought I would seek a second opinion. Is the issue so trivial that I should ignore it and pass the article for GA anyway? The consensus on the article's talkpage leans against the words' inclusion, but the issue was never completely resolved (and one IP user continues to edit the article, adding the same four words over and over again). A second opinion would be appreciated. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please delete Talk:Vision of Love/GA1 and Talk:Hillel Slovak/GA1, as they were inadvertently created by someone who is not intending to review. -- Beloved Freak 22:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Can some one please help facilitate the netball GA? The reviewer cited bias but won't present any information regarding bias so we can work to fix it. I showed it to people in #wikipedia-en-help and no one saw the bias there either. The reviewer said the article is too stuffed with information. They didn't say the article had too much random trivia and articles are supposed to be comprehensive about their subject. He's asked for tables to be removed that other people who have gone through the GA process have repeatedly assured me are acceptable and important for the article. The reviewer has asked for information that doesn't exist (the number of players by continent, historical styles of play) to be included in the article. He's extended the time out for doing this, against my request because I don't feel we can address his concerns in a timely manner. I feel we've reached an impasse and I want the article failed so that we can get a new reviewer in who can be more helpful. It isn't like we haven't tried. We've made this level of editing to try to conform to his requests. I think we're both first timers at this process so I'm a bit lost with how to proceed. -- LauraHale ( talk) 23:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I went looking in history to see if a submission of mine passed or failed, I saw that it failed. I added GA1 to the talk page to find the review. Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tet_Offensive/GA1
What? This says passed? Help please. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 03:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Love Story (Taylor Swift song)/GA1 was created by an unregistered user, who is not allowed to do a GA review. An admin declined speedy, but is there way to get it deleted quicker than through WP:MFD? Adabow ( talk · contribs) 03:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone delete this page. It was a premature GAN nomination, which I quick failed. The nominator had started the review page. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Students in a course I teach on Communication in Groups and Organizations have been working on 11 articles relevant to this topic, with the goal of getting them to GA status by the beginning of April. The list of articles is here. I wanted to alert potential reviewers that the students will be making requests to have their articles review starting on April 4th. I was hoping to reserve some time from reviewers during April to handle this load. Thanks. Robertekraut ( talk) 13:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I will keep an eye out for the noms. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 16:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Can this be deleted? As
the page history shows, this review was accidentally started.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 08:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There is something that warrants close scrutiny occuring in the netball articles. User:LauraHale is from Illinois and understands American English. She nominated both Netball and Netball in the Cook Islands for GA. Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA1 was reviewed by Canadian Paul who failed it on March 11 because "the overall structure of the article needs to be redone and that extends beyond the reach of a seven day hold." Five hours later, she renominated it and I reviewed it in Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA2. Although we are both from Illinois, LauraHale claimed that she did not understand what I was saying. She insisted that when I said "women's basketball" that I meant "netball" because in a few countries up until 1970, some people called netball women's basketball even though my meaning was clear from my statements. She repeatedly assured me that she understood that an "Olympic sport" was one that was played in the Olympic games, and then repeatedly revised the article to state that netball was an "Olympic sport", when in fact it was only recognized by the International Olympic Committee as a "sport" and was not a part of the Olympic Games schedule. After giving her one last opportunity to address important concerns, I failed the article on March 20 stating that it needed a careful rewrite to eliminate POV. A few hours later, without the rewrite, she nominated it a third time and Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3 is being reviewed by User:Hawkeye7. I am seeking clarification because Hawkeye7 made substantial contributions to both this article ( diff and diff) and the main Netball article as well. So I am wondering if he would be allowed to review the article under the rule, "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review."
In the meantime, LauraHale also nominated Netball on March 5 and User:Bill william compton started Talk:Netball/GA1. Although Bill made good efforts to communicate with LauraHale, he ran into similar WP:HEAR problems, and he put out the call for a second opinion. I volunteered to take over that review on March 13. We are still working through the concerns with that article.
What is the proper procedure to handle a reviewer who made recent substantial edits? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 06:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have now raised the concern on the reviewer's talk page, and left specific examples of problems in Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3, and we will see what happens. Racepacket ( talk) 15:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone has nominated this Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. Now Ok. Fine whatever you may say. The problem is the article is ok but could be a lot better. And I bet that whoever reviews this will have to do a load of work to it. Please someone chuck it out, so that it can be improved at the right people get credit. Cheers. KnowIGhas ( talk) 00:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I figured I would put this here for the record. I with my nomination for Good Article status for netball. The most recent reviewer insisted on putting in factually incorrect information (about the history of netball and about the Olympics) and a whole set of other issues. The most appalling of which for me included making unsubstantiated allegations of plagiarism and insisting that the burden of proof was on me to prove that I didn't: He wanted me to scan book sources I had used and e-mail the pages from those sources to him. Given this appalling, factually incorrect allegation that the reviewer could not support, given that we'd bent over backwards to try to meet his demands and we weren't making any headway (and the article was actually degrading), I decided it was time to retract it. When we put this article back up for good review later, I would really appreciate any support to insure that he does not review the article again. -- LauraHale ( talk) 08:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Edited to add having not read the comments above: I finally withdrew the request. The article assessment wasn't going any where. We couldn't make the changes to the article to appease the reviewer. It had been open for close to three weeks. The article quality was beginning to degrade. I felt the review needed to be withdrawn to give us time to make improvements to the article. I asked three individuals who have worked on Good Articles before how to withdraw my request as the procedure was not outlined. They told me that I needed to change the status to failed, leave a not saying I withdrew the request in the edit summary, and add a section to the article talk page to say why I withdrew it. I followed this procedure. Racepacket re-opened the review, claiming that I could not withdraw my request. I am under the impression from the Good article nomination page that editors cannot be forced to go through the Good article process against their will. Thus, Racepacket re-opening it in violation of my request otherwise feels very intrusive and like it puts unfair requirements on me as an editor. -- LauraHale ( talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Per the GAN page, all reviewers should be reigstered, but an article I nominated, Rosa Mendes is currently being reviewed by an IP. What, if anything, should be done? Nici Vampire Heart 14:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this article eligible to be a GA or not? -- 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I nominated an article and the GA Bot failed it very quickly. I probably made a mistake in my nomination or there was probably one little tiny formatting error in the article that the immediately recognized and failed it on just that. If the article is not good enough, I want this article, One Bayfront Plaza delisted as a good article. It is way out of date and some facts are incorrect. The article I tried to nominate is Port of Miami Tunnel, a well covered and well known development in South Florida. I think there might be some tiny reference formatting error that triggered the bot. No way a bot can give a fair review of such a thing. I will nominate it one more time to see if the same thing happens again. I'm not sure if having a good article status really means anything, but for what it's worth, I guess I think it meets the criteria and might as well be one. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 05:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed when I went to check on the status of one of my in-progress reviews, that this user ( KnowIG) has been banned. He has several reviews underway, and I am not sure what the protocol is in these cases. Canada Hky ( talk) 02:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:GAN/subst doesn't seem to be getting subst'd into the GA subpage any more. Is this deliberate?
I discovered this anomaly when looking through the templates. Based on the comments above, I think that it might useful to include a brief statement that "All editors interested in improving this article are invited to participate in the review." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to request the opinion of the community on whether another bot should be requested to assist in the activities of the current bot: User:GA bot. There has been a tremendous amount of new good article nomination and in my opinion there is a need for another helper around these parts. Don't get me wrong GA bot is doing a great job in it's current state however the growing number of article who are being nominated for GA status needs to be handled by two equally important bots. My proposal is that a new bot: User:SCGBot be created to help GA bot in the tasks it has been programmed to undertake. I also propose that the bot be encoded in the same code and code format as GA bot. If you would like to see a preview of the request page for the bot, please click here. Thanks you. Jessy ( talk) ( contribs) • 00:33, April 1, 2011 ( UTC)
Once upon a time, the GAN guidelines included explicit instructions on how to withdraw a nomination, but they were removed in this edit aimed at shortening the guidelines. The associated discussion did not mention withdrawing nominations, so perhaps a baby got thrown out with the bath water.
It remains common sense and folk knowledge among many reviewers that nominators can withdraw nominations, and the /FAQ reflects this to some extent, but perhaps it would be helpful to restore a couple of sentences to the guidelines. Views? Geometry guy 21:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This came up rather quickly, and I did not see this item, because I had been discussing a similiar topic here. I would propose the following langauge instead:
To withdraw a nomination before the review has begun, remove the {{ GA nominee}} from the article talk page. If you wish to withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, get consensus of those participating in the review, and have the reviewer use the fail process to record the outcome of the review.
There are cases where a number of people are involved in a GA Review, and the withdrawal should be discussed because it is unfair to the group if the first nominator has the right to "pull the plug" on a review when other parties are willing to continue. In many cases, differences between a nominator and a reviewer can be resolved by getting a second opinion rather than starting the review process from scratch.
As a matter of policy, should we adopt a "cooling off" period before the withdrawn nomination can be renominated? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 04:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Looie496 and I have such different approaches that I would appreciate a 2nd opinion. Please comment at Talk:Nemertea/GA1#Philcha_asking_for_a_2nd_opinion. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please delete Talk:Juliette Binoche/GA1, accidentally satrted by the GA nominator. -- Beloved Freak 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone delete this as it appears to have been accidentally started by the nominator. Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the backlog of GA requests-currently 183 pending or underway-and the resulting time delay may discourage people from submitting articles for GA review. It appears that the requirement that any one who submits an item to DYK also review an item is very successful. It seems perfectly reasonable that anyone who can get an article to GA status is qualified to review another article to see if it passes. I suggest we consider such a policy for GA articles. — btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 20:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
To respond to Jezhotwells, there is a lot of "distance learning" software that can take a panel of questions, select a random sample from the preloaded questions, present the sample to the user and automatically grade them. The policy question becomes whether you want to create a new bit in the signon record to reflect the people who have passed the exam, or just put a category on their user page. I am proposing a system that would involve no administrative tasks other than writing the 25 questions and developing the interface to send the test results back to the record of the users. My motive is that it is clear to me that many reviewers either have never read the GA criteria or have forgotten them. In the United States, people must take an automated test to demonstrate knowledge of driving laws, every six years, no matter how long they have held a license. If GAN exists six years from now, I would not object to demand people to be retested to show that they have not forgot the criteria.
There are two big benefits to the reviewer/testing requirements. First, people who review get a valuable perspective that helps them do a better job of preparing articles for GA nomination. Second, because anyone who nominates more than 5 articles would have to take the test to become a "certified GA reviewer", it guarantees that the nominators also have read and understood the GA criteria, also resulting in better prepared nominations. Racepacket ( talk) 23:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I and my reviewer, User:Philcha, disagree regarding the structure of Blotchy swell shark#Description; the comments relevant to the dispute are here. Please leave your comments on the review page. -- Yzx ( talk) 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The reviewer who was going to review my GA has been block indefinitly, can some other take over his reviewer duties on this article? If so thanks! :) -- TIAYN ( talk) 06:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Somneone has nominated the article Nick Loren for GA under theatre and film. The images are obviously suspect.. the fansite refs and the layout. Rain the 1 BAM 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate a second opinion. The article has been nominated by and editor who has disclosed that they worked on Chico's campaign to become Mayor of Chicago. This appears to be a major conflict of interest, but it looks as if most self serving material has been removed. Nevertheless, I am somewhat uncomfortable with this situation. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is now at GAR. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gery Chico/1 Geread ( talk) 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
My computer is on the blink and I don't have much time on my hands atm. Would anyone else be willing to try and tie up my open reviews for Tony Blair and C. W. A. Scott? Thanks, and sorry to burden whoever takes them on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Looie496 and I have such different approaches that I would appreciate a 2nd opinion. Please comment at Talk:Nemertea/GA1#Philcha_asking_for_a_2nd_opinion. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI: It has been proposed that "WP:GAC" be retargeted to Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Feel free to contribute to the discussion. Thanks! Swarm X 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Looie496's review at Talk:Nemertea/GA1 was inadequate because it did not cover their anatomy and physiology, which are very strange even for invertebrates. The review mainly concentrated on the lead, which IMO is the wrong way round, as the lead should summarise the main text and hence the main text should be reviewed first. I don't understand Looie496's comment "Without topic sentences I can't tell what the paragraphs are intended to be about, so there is no way for me to evaluate the adequacy of their content", as I think I understand what the sources say about these animals. The sources don't give the topic sentences that Looie496 likes - journal articles are written for other experts, and good general zoology books begrudge space for "minor phyla" (e.g. most phyla); and without support from sources, IMO topic sentences would be editorialism and forbidden by WP:V. So I've used the template to start Talk:Nemertea/GA2 -- Philcha ( talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Has there been a formal GAN on this page: [[Commander United Kingdom Maritime Forces]? I can't see one, but yet it seems that it has been promoted anyway with this edit: [8]. Is this correct? Has there been a change in policy? 124.185.236.32 ( talk) 01:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have recently added a bit of sourced info to this article, and nominated it for GA candidacy. I chipped in to the review process, and I am currently reviewing another article from the topic. ;) I was wondering if we could get a GA Reviewer who would be willing to help out with an expedited review process for Santorum (neologism)? I am dealing with some ongoing personal life issues, and it would really be a favor and help me out.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi ya'll - I noticed that Azerbaijan was within the past few hours passed as a GA. I did a PR on this article a few days ago and found numerous problems, so I was surprised to see it passed as a GA so quickly. When I clicked on the talk page, I found a very cursory review and many of the problems that I had found still existing in the article. These include over a dozen dead links (shown here), over half a dozen sources that even on a cursory examination look unreliable, others that don't have enough information to show what they are, unsourced statistics, etc. My PR can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Azerbaijan/archive2, and many of the comments are still valid, although some are more focused on the FA criteria. Does someone have the time to talk with the nominator and reviewer on this, and perhaps take it through a GAR if necessary? I don't have the time this weekend, or I would do it myself... Dana boomer ( talk) 11:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if people have noticed or not, put there is a particularly high number of articles in the Music section (75), some being there since March 2011. Should we be concerned? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In the past month, we had a net increase of 120 articles in the backlog. Meanwhile, it does feel like there are fewer reviewers these days, as I only see the same handful handling all the articles. Honestly though, I'm entirely out of ideas on how to find people to tackle the backlog, and I don't have the desire to review multiple articles a day anymore. Anyone have any ideas? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit there are two types of nominations I tend to prefer: clear-cut failures (whether quick or not), and easy nominations where the prose is good and only small issues need to be looked into. One area that is often avoided are articles which are clearly below standards, but still not a fail. Often these have portions lacking references, and have a below-standard prose. A lot of feedback is needed to bring them up to standards. There seems to have developed a culture that the threshold to fail an article is quite high, leaving many such articles unreviewed. If they are failed, the nominator often complains that they were not granted an "on hold" time and a very extensive review (of course, some people also complain because the review is too extensive). To take a current example with Lhasa: the article as it stands now is short of the standards, with sections with single-sentence prose, lacking references, overuse of images and bare references; perhaps it is better to make a fairly rough review, fail it, let the nominator work with the issues, and then bring it up later? Arsenikk (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps posting notices on wikiprojects? I know many are dead, by our WP:POLAND is quite live, and it is not impossible that some of our members (or myself) would be motivated to review a Poland-related GA if you notify us of it on our talk page. Now, we have Article Alerts, but bot notification is not as personal nor urgent as a talk page note would be. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
After I posted on WT:POLAND, following my idea above, an editor has volunteered to review most Polish-related GAs (see here). Has anybody asked for help at any other WikiProjects? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
In the FAC page states:Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. is there something similar in the GAN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone ( talk • contribs) 19:39 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Have in mind Wikipedia:Four Award, a recognition that may be lost if the article is nominated by some passing-by nominator. Besides, the editor may intend to nominate the article but not now, but after achiving a certain number of expansions and improvements, a passing-by nominator that simply "thinks" the article is ready would create an unnecesary dispute. Or the editor may have limited editing time right now (for off-internet concerns, for example), and may delay nominations or other community-related issues until having such time Cambalachero ( talk) 01:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been informed on my talk page that quoting the FAQ above (rather than agreeing with Malleus' opinion) is "off topic", "patronizing", "wasting editors' time", "misbehaving", and "trolling". Malleus' response, i.e., "I'd recommend to you that you extract your head from your arse ", is deemed merely "unhelpful", rather than an appalling act of rudeness by an editor who has an unquestionable reputation for rudeness. If other editors agree with this surprising (to me) assessment, I'd like to know this. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
In the past WP:SUP and GAN have successfully collaborated on teaching students how to write Good Articles ( past example with link to older ones). Basically, a new bunch of educational assignment projects will soon be nominated for GAN. Full list of 3 articles that are subject to this assignment can be below ( and details of the assignment are here). As before, those GANs are a bit more urgent then others (as many students, unlike your average editor, will be much less motivated to address the reviewers comments and fix the articles after they receive their grade). For this educational assignment, nominations will take place on 6 June, and grading is expected on 20 June. I am well aware of our backlog problems, and while I have no problem with my own GANs waiting for a reviewer for many weeks (and sometimes, months), in this case I'd appreciate if some reviewers would volunteer to review those articles outside of our chronological queue, with reviews appearing hopefully around 7-9 June. Below is the list of the articles in this batch, they all should be nominated by students today. If a reviewer would like to take care of a given article, please strike it out and sign below. If you are interested in learning more about Wikimedia Foundation educational initiatives, check out Wikipedia:Ambassadors page. Thanks! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Group 1: Economic globalization ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Group 2:
Archaic globalization (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 3:
Social web (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I note that Keller Fountain Park is listed under Geography but should probably be "Sports and recreation" and that Karachi is also listed there but should really be under "Places". I am reluctant to move them as I don't see any protocol for this and in any case I have a mild COI as I have an article up for review behind them in the queue. Ben Mac Dui 07:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
== Quick Decline GA2 No comments or review made. ==
I re-listed
The Rocky Horror Picture Show and made all the changes per talk page from the de-listing but
User:Queenieacoustic quick failed it with no comments just a list of references the comment: "Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article". Am I wasting my time with my reviews by actualyl starting that darn pesky Review Page?? Can they really quick decline the article without reason? Cause if that's all I gotta do....I could clear your backlog in about 4 hrs.--
Amadscientist (
talk) 12:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
User admits he could have held but didn't think it could be corrected in 7 days. Review did not show up on the talk page [9] and is still not there. Are the bots misbehaving? Article has simply been re-listed and an invitation to the original reviewer to return if they are interested in continuing.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 13:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to bring up a point concerning several current noms in this category. The articles Neurolaw, Hyperkinesia (neurology), Satellite glial cell, KC (patient), and Cushing reflex were all expanded as part of a university educational assignment in the Spring, and part of the assignment was that the students would receive additional credit if their articles reached GA status. However, the class ended over a month ago, and it is unlikely that we will ever see any of the nominators again.
I have to admit that I signed up to review Neurolaw and then dropped the ball on it, partly due to discouragement at the conflict of interest I knew to be present in the nomination. However this one in particular may be different from the others, in that there are editors who were not part of the class who have shown some interest in it. For the others, though, I think there is minimal chance that a GA review will go anywhere. I am wondering whether it would be better to simply let them fail one by one, or to be proactive in some way. Looie496 ( talk) 23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the meaning of Category:Wikipedia good articles in talk space and Category:Good articles in article space? Where does the official GA count come from?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears that User:Racepacket is shopping for GA. [10] I may be wrong but, if anything, he is being a bit of a problem in that his behavior is making reviewers uncomfortable. [11]-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else...but I'm moving on now. If mistakes were made than we should discuss that of course, but I will no longer interact with the member and want nothing further to do with reviewing any of the members articles. Consensus can be a hard mistress and she doesn't always agree with us. Let her be the final judge if she is even interested now.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I had a number of articles that I had nominated. I have withdrawn them to reduce the workload of reviewers as the articles still need work and using review to bring them to standard at this time is just adding extra work to an already back logged project. As the articles are improved and are actually GA in my view I will renominate. Hopefully this will reduce any additional fixes that may be caught by a reviewer in the future.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to take up the reviews for: Kesha's "Blow" and Lady Gaga's "Hair"? I've decided that due to real life circumstances I must semi-retire from wikipedia. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Racepacket ( talk · contribs) has been banned from Wikipedia for the period of a year, and currently has some outstanding GA nominations. Talk:Getty Villa/GA5 has been taken up by Pyrotec ( talk · contribs), but Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee and Blue Line (Washington Metro) are outstanding. Is there some precedent here? What is the best course of action? J Milburn ( talk) 00:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the nominations should be removed summarily for lack of an unblocked nominator. We have an opportunity here as a community to deal with these nominations. If reviewed and they pass, they pass and get listed. If they don't pass on the first review, then they can be held pending someone willing to step up and deal with the content of the articles and the review comments. If no one shows up, they can be "not listed". Now, isn't that easy? Imzadi 1979 → 17:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Canoe River train crash ( review) has a very tricky NPOV issue; everything else in fine with the article, but it would be nice to get some feedback on that bit. The issue is a bit simplified that all available sources are more or less POV, so how does one create NPOV from that. Arsenikk (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The current reviewer of Manila hostage crisis (review: Talk:Manila hostage crisis/GA1), Gatoclass, is leaving Wikipedia for a while and may not be able to complete the review. [18] Gatoclass left open the possibility that I ask for the article to be relisted for review, so I'm asking here for another reviewer to pick up on this review. Der yck C. 17:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a quick question about good articles. I had two good articles up for good article nomination, which were Who We Are (Lifehouse album) and First Time (Lifehouse song). They were failed by User:Mattchewbaca in bad faith as you can see at: Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mattchewbaca. Do you think I should renominate both of these articles for a second good article nomination or have it as a first nomination since the review by Mattchewbaca was in bad faith? Thanks. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm reviewing, and the nominator and I now think it should be merge with another article? Is there a way to stop the review without a formal "Fail"? -- Philcha ( talk) 07:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I was about to suggest to two editors that they may want to review one anther's article, speeding up the process. But how is such mutual review viewed? AGF on one side, there is some potential COI to be considered. Should I make this suggestion to the two editors, or would you advise against it? Your thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
(←ec) GAN reviewing is not about appearances, but about making the (usually) first GA review of an article as fair and accurate as it can be on whether the article meets the criteria. A nitpicky review is not necessarily a good review: such a review may require unnecessary changes, or overlook significant issues of coverage or bias. I do not think it is a good idea for editors to be reviewing each other's articles simultaneously, as it unnecessarily clouds editorial judgment. (I hope Wehwalt meant to say "even the impression...")
On the other hand, this may not be what Piotrus is suggesting. It is a good idea to draw the attention of both editors to articles they might be willing to review. It is also fine in principle for Editor B to review an article by Editor A and then Editor A to review an article by Editor B (given the relatively small numbers of reviewers/editors involved in GA, this happens all the time, not just accidentally, but inevitably). However, in such a circumstance, Editor B should ensure that the review takes place uninfluenced by any expectation of "return favors" by Editor A, and after the review is complete, Editor A should only review the article of Editor B if Editor A is confident that their judgment will be unaffected (positively or negatively) by the conduct/outcome of the earlier review by Editor A. (The same principles apply to all editors reviewing articles by other reviewers.)
Per Wizardman's last remark, the editors should feel comfortable to invite (indeed welcome) comments and scrutiny from other reviewers. In that case, they probably don't need such scrutiny, and the process will be speeded up. Otherwise, reassessment is likely, and time saved at GAN is a false economy. Geometry guy 01:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that the WikiCup has muddied the waters here, and I am not happy with quid pro quo reviews. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely NOT, due to WP:COI! All we need is two editors out of the Family Guy Wikiproject and all of a sudden, every single Family Guy episode article will be listed at GA! Ok, so that's just one example, but you get the point. Too much room for abuse here,... WTF? ( talk) 16:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I clicked that I would review it, but I am sort of Wiki-tired. Besides that, I need to read the criteria and figure out how to do GA reviews. Not sure when I will get to it, so please put the article back in queue with no prejudice. TCO ( talk) 03:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
TCO (
talk) 15:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Would someone please take over Talk:Golding Bird/GA1. I have an persistent illness which weakens my stamina and concentration, and Golding Bird is a fairly long and detailed article. I regret that I will not be fit to review further articles to GA standard. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi
The article Klemens von Metternich was nominated but failed ( GA1 here). The review was, IMHO less than satisfactory, but it should be noted that it was the reviewers first attempt (I believe) and they did ask for advice here.
I have advised the nominating editor to re-submit; however, I am unsure as to which it should be: a re-nomination or a community review.
Can someone please take a quick look and advise as to which it should be, if any (as it may also be that the review is correct of course!) Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
After I passed Inception, why did the bot say I failed it.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hill 262 has been nominated by someone who has never worked on the article, is already a milhist A-Class, and the primary writers are unavailable at the moment to respond to a review. I think the simplest solution is to remove the nom from the list but I'd prefer to leave that to someone more familiar with GA these days that I am. Thanks! EyeSerene talk 11:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm noticing an uptick in articles that are simultaneously sent to GAN and PR, apparently in the hopes that issues can be addressed while it waits in the queue. While there's no rule against it, it causes an article to stick in two backlogs, and I'm wondering if this is something we need to start policing. If an article's at PR, then it's implying that it's not ready for a GA nom; if that's the case then wait for the PR to wrap up. Then again, maybe I'm just noticing issues where none exist. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that a policy change should be discussed. Is the the right talk page or should it be at WT:GA? I would be happy to phrase the question, subject to input from others. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
(note: I have moved this section here from WT:WPGA. Looie496 ( talk) 23:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC))
I'm very concerned about the review process at Talk:Vere Bird, Jr./GA1. See also User talk:Electronscope44 and User talk:Ironholds. I think the review process is currently going far outside the remit of the GA process. GA reviews are supposed to be lightweight; this one is most certainly not. It would be useful if someone could provide some guidance on whether this is going in the right direction or not. I have seen other reviews go far off into similar territory and the results have never been pleasant for any of the parties involved. — Tom Morris ( talk) 14:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Given that (a) the reviewer does not seem to have the experience to carry out a proper review, and (b) the reviewer is currently indef-blocked, it might be appropriate to terminate the review so that somebody else can take it up. Looie496 ( talk) 23:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What are the criteria for a quick-fail? It appears that Puffin ( talk · contribs) nominated Pancake for GA status, despite doing no work on the article. A quick glance at the article revealed widespread violations of WP:MOS, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Given that he has also done no work on the article (other than nominating it for GA and tagging all the B-class criteria as "yes", I am wondering whether to just fail it immediately. Thanks! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 20:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there an automated log of this month's successful GA noms, similar to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2011? – Quadell ( talk) 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I've started reviewing GA noms after a long period of inactivity, and I periodically have questions about what is and is not acceptable in a GA. I know the reviewer has wide latitude in these things, but still, I was wondering if other reviewers might have some advice on some points. (And is there a more appropriate venue for these sorts of questions?)
Thanks for any tips, – Quadell ( talk) 12:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. I may have similar questions in the future... I suppose I'll ask them here, if no better spot presents itself. – Quadell ( talk) 01:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I nominated the article St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador earlier this year, at the time it was put on hold and eventually failed due to the introduction not being long enough. I have since expanded the introduction and the member that had originally reviewed the article has since helped me expand the introduction and so they fell they are unable to re-assess the article. I was wondering if I had to go through the whole review process again just to get the introduction reviewed or not? Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 15:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my names MayhemMario and i've have done quite a lot of GA reviews and nomiantions lately ( Heather Chasen, Dotty Cotton, Manda Best etc...) Well whilst reveiwing Si Una Vez the user who nominated it ( User:AJona1992) english wasnt great as the article was full of past tenses where they shouldnt be (etc...). The other day another user, ( User:Belovedfreak) noticed the same thing but this time told him on talk page, the discussion is here. Then I put forward the idea if he does the main bulk of the review and I just do the english/grammar/punctuation side of it, AJona could still do GA reviews. He agreed. What im asking is can we do a joint review of an article, and has it ever been done before? Mayhem Mario 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Recently, the Feedback Request Service was successfully implemented. This allows for users who sign up for certain request for comment categories to be randomly notified of an RFC at a frequency of their choosing. This works like opt-in jury duty and allows people to participate more casually in the RFC process than if they were to keep abreast of all goings-on at RFC. A similar system could be implemented at Good Article Nominations, where those who opt-in will be notified at random of a new good article nomination, similar for the process used at RFC. Is this an idea worth pursuing? If you are interested, you can sign up at Wikipedia:Feedback request service#Good article nominations. hare j 04:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi the Battle of the Wilderness was nominated for a GA review by User:Wild Wolf at 19:52, 15 June 2011. The article is not ready for GA as suggested on Talk:Battle of the Wilderness#GA review and agreed by the original author. A request for the nominator to remove the nomination has so far not been acted or commented upon. It would be easy to quick fail but then that would be on the article history. Is there any way someone other than the nominator can remove the nomination? Jim Sweeney ( talk) 06:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to announce the first featured (or good) article contest for the US National Archives WikiProject, as part of the National archives' ongoing collaboration with Wikipedia. The National Archives has graciously provided us with prizes to give out to winners, including National Archives publications, tote bags, and other swag. This first contest is a challenge to get any of the articles on the three documents on display in the National Archives building's rotunda—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—featured (in any language). There is a smaller prize for achieving good article status.
Please read more about how to participate here. Good luck! Dominic· t 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A somewhat infrequent editor has not properly closed Talk:Daniel Coughlin/GA1.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is the worst review I've ever had. This article was nominated on the 3 May, it just had a review. However the editor was blatantly rude and curt throughout. So it now has to re-enter the cue because the editor won't let anyone else review it before he fails it. Anyone willing to review it? Is there nothing that could be done to keep it at the top of the list? RaintheOne BAM 17:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me state this bluntly. Raintheone claims that I'm a bad reviewer, but the truth is that he's a bad nominator. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to close the circle, Raintheone and I managed to come to an understanding and with the help of several other editors the article is now listed as a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I request for a 2nd opinion at Talk:Portia labiata/GA1. The reviewer, Binksternet, demands that the lead be only 4 paras, despite the banner at the top of WP:LEAD, which says, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." I showed that the leads of several of my zoology GAs have more than 4 paras, including the jumping spiders Maevia inclemens (with Casliber) and Phaeacius (with Stemonitis), as the subjects are complex. Binksternet replied, "The other reviewers are not my concern at this time. I think they were lax." Binksternet also wants me to restructure the lead so that the "interesting parts" are at the top of the lead: "cannibalism, trickery, mimicry, stabbing, venom and intelligence". My concern is that the result would be incoherent - these behaviours are based on the size and appearance, body structure, movement, senses, and hunting. I suggest we review the rest of the article and then return to the lead, and Binksternet replied that he/she had read the rest but would not review the rest of the article unless the lead was resolved. -- Philcha ( talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
In order for the WikiCup to be fair, the WikiCup points for GAs need to be attainable, meaning that GANs from WikiCup members need to be reviewed within a reasonable amount of time. If they're not reviewed within a reasonable amount of time, the bottleneck creates an unfair advantage to the people that are not getting their points from GAs. Since no one wants that, I urge reviewers to tackle the following GAs:
I will be giving barnstars out to anyone that helps clear these out. The barnstar is being done for the review, and will be given irregardless of the final outcome, however insta-passing or insta-failing, (i.e. screwing these people over for a star), won't fly. Please send me a talk page message linking the review once it's completed to claim your star. Since I'm not counting and didn't list the GANs that were already in the process of review as of this posting, I count 20 barnstars for the taking here. Please note that this round of the Wikicup ends on August 29, so this offer is only good until then. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Sven, I appreciate the intent of this message, but I've got to agree with Pyrotech that we should not be giving WikiCup nominations any kind of priority- opening this thread with "[i]n order for the WikiCup to be fair" really only sells it to those who support the WikiCup, rather than GA reviewers generally. I agree that it would be great to get everything nominated reviewed, and I am frequently encouraging participants to get reviewing (especially towards the end of rounds- IE, in a month's time) but there should be no kind of "hey, you reviewers, get on with WikiCup stuff". As for the other issue of two points for a GA review, two points were always meant to be a token amount, a "thank you for doing your bit". Last year, we encouraged participation in review processes, but didn't really reward it- this year, it may well tip the balance, as well as potentially showing competitors who are not "pulling their weight". What we did not want were people "farming" GA reviews for points; this would be potentially very damaging, even more so than, for instance, "farming" did you knows. There were a number of reasons we decided not to award points for other kinds of reviews, but it can essentially be boiled down to two key ones. Firstly, the community at FAC was strongly opposed to the idea, and, secondly, reviews elsewhere are not so quantifiable. A GA review is meant to be one person dealing with the entire review- a review at FAC could be anything from a few words to a long list and considerable work on the article. Of course, different GA reviews take different amounts of work and time (as a reviewer, I understand that) and some reviewers spend more time than others. We did introduce a bare minimum review ("Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews." This is not to say that shorter reviews are never decent reviews, it is just to say that they will not be awarded points.) However, we are of course open to suggestions for how reviewing points will work next year. J Milburn ( talk) 10:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I already reviewed three out within the last 30-45 days, but I've taken another two Polish-related ones to review. I can't pick up a third because I was tangentially involved with the article. Would be nice if more people stepped up to be reviewers. Would be nice if people NOT in the WikiCup were able to get our nominations reviewed too. Ajh1492 ( talk) 12:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The GAN backlog is steadily creeping back up to 300 articles. The last one took place in March so perhaps it's time to tackle the backlog (again)? OhanaUnited Talk page 06:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It appears most of the backlog is TV Shows, Sports and Songs. Military history has a smaller backlog. Ajh1492 ( talk) 15:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I can think of two big reasons I don't review many articles. The first is, I'm not willing to review things I know nothing about. I suppose one could look at the references and see that they are reputable publications and do back up what is being claimed, but I don't feel comfortable doing that. The other is that I some things are just too narrow to need an article, and thus no article on such a narrow topic can be good. The prime example is individual episodes of TV shows. Sure, the episode of the Ed Sullivan show featuring the first American appearance of the Beatles deserves an article, but normally, no. I don't think it would go over too well if I started failing individual episodes left and right, so I just let the sit there. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
A wikipedian has retied and has retired and he had some articals for GAN. What do we do with thease articals. Pedro J. the rookie 03:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm minded to review the British European Airways Flight 548 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GAN, but I've had some previous input to the article. Therefore I'm asking whether or not my input is significant enough to disqualify my as a reviewer. As it would be my first GAR, I would seek the assistance of a more experienced reviewer in any case. Mjroots ( talk) 07:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:Portia labiata/GA1 Binksternet says, "What must be taken out (of the lead): specifics on size, and specifics on color, markings and hairs. ... I believe it is not, that it is immediately overly-specific and thus dulls the reader's interest. If you wish this GAN to go forward with positive results then fix it." Please comment at the bottom of Talk:Portia labiata/GA1#Lead. I think the short description in the lead helps readers to identify this Portia species.-- Philcha ( talk) 19:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This GA is currently at AfD. Here is the review page. The reviewer, however, retired. -- Efe ( talk) 12:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Boron group is in Biology, should be in Chemistry. -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Somehow the GA bot writes my username as Jaime1=070996 instead of Jaime070996 in WP:GAN#SPORT. Jaime 070996 00:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I have an issue here. The article was put up for review, and within the hour a new user account passed it. I reverted it and was reverted back. I left a note on the talk page, which was reverted as well. The lack of listening went from me assuming a good faith new user to a potential sock, and would like someone else to look. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Techno Cumbia was listed as a good article on 13 August. The review, such as it was, was performed by the nominator. Checkuser has confirmed it and the SPI is waiting administration/closure. In the meantime, should this article go through WP:GAR or simply be removed from the GA list? -- Beloved Freak 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Diatribe |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The nominator of Julia Gillard wishes to withdraw their good article nomination. Should it be marked as a quick fail or is there a way to withdraw it without failing the article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Talk:Havørn Accident/GA1. The reviewer seems to have abandoned the review. I have ensured that all his comments have been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that a new editor passed his own nomination of Muhammad Syukri Ridwan, which clearly does not meet the criteria (this footballer has never played professionally and is thus not notable). This came two days after my nomination of Xiaxue was failed with reasons such as "needs more content to pass" and "one picture, a GA needs more". Please deal with these accordingly. Thanks. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Judging from the comments trending above there seems to be an increase in people gaming the system as well as the usual number of inexperienced editors struggling with the criteria. While a moderator might be a solution, a more practical approach could be the use of a bot to automatically keep track of reviewers and the number of reviews they have done. If something could be added to the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report (envision something like the Nominators with multiple nominations section with the reviewer name, number of reviews and links to open/recently closed reviews listed) then interested/experienced GA reviewers could easily identify and keep an eye on reviews conducted by inexperienced editors. If the review is satisfactory nothing needs to be done (or a note could be given thanking them and offering help in the future), if there are minor mistakes they could be pointed out and if it is completely rubbish then it could be dealt with easier. Some rough guidelines on how to handle bad reviews could also be useful - when to take it to GAR, when to just revert. AIRcorn (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to come here and post a message about the Grey's Anatomy review, but Wizardman beat me to it, above. On a related note, is it time to put some kind of minimum standard on GA reviewers? I believe this has been discussed before and I know that the general feeling is that we want to keep the process light-weight without unnecessary bureaucracy. I'm not talking about preventing inadequate reviews, which would be quite difficult to do, I'm talking specifically about some measure that reduces the temptation for nominators to create a sock that passes their own article. I have seen this happen now with Gabi Hernandez, Ajona1992, and now possibly this Grey's Anatomy one. That's only three, but they're just ones that I've happened to notice - the first two because I was already familiar with the editors in question. I haven't gone looking for suspicious reviews, so who knows what has slipped through.
I know people are usually reluctant to implement "solutions looking for problems", and quite rightly. I believe this is a problem though. Editors eager to get their articles passed are able to undermine the process because of the "any logged in editor can review" rule. Can we not set some minimum standard for first-time reviewers? The first sock mentioned above was involved in more than the GA process, so may have still slipped through, but the other two should have been preventable. Any thoughts? -- Beloved Freak 19:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I definitely think change is needed. As for a moderator, I'm all for it, but there have to be some sort of guideline/rule. I don't think it will be fair if the moderator is a regular GA contributor, just simply someone who is familiar with the criteria. The person(s) need(s) to be someone who we can all agree on. Any volunteers?-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I was looking at Green Wing, and I don't think it passes GAR anymore. What's the easiest way to delist it? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A quick question. I'm reviewing an article at the moment which relies on a relatively small number of books for its references (one in particular is used for the majority of the references). A second editor has - helpfully and in good faith - noted a concern that there is a wider corpus of work on the subject that could be cited in the article. Both the original editor putting the article forward for review and the second editor agree that the article as it stands is accurate and is not necessarily missing any key points (i.e. it is broad in its coverage and verifiable). What I wanted to check, however, was whether there is any official GA requirement for an article to draw on a wide corpus of work in its references? I can't find anything stating that it is a formal requirement but was keen to check my understanding of this with the community. Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Don4of4 ( talk · contribs) very graciously agreed to review my GA nomination of Mayo Foundation v. United States on 22 August, just 8 hours (!) after I nominated it. I contacted him later that day to thank him for agreeing to take up the review and to offer my assistance in obtaining the non-online sources if he required them, which he did not acknowledge. He has not edited since 25 August. Am I being impatient, or is there something more I could be doing? NW ( Talk) 16:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
As I tried to fix something that ends up broken due to the template, but the bot removed it: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen needs a second opinion. The current review is not as in-depth as necessary (just the fact that the reviewer mentions "Everything has reliable references" while I as an editor am still working on removing fansites shows it all). If anyone steps in, thanks. igordebraga ≠ 01:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the mass delisting of GA articles Northamerica1000 ( talk · contribs) is initiating? It appears to be highly disruptive. Viriditas ( talk) 13:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes to this template have had the effect of removing the start date of the review, also adding a lot of irrelevant stuff about the reviewwer - can we not just go back to how it was? Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I was using {{ GATable}} to review an article today, but as you can see at Talk:Power dividers and directional couplers/GA2, the on hold symbol isn't loading correctly. I haven't been able to find the problem. Could someone more experienced with templates help me? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - review 18:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey everybody. Due to personal reasons, I have to unfortunately leave Wikipedia for a full month starting tonight. I will therefore need someone to take over four reviews that I have begun. They are The Drug in Me Is You, " 1+1 (song)", Jessica Mauboy and " Good Enough (Evanescence song)". Thanks to all :)-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Here we have another case of a white-wash review. The page was created and passed exactly at 3:14 timestamp. And there are three editors who have pointed out obvious issues with the article at my talk page. Music articles are getting so finnicky. Do we need to take this to GAR or can we delete the review and start afresh? — Legolas (talk2me) 10:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought the GA review was closed? [21] -- Efe ( talk) 12:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Like I said before, it's not really "plagiarism" since most of the copied text is attributed and in quotes. It's more that the article is not really "written" but rather just strings together verbatim quotes from other websites. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
On 23 August 2011, Plarem failed my nomination of Xiaxue, but his ridiculous review (which included reasons such as "One picture. A Good Article needs more.") was reverted by Wizardman. Two days ago, he failed the same article again, but this time, he raised several valid concerns (a poor image caption, overlinking and lack of a date of birth). I replied to his second review with a friendly note, saying that I would work on the article and suggesting that he learn more about GA reviewing, then nominated another article, Pathlight School.
To my surprise, Plarem reviewed that article several hours ago, placing the nomination on hold. Some of his concerns were valid, but some were rather dubious. He also replied to my friendly note with "PLEASE have the article go through C-Class and B-Class before it is nominated again. You cannot skip C and B class before you go to GA standards." Having written seven GAs, I know that is not how Wikipedia assessment works. That he reviewed a second, two-day-old nomination by me, when there are plenty of older nominations by other nominators, also raises suspicions.
Could an experienced reviewer, or two, please mentor and monitor him? He seems to be acting in good faith and has the potential to be a good reviewer. However, he needs guidance, and nominators should not have to suffer due to his mistakes.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 11:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The initiation of rugby union review appears to be a good faith comment, not a review. It has been started by an unregistered user so is technically invalid anyway. Could someone please delete it so it does not lose its place in the queue (I have moved the comment to the talk page). AIRcorn (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Why isn't Junior Hemingway listing at WP:GAC?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
How do find out if an article has ever been to WP:GAN, and what the outcome was? There doesn't seem to be an archives link on the main page. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that there are a couple of nominators listed as being retired, however looking at their contribs they seem to be still contributing to the project. I thought I'd flag it in case there was a bot that's gone haywire. I'm looking specifically at MayhemMario ( talk · contribs) and Adabow ( talk · contribs) who are listed as retired in the Theatre, film and drama section. -- Deadly∀ssassin 09:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a specific article I would like to get to GA status. I would like to get a review of what issues specifically need to be addressed for that article to pass GA review. At the help desk I was told that I should ask here. So should I simply list the article here at the project page? Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 09:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that in any recent reviews, any time a review tag is added, it ends with {{toolbar|separator=dot rather than the date. From the looks of it, the toolbar template is broken, but I can't figure out how to fix it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Could an admin please delete Talk:Revolution Software/GA1 and Revolution Software/GA1 (created by the GA nominator). -- Beloved Freak 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I looked over the mass nominations of User:Drewcifer's articles. Most, if not all, pertaining to the band Nine Inch Nails. Most, if not all, the articles are no where near B-Class and some even have {{citation needed}} tags. Just a note here for reviewers. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Michael Jordan statue/GA1. 6 minute review? Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Canpark has written an article Action of 7 May 1968 which relates to the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft during the Vietnam War. This article was assessed and passed for GA by User:SCB '92. I have questioned whether this event is notable particularly as the operative part of the article seems to be drawn from 1 page of one book. User:Canpark has also written another article Action of 16 June 1968 which essentially repeats all of Action of 7 May 1968 in order to recount a story of the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft. User:Canpark seems to be writing articles in order to transcribe the book by Topcerzer of Mig kills of the Vietnam war. Are these individual events notable and/or worthy of GA? Mztourist ( talk) 13:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeing a good deal of articles waiting 2.5 months for a review while an influx of articles getting reviewed in 24 hours. Can we start knocking down the old side of the queue? Not fair to those who have been waiting. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Jaguar's right. For instance, the article Tin was placed on hold after 16 days of waiting for a reviewer, then forgotten about by the reviewer until 1 month and 9 days later, when somebody finally noticed that the reviewer wasn't reviewing the article anymore. Another 16 days on, and it's still on hold. Total waiting time: 2 months and 10 days. Result: On hold. And the nominator doesn't seen to be very interested, either. If what Jezhotwells said was true, then tin would be as about as important as this article, for instance! Thanks, GoldRock23( talk - my page - contribs) 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, Jaguar said exactly my words. We're not all idiots - you know, some of us want to get somewhere and maybe even (gasp) go to university! Thanks, GoldRock23( talk - my page - contribs) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to pick up the review of this article, which was abandoned by the previous reviewer -- I have already started by adding comments to Talk:Coordinated Universal Time/GA1. I'm not sure of the proper way to let the bot know that I am reviewing it, though. (For what it's worth, I am aware that there has been some weirdness, but I'm not worried about it at this point.) Looie496 ( talk) 17:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I am ill and cannot continue with "Aniru Conteh". -- Philcha ( talk) 18:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
:Sorry to hear that. I'll take over the review if you like and
User:Viriditas doesn't object.
Malleus
Fatuorum 18:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on whether/how to change the process with which WP deals with disruptive editors. All input/ideas are welcome - I'd love it if we could develop some proposals to put to the broader community. Karanacs ( talk) 19:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice there is a 3 month backlog in GAC (although it seems to vary widely between the various topic areas). Is that about average? or has it gotten larger lately? Has there ever been a discussion of processes to incentivize editors to perform GA reviews? For example, the Copy Editing guild awards barnstars for doing significant amounts of work; and DYK has a "quid pro quo" requirement where anyone submitting a DYK nomination must review a pending DYK. Have such processes been considered for GA? (Obviously, there would have to be some protections put in place to ensure that GA approvals were not given out without due process, but there are always ways to make that happen). -- Noleander ( talk) 16:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I saw this appear in my watchlist. I think some form of drive is a good idea. I work on Music articles, and there are currently 90 articles waiting to be reviewed/process of being reviewed. And I saw that even though some music articles had been waiting over two months (number 5, Romances, nominated by Erick on August 17 is the oldest one waiting to be reviewed), Talk:Mahalia Jackson/GA1 was nominated on October 21 and was selected to be reviewed less than 5 days later, yet the reviewer hasn't even reviewed anything in the article yet. My point is, I think it's a bit unfair that people are waiting nearly two and a half months without any sign of getting reviewed, yet some people review nominations which are literally 2/3/4 days old. I understand that people will review ones they are interested in, but I think it should be made a rule that no one can review a nomination less than a week old (if there is over a certain amount of articles in that topic waiting to be reviewed); perhaps this way people will be prompted to review older ones. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Positive reinforcement is always a good idea. Some form of GAN-reviewer award of barnstar has been long overdue. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is what is annoying me. Last night, Talk:Scott Joplin/GA1 was nominated at 22:14, 28th October 2011. By 22:58, 28th October 2011, it had a reviewer. Only 42 minutes went by. I'm sorry, but this nomination should be quick failed or something. I'm not allowed to review GANs anymore because I was told that I was only reviewing Mariah Carey articles and Mariah articles which were nominated a very short time before I reviewed them. Since this has been pointed out to me, I am now aware of how it is not fair and wrong. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 10:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like there is consensus for a GA drive. 182.68.38.234 ( talk) 01:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I think a drive is acceptable. I don't think any new rules about who can review or what people have to review is necessary. I have tried to do my part by reviewing articles further back in the backlog, and have even branched out in to articles outside my main interests of television and science. I quite enjoyed John Rowan, for example - an article unlikely to pique the interests of many reviewers due to its apparently dry and history-centric subject matter. One problem I have with reviews is that many GANs I have encountered seem to be nominations for the purpose of a peer review, rather than an assessment of the GA criteria that an an article meets. I'm not saying that GA reviews should be a quick rubric check, but when major structural changes, copy editing, or content additions are needed, I'd rather feel ok with doing a quick fail or withdrawal request than having to do a peer review to outline everything the nominator needs to do to improve the article. I have done that, and many nominators are good sports. Other have not been such good sports. That makes me less likely to start a review of a backlog article that I think will need major improvements. AstroCog ( talk) 15:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Portia labiata says the articles was promoted to GA on October 21, 2011 - see also Talk:Portia labiata/GA2, where User:Unionhawk reviewed. But Portia labiata still says, "An unassessed article ... Currently a good article nominee." How can it be resolved? -- Philcha ( talk) 23:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What is going on with the Boardwalk Empire review. I failed it and the bot removed it and showed it as being renominated.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I am ill and must give up reviewing for GA. At the same time I can still write articles, hopefully to GA level but very slowly. Is there any way I can reduce the load on other reviewrs? -- Philcha ( talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I had quick fail the article. Anyone else is welcome to tell the nominator anything else I missed. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 15:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The GAN for OWS needs an uninvolved editor to pick up the review from a very involved editor who mistakenly began reviewing the article, using the GAN process to push his POV against consensus. Please go to Talk:Occupy Wall Street/GA1 and check in. Binksternet ( talk) 18:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I've created a sub-page for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/December 2011. Let's organize our efforts there. I'll add some other stuff to it later. AstroCog ( talk) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to point out for all here: there is a talk page for the upcoming drive here. AstroCog ( talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I nominated this article here a little while ago; it's got a little while to wait before its turn, though. However, an editor brought to my attention that he sees it as more of a list, and therefore FLC, as opposed to an article for GAN. I had considered which was the more appropriate venue when I nominated it and chose GAN because I felt it was a list embedded in an article, rather than a list with prose. However, I may have been mistaken, and I sure don't want to wait however long it will take for this to come up for review only to be told I brought it to the wrong place, which delays this getting promoted and would delay my place in the queue with a confirmed article. Please give me some advice: does the above article belong here or at FLC? – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Some of you may already be familiar with that :) As I've done in the past, I am assigning my students to improve sociology-related articles on Wikipedia to Good Article. Since this is an educational assignment, the students will need their work reviewed within few days of them requesting a review (they are supposed to request one by November 14, and the course ends within a month of that - and we cannot expects the students to contribute past the grading period, sadly). At the same time I'd ask the reviewers to give students extra time if they need it - some groups may need an entire month to address the issues raised (and some may do it within days - no different from an average editor, really...). Just as I've done in the past several times, I am asking for reviewers to pre-sign for the articles to be reviewed (list below), and in exchange I promise to review myself an article from our backlog (I'll start soon). This time there will be eleven articles to review:
Group 1:
College and university dating (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 2:
Grounds for divorce (United States) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 3:
Double burden (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 4: Family honor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Group 5:
Personal wedding website (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 6:
Single parent (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 7:
Marriage in the United States (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 8: Family in advertising ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Group 9:
Open relationship (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 10:
Bride scam (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 11:
Joint custody (United States) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Promised reviews by me on my end of the bargain: 1) Talk:Weiquan movement/GA1 2) Talk:Nuclear energy policy of the United States/GA1 3) Talk:Tom Kahn/GA1 4) Talk:Birth control movement in the United States/GA1 5) Talk:Collaborative fiction/GA1 6) Talk:Outlaw Star/GA1 7) Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 82/GA1 8) Talk:Ivan Shishman of Bulgaria/GA1
If you would like to review one or more articles, please post here and cross it from the list above. I'll post the articles I've initiated a review for here, too. Thanks! PS. You are more than welcome to check the student progress before a good article review and offer comments. Some groups are progressing very quickly ( :) ), while others, despite graded course deadlines, have done little or nothing yet (sigh...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Still waiting for more reviewers... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Still need 5 more articles to be taken. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
For the educational projects described above. Expect the nominations to appear today or tommorrow, and I'd love to see reviews by the end of this week. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! I have a question regarding the use of Cyrillic in citations. In the review of Michael Shishman I have been told that the citiations should be in Cyrillic; while at the current GA review of Ivan Shishman, I am told the opposite and the reviewer has suggested to bring that issue here. How are we going to proceed? Should the citations of books in Cyrillic be left in that alphabet or transliteration into Latin? Regards, -- Gligan ( talk) 20:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
|trans_title=
to deal with that, and if you are using citation templates, that's probably the easiest way to go. If you aren't, you can emulate that output though.
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
As the reviewer who asked for the above changes, I want to clarify I am fine with the Imzadi's solution. The best reference will have both the original text (title and publisher, at least), and the translated text for them. For non-Latin alphabets everything really needs to be transliterated. I wonder if there is something in the MoS about it? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I just saw this nice footer now added to all Article Alerts page: Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report page footer. I think it would be helpful to have a variant of it added to all GAN nominations. I wanted to create a template/page for us, but there is a bit too much code for me to parse that page. Do you think it would be a good idea to add it to our nominations (we already have a toolbox with disambig/link tools)? If so, could somebody assimilate those tools for us? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
hello,
the nominator of Otis Redding is now away and will return at the end of this month. I don't want to wait so long, as I want to bring it to TFA on 10 December (not important if it fails or not, I just want to try it out; it is a challenge). There are now these options:
I now want to here from you any suggestions which of these two options are the most effective, and why. Thank you.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Request community reassessments for Warcraft II and Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. In individual GAR, both ended with new objections, giving me so change to response. And in Master of Orion II the reviewer wrote, "... indeed possibly also WP:NOT: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews" - but Master of Orion II has many good citations, including several game reviews from good sources - some about just this games, and some about its use as the "gold standard" for reviews of other games. -- Philcha ( talk) 15:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous nominees associated with university courses and, therefore on a tight timeline. Because they are being edited by new users a good degree of patience and instruction should be used. Such articles looking for reviewers include:
I have reviewed one and will keep the review open until the course is over. maclean ( talk) 03:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to review at least three from the list above as soon as I can, probably tomorrow. PS. The ones I am most likely to help are Proletarian poetry (started), Caste politics in India, Mouride (started), Feminism in India and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (started). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
See here: PowerPoint: Wikipedia's poor treatment of its most important articles
Some discussion of Good Articles albiet admittedly not much analysis there. I'm less familiar with them. 69.255.27.249 ( talk) 16:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't asserting a causality. I was making the point about correlation as a purely mathematical statement to agree with Resolute. If you look at slide 93, you'll see a weighted average of quality by page view. This is a different chart than if you did the same thing with articles only (I gave an example of this, above).
I didn't study it, but I highly doubt that ranking drives eyeballs. Traffic is coming in off of Google and off of inherent popular interest in the concept. It's not coming from the GA page or random GA article or the like. I suspect that the reason for the improvement to some minimal level has to do with more eyeballs. But actually more profound is probably the factor that more real content contributors are interested in more relavenet topics. Most prose "meat" on a given article is built up by a few heavy adders. (I haven't studied it, but other have and reported on it.) The model of every random user adding a word or two and that is how an article forms is not how the thing really functions. TCO ( reviews needed) 22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi I have just been reading the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report. Some of the older reviews are of concern, with three of them over fifty days old, the oldest eighty-seven days. Should we automatically fail nominations if they are going on to long, say over twenty-one days? Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I followed the instructions to list Yogo sapphire in the "Geology, geophysics and mineralogy" subsection, but the bot hasn't listed it after 30 minutes. What is wrong? PumpkinSky talk 20:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
For my remaining two educational GANs, family honor and family in advertising. Let me note that I've at this point delivered on my promise or reviewing one article for each that my students submit (as my class worked on 11 articles, 11 reviews have been started by me within the last two months, and 8 have already been closed). I do plan to continue and help with the backlog, going above the 11, and I'd hope that the GA reviewer community will do me the favor and in their work on backlog and educational GAs will consider prioritizing the two articles I mention above. I'd very much appreciate it if the reviews on them were started by the end of this month. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
As noted above, the recent trend in educational assignments that try to have students submit their work for GAN is increasing our backlog. I think that there is a simple solution: motivate the instructors to review at least one article for each article their students submit (this is what I do, and I don't see why other instructors should not be able to do the same). I am think that we could have a standardized message that we could append to talk pages or the instructors, and/or the educational good article reviews, informing the instructors (and ambassadors) that there is a backlog (most of them are probably blissfully oblivious to that), and asking them to review articles so that they at least do not contribute to it. In return, we would prioritize the review of their articles. This way we wouldn't have to deal with a growing backlog, and instructors and students would not have to worry about "will my article be reviewed before the class ends and grades are due". I am trying to word it so it is friendly and challenging, rather than "you are making us do more work, so you should feel obliged to help out" :> I'd appreciate suggestions as to the best wording, please see my early idea for an instructor's talk page message below. If people like it, we could template it. Also, do we have a page that explains the idea of the Good Article backlog better than this bare list? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
“ | Thank you for submitting the work of your students to the community Good Article review process. Please note that Good Article reviews have a considerable backlog. This backlog means that Good Article nominations may wait even more than two months before they are reviewed. To ensure that educational assignments are reviewed more promptly, we would like to encourage you to review one article from the list at Wikipedia:Good Article nominations for each good article that your students submit. If you do so, please announce that you are reviewing articles at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, and in return, we will try to expedite the reviews of your class' articles.) | ” |
I nominated Against All Odds (2008) 2 weeks ago, though I've had a problem. It has to do with the template and the talk page. The template had an error and now the text on the page won't show up and you can't edit it. Somehow I got another GAN template in there done correctly, but the old one is causing a problem still. I figured it would fix itself, but now there seems to be a confusion over whether the article has been passed or not due to its state.-- Will C 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that there is a huge backlog of nominations at the momment. I was wondering if there would be any consensus for a WikiProject Good Article Nominations Reviewing or something along similar lines to try and clear the backlog. I would be happy to create this is there is any consesus for it. Oddbodz ( talk) 19:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder for Good Article reviewers to join the backlog elimination drive that begins tomorrow, December 1st. Our goal is to reduce the backlog by 50% or more. Plenty of barnstars and medals to be awarded at the end of the drive. Go to the project page for more info, instructions, and to add your name to the participant list. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've never reviewed a GA nominee before, but I'm thinking about identifying an appropriate one to start on. I have knowledge of Core Four, but I'm also second on the list of contributions per editor. In this case, that means 16 of the 332 edits (4.8%). I will not review this article unless I'm absolved of any conflict of interest prior, and if I am absolved, I'll start the review this week. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really involved much in GAN, but this Monsey Church review just hit my watchlist, and looks unusually short. I've left a note on the reviewer's talk page, but wondered if those of you involved here wanted to take any action. One aspect of the article that looks problematic is that the writer claims authorship of images from both the 1800s File:Abram-Van-Houten.png and the 21st century File:Phillip-W.-Dennis-II.png. These are liable to be deleted as copyvios on Commons. -- 99of9 ( talk) 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there I have come across a Good Article nomination for One Tree Hill (TV series). While on a very quick look through, it seems good. There is one striking thing missing. The final season starts in 2012. Would it be normal to nominate a series article for a GA review when its not complete. I am looking at the criteria number 2 Factually accurate and 3 Broad in its coverage, as it would be out of date every time a new episode aired. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 06:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The GA nomination for Java War (1741–1743) seems to have been goofed up. The article was [en.wikipedia.org/?title=Java_War_(1741%E2%80%931743)&oldid=464312228 moved] earlier today, which goofed up the link to the nomination from the talk page. As such, I moved the nomination to the new title to fix the talk page, but now the nomination is not showing at WP:GAN. Is there a way to fix this? Someone had already said that they were willing to review, but has not started yet. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
are the next articles in the GAN Queue for LAW and all have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Chan. In my opinion these nominations should await the outcome of that discussion. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article. However, there is only a very small amount on the life of the subject. I accept this may well be the sum of current knowledge about him. However, I am reminded of the section of WP:RGA (a guideline) that says: "Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." Does this article fall under this criterion? Are there any similar articles which have or haven't been listed? Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Grandiose (thank you) has passed the article as a GA; thanks for Maclean25 for your comments. Bencherlite Talk 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Will someone review the GA status of Object permanence? It was passed a couple days ago [24] and I re-assessed it back down to B-class at Talk:Object permanence/GA1. It was re-nominated [25] and passed again [26] without creating Talk:Object permanence/GA2. maclean ( talk) 01:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I see that the nominator of Nonsynaptic plasticity also initiated a review, no doubt out of ignorance of the process (this is an article written for a class project). How should this be fixed? Looie496 ( talk) 00:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been doing a number of reviews lately, and whereas I'd like to thing I am pretty good at reviewing most criteria, my strength is NOT in prose. I can of course catch glaring errors, but as an ESL whose work often needs a native speaker polishing, I don't think I am able to review prose as well as some other reviewers. Now, to some extent, all reviewers have their strengths and weaknesses, but I wonder if there is somebody who would like to help with prose reviews in my reviews? In exchange, I'd help out with one of the other elements I am pretty confident with (MoS, references, coverage, images...). Alternatively, I am thinking of annoucing all reviews I do here, so that anybody who is so inclined can offer a second, supplementary review on prose. FYI, I currently have three reviews open: Talk:Proletarian poetry/GA1, Talk:Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper/GA1 and Talk:Caste politics in India/GA1. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The one linked in the reviewer's tools, alongside the dab and elink tools. What does it do? I admit I have not a clue. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 06:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I am new to nominations as such, so I'm am curious about something. If you get an article reviewed and make the changes, isn't it good practice for the reviewer to state all the problems at once? Rather than wait fail the article (with limited to no problems) then when the changes are made, tell you there are other things to do. Also, can an article be failed based on a classing placed on the articles talk-page that was obviously a mistake? Jayy008 ( talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
@Maclean, it was incorrectly labeled one of those. I wouldn't have nominated a list. @Wizardman, agreed, if there are issues seen, I don't see why the reviewer can't say all of them. Having to keep going back and changing things after you think it's done. Could somebody look here and actually tell me why it was failed. Jayy008 ( talk) 21:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be good to have an explanation of how to use the checklist template. For example, one is this:
Thanks, MathewTownsend ( talk) 00:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
{{GAList/check|}}
to add the right code (listed
here) to give the responses you want.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what to do. Is a week a long time? I posted Ely, Cambridgeshire to GAN about one week ago and within a few hours, Lampman ( talk · contribs) started the review. However, despite my gentle poke, admittedly using the phrase "take your time", nothing has happened. What is the correct protocol here? I really do not wish to upset the reviewer (is that ever wise?) yet I only have access to the source library books for a limited time -- Senra ( Talk) 15:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I am here: I am happy to try and help with the GA review process providing I had someone to mentor me. I have one FA and two GA's, so I am not well experienced. I have just looked through the backlog and could find nothing within my comfort zone; basically Geography of places, biography of people (not BLP's). I have some general interest in maths (but not at the level of Hilbert Transforms) and computing. I may be able to tackle one review per week. If you are willing to mentor, let me know on my talk page -- Senra ( Talk) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is a rule against an ip reviewing an article, but one reviewed Hit the Lights (Selena Gomez & the Scene song) and the bot removed it from the nomination list. I don't know how to reverse this. (I wasn't the nominator.) Thanks, MathewTownsend ( talk) 23:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where else to go, so I'm coming here. Jerem43 currently has two reviews that are 2.5 and 3 months old, WAY over the guidelines. After they were seemingly abandoned a month back I put them in the queue, which he reverted and said he was waiting for issues to be fixed. A month later, the issues remain, and I want to fail them, because clearly concerns are not going to be addressed if they haven't already. That was also reverted though, so I'm out of options. I don't really know why he wants to keep them under review indefinitely, but it's becoming a pain. Not sure what to do in this case. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The proposal is: "Any Good Article reviews over 30 days old (starting from when the review begins) are automatically failed." -- Noleander ( talk) 13:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Support Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me or did the review quality took a decided downturn in the last year? Since when did GAN become a machine to churn out green buttons people can put on their user pages? Don't get me wrong, that may be an effective motivation (at least for me it was an additional motivation, in the beginning), but by now I've seen many examples especially in the music section of people who tend review each others articles without the attention for detail, critical sense, and frankly language skills that I would have thought this process required. And unless one checks reviews made by others, which is tedious, this totally flies under the radar. We should make a thank you template for making good reviews instead of rewarding many nominations. Am I wrong/right/paranoid? Hekerui ( talk) 21:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The current boilerplate states "nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority, except where the nominator has other articles under review." I have six articles nominated, all members of one season, nominated intentionally in the order of their readiness and counting on being able to incorporate feedback into future reviews. The first nominated article is currently on hold, with some feedback I'm working on. The way I interpret the process would be that the rest of my nom'ed articles would be generally skipped over by reviewers until the one on review or hold has been dispositioned... but reading the above statement, it doesn't actually say that.
Am I wrong in expecting that reviewers should generally take things in the order of nomination, when a single editor has nominated multiple articles in the same subtopic? Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 19:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate some comment on this review. [31] I happened to notice it as I was considering reviewing the article myself, and I butted in (was that inappropriate)? Then the article was suddenly passed. But I don't think the nominator received a helpful review. Maybe this is just the luck of the draw. Did I muck things up? MathewTownsend ( talk) 15:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I posted this somewhere before but the destination is hardly active, so I thought it best to be placed here. There are conflicting opinions on what defines a list or a GA. My 90210 (season 3) was failed for reasons, which is fine. However, my One Tree Hill (season 8) was failed because somebody classed it as a list. They are the same. Also some TV series' seasons are listed as GA: Sanctuary (season 2), while others a "featured list": The O.C. (season 4). While I am personally not too fussed, I'd like it to be discussed so they can all be one thing and not different. A "list of episodes..." is already a list format, I do believe that a season article isn't a list. (I will not be able to respond quickly). Jayy008 ( talk) 16:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the info, guys. The main issue to me is that some are listed GA and some are listed FL, I think they should all be the same, considering they're the same articles. But judging by the explanations here and on that other discussion, I guess when the main focus of the article is the "list" it should be nominated as FL. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently, a redlink for E. W. @ is the most recent article listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/recent.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed Lost in the World (see my review here), a song that is "supposed" to be release as a single in the near future, and quickly failed it because the article is not stable. According to the revision in which I reviewed the article, this sentence "as of December 2011, it still has not been released as a single." caught my eye and believe that if/when this song is release, it will be updated frequently (peak positions, chart debuts, live performances, further promotion, certifications, more music reviews, etc). Also, the prose is not up to GA standards and have not gone through a decent c/e and through WP:PR (as suggestions for improvements). After the user removed the notifications, he renominated the article. Also, since this topic is being brought up, I believe creating a new rule that failed GANs cannot be renominated within a week, should be enforce. This can also help lower the poison chamber that is the backlog. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 01:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been waiting for almost two months for this article to be reviewed; can someone who is willing to review it please do so? Till I Go Home ( talk) 04:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am reviewing Clint Eastwood for Talk:Clint Eastwood/GA1. I am wondering if GABot should be assigned the task of monitoring talk pages for GA review talk pages that are in excess of a certain size and changing the talk page inclusion to just say the review can be found at Talk:articlename/GA#.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Whether GA reviews should be transcluded onto the talk page is a matter of debate. The bot's role is to automate wherever possible the procedure that has been agreed upon. That being said, is there an existing rule that states that reviews should be un-transcluded once they get to a certain length? If not, we could debate having such a rule, and if such a rule is agreed upon, the bot handling it would follow naturally. harej 05:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly a lot of readable prose is hidden in bulletpoint text. I would guess that just saying any review that reaches 25KB of wikitext is something that should be truncated like they do at WP:PR (probably for a number below 25kb).-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This article has been created as part of the British Library editathon ( WP:GLAM/BL) with suggestions from the BL curator for the collections. I am unsure of where to classify this for review, it might fit somewhere in Social Sciences, could someone advise? I am hoping that GA review comments will help progress the article and we can ask for parallel expert comments from the curator, getting to a higher quality will also help the relationship with the BL for future collaboration events. Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 11:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been almost totally rewritten from a neutral POV using scholarly reliable sources only. In the past it has been a very contentious page and a POV battleground, and I want to try to take it to FA status, which I think would help stabilise it to keep its neutral POV.
Thanks, Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Rereading the debate above, there is much debate against untranscluding. I am not proposing untranscluding. I am proposing truncating like they do at WP:PR. Thus far, no one has stated opposition to this. What I am suggesting is taking an overly long discussion and truncating it down to its bare essentials in transcluded form. Here is a sample of the kind of diff that the bot could do for discussions that are too long, which is the way things are handled at WP:PR. The result is transcluded above. No one has stated any opinion on truncating overly long discussions so that in transcluded form as they are on talk pages they are short. Since there is general consensus that talk pages should not get too long, which is why so many talk pages are archived, and the GA process can by itself with a single talk page section make a talk page longer than is conventionally desirable, we should consider alleviating issue this as WP:PR does.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 09:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Could someone delete the Dog review page, at Talk:Dog/GA2? An anonymous user seems to have created it by mistake, perhaps wanting to edit the article, which is semi-protected. -- Beloved Freak 13:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to request that a particular individual not review an article, when submitting it? (This is normal with journal submissions. For example if there is a conflict.) Would think that no one would expect submitters to run through a review with someone they have ongoing conflicts with or to allow reviewers to "grab" articles to hold them up. TCO ( talk) 06:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
(undent) I don't think it's just the nominator's problem to have to bring up that they've had a conflict with a certain reviewer in the past. If a person is going through the list looking for one to review and sees an article written mainly by a person that they have had a major conflict with in the past, they should skip it. Don't review it. That's really just common sense. There are many other articles on the list, and other people will eventually review it. There's no reason to jump into an area where you know there's a good chance of an argument starting when it's really quite easy to avoid it. Dana boomer ( talk) 15:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The current GAN page says that this article is being reviewed, but it is not. The editor in question made one quick remark and hasn't edited wikipedia since. I tried to change the nominations page to let others know that this article is not being reviewed and a bot undid my edit. Can someone please help revise the entry so that people know it is not being reviewed and needs a reviewer. Thanks. Remember ( talk) 14:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Whatever Dana boomer did, does not appear to have fixed the problem because it still appears as if the 1907 article is being reviewed when it isn't. Can someone let me know whether the bot is going to fix this or whether there is something else that needs to be done. Remember ( talk) 19:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there going to be another GAN backlog drive anytime soon? I think it would be a great idea if someone organised another one of these, because were back in the same position... 3-4 month waits.. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 18:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a rough consensus is forming for the next GA backlog elimination drive to be in March and then another one six months later in September. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#April 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive for more details. Also, some other comments there would also be appreciated. – MuZemike 02:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm doing a PR on Torchwood. the fourth season debuts in the summer of 2011 on Starz. I'm sure there's a guideline about articles that are likely to change significantly in the near future. Can anyone making this clear either way. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like a second opinion for Talk:Olivia Shakespear/GA1 which is being reviewed by a first time reviewer. Does the reviewer have to request the second opinion, or can it by done by the nominee? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 21:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This plea is unacceptable. Truthkeeper88 is making improvement on the article difficult, specifically in the development of a neutral tone and cutting excessive detail that impedes the flow of the article. She suggested I fail it, which I should on the broad in coverage and neutral tone criteria. I understand "where she's coming from". She has spent considerable time and effort writing the article and does not appreciate the suggestion that a single word be cut from the article. She apparently has great faith in her abilities and appears to be hoping a reviewer will drop by who will agree with her and give her an easy time. 56tyvfg88yju ( talk) 22:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've had several wrongly failed GANs (in my opinion) in the past… Am I aloud to like repost it in GAN (at it's original place, like cutting in line) and asking for a second opinion? If not that should REALLY be allowed… Thanks, keep any comments cool,,,, Crowz RSA 01:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I was randomly looking at some of the GA reviews when I noticed this, the Cristiano Ronaldo review page has essentially nothing on it. I originally chalked it up to a reviewer taking their time on the review but I noticed that it has been two weeks since the page was created. To make matters worse the the nominator has been blocked and the reviewer has made no edits of any kind to Wikipedia in the last 6 days. One of the edits they did perform was to change their signature on the GAN for Robin van Persie to an IP address. Should anything be done with this situation or am I making mountains out of mole hills? Thanks-- Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
An anon has commented WP:OR on the Talk:Kamadhenu/GA1, creating the page. The bot has updated the GAN page making the anon the reviewer, which is not true. This will deny the article's chance to be in the backlog, if it languishes on the GAN page. How to fix this???? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
What should I do when an article is mostly or completely based on offline sources which I cannot access? Or when the sources are online but in a foreign language I do not speak? Should I be reviewing such articles at all? It's difficult the check the article's factual accuracy without having access to the sources, unless the reviewer has relatively deep personal expertise about the subject. But this I think is rarely the case (I, for once, don't have any real "expertise" about any of the nominated subjects). I'd like to help with clearing the review backlog but this problem is preventing me from reviewing most of the articles. What is your advice? Nanobear ( talk) 23:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Offline sources are perfectly acceptable, provided that they meet WP:RS guidelines. There's these buildings called "libraries" which store these things made of paper called "books", which might help you. As far as non-English sources are concerned, the English Wikipedia does prefer English language sources, so those should be used preferably. Occasionally, it is necessary and/or appropriate to use a non-English source, so it depends on the article and the context in which it is being used. Google Translate may be of use here as well. WTF? ( talk) 18:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Same issue as the previous section. Miyagawa (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I accidentally created the page Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 when I'm the one who has contributed to the article. On the page it says that the reviewer is myself. Can somebody please revert my action. Thanks Sp33dyphil ( T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been away for more than a year, and I see that a bot has taken over the process of updating the GAN queue. How do I ensure it indicates the article I'm reviewing is on hold and uses my signature? JKBrooks85 ( talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Silverskylines has been inactive for over a month. Would anyone mind if I took over the review? Adabow ( talk · contribs) 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As my former supervisors would say, we have an "opportunity" here. Racepacket ( talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked earlier today for copyright violations, and he's since retired when his unblock request was denied. He has currently nominated the following here at GAN (nominations reviewed and on hold in italics):
I guess I'm asking the community what we'd like to do with the nominations. Given the recent concerns raised about his editing, I think some caution to look for copyvios may be warranted. Imzadi 1979 → 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
hello,
could someone review the articles in the section "Sports and recreation". It doesn't progress prudent like it should. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Why did GAbot "failed" and removed this entry? AJona1992 ( talk) 18:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The review for John Endecott has not been listed by the bot on this page. Magic ♪piano 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
After a six-month absence from WP, TeacherA ( talk · contribs) showed up four weeks ago and took on two reviews, Talk:Mitt Romney/GA1 and Talk:Christchurch, Dorset/GA1. The Christchurch one was never done, leading the nominator BarretBonden to ping TeacherA without response. The Romney one was done initially (in TeacherA's erratic and often cursory style; see his reviews in the past), and the nominator (me) and other editors quickly responded with comments and article changes as best we could, but TeacherA has been unresponsive since then, except for some brief comments a week ago that (as another editor pointed out) showed he hadn't actually looked at the changes that had been made to the article since the initial review. Nominators are expected to respond to GA reviews quickly (the 'hold' period is usually a week); shouldn't reviewers be held to the same?
Now, I and others have pointed out before on this page that TeacherA doesn't know what he's doing with GA reviews, and I've indicated my suspicions that TeacherA is actually a sock operation of some kind running a low-grade disruption game against the GA process. Regardless of whether that is true, is it possible to get a ban on TeacherA doing further reviews? And regardless of that, is it possible to get the two current and largely abandoned reviews reassigned to someone else? Thanks ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
page
parameter from '1' to '2', and remove the "onreview" status? That way the bot recognises a new review. Or you could change the status to "2ndopinion".
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
hello,
I reviewed the article Talk:2011 Australian Open/GA1 and all what I got are words like "thick" and "silly" even if I were friendly. I think I won't even start to review articles in GAN if I get such comments. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
GOP has agreed to withdraw from the review, so I've collapsed the previous discussion and edited the "|note=" parameter to request a new reviewer, although it will be a while before KnowIG is able to attend to it. Bencherlite Talk 14:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Where do notable past news events go on the nominations list? I'd like to nominate Manila hostage crisis. It looks like GA standard to me but probably won't get through first time round, however I'd like an impartial editor to review the article with GA criteria as it currently stands. -- Der yck C. 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be ready to review Conan_(TV_series), but List of Conan episodes shows that the 1st series started on November 8, 2010 and as of today (8 Feb 2011) shows 46 of to 56 (February 24, 2011) the titles and, for the last few shows, the music / entertainment have not been identified. I'm concerned that it may be premature to go for a GA - in addition to the titles and music / entertainment, I feel it would be to wait until we see further critics comments, whether there's a 2nd series, etc. What to others think? -- Philcha 14:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! Would someone please do a neutrality check on Gery Chico? Currently the article has a cleanup banner that mentions "COI" and "news release" concerns, and WP:RGA says that cleanup banners may make an article more likely to be quick-failed. I've tried my best to comply with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV standards, but I feel that I cannot remove the banner because I have a conflict of interest myself (I'm involved in one of the mayoral campaigns, not necessarily Chico's). Thus, I would appreciate it very much if an unbiased contributor would take a brief look at the article to see if it doesn't meet the quick-fail criteria. Geread ( talk) 06:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
User Bzuk has put up his hand to review it this page. However, when I requested him to actually review after a few days of inactivity, he said, "I am not the reviewer, merely an editor getting the article ready for review" on my talk page. It looks like that he doesn't know the process of reviewing that well. Could someone please delete the page Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 so somebody else will review the page? Thanks Sp33dyphil ( T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 09:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Under which subtopic would a medieval fair ( Tewkesbury Medieval Festival) be listed? Although it features a re-enactment of a battle long-past, the fair is more than that by now (and more of a social celebration/enjoyment along a medieval theme). Jappalang ( talk) 03:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor initiated the review at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./GA2, but provided no actual review. As the FAQ on this page recommends for this case: it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions can be posted at WT:GAN. So here I am, posting the request for deletion so this article can get a proper review. Thanks. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Steph Cunningham, a soap character, at Talk:Steph Cunningham/GA1. I'd like other reviewers' opinions about section Steph Cunningham#Storyline. You may find WP:WikiProject Hollyoaks useful.
Can someone else put an opinion in please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintheone ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
Cite episode}}
(broadcasts) or {{
Cite video}}
(DVD). This fulfills
WP:V and is inline with
WP:PS, provided the summary is simply descriptive of the events with no interpretations or conjectures.
Jappalang (
talk) 11:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)At Talk:Steph_Cunningham/GA1 the nominator has asked for a 2nd opinion. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, why is the bot insist on moving Maniac Mansion from "Video games" to miscellaneous? I think the bot is seriously acting up. – MuZemike 16:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
{{
GA nominee}}
was messed up,
manually.
Jappalang (
talk) 09:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)I see that most articles have to wait 2.5 to 3 months. And I see it was as bad at the end of Dec 2010. Any ideas on how to remedy it? I've suggested before that any one who nominates an article must review one before nominating another - except that new nominaters get 2 reviews for free, so they learn how reviews work. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I just initiated a review of Dog, at Talk:Dog/GA2. However, a review had accidentally been initiated already by somebody else, who blanked the page after realizing the error. I added the basic review-cruft to the existing blank page and started my review. My question is, will the bot pick this up, or do I have to do some hand-editing to get things to show up correctly? Looie496 ( talk) 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
User Arsenikk has not responded to Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 for a number of days. About 90% of his comments have been fulfilled, and more changes have been made. Those unfulfilled have been given reasons. I have posted many times on his talk page, but no responses have been made. Can somebody please deliver an ultimatum on this article; I'm confident it's going to be a pass. It's stable, neutral, well-written, broad in its coverage and factually accurate. Can somebody comment or pass it, please. Many thanks Sp33dyphil ( T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 06:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
National Ignition Facility fell off FA because of questions concerning the licensing of the images. It is not clear even now what the exact answer was, but it seems it just sort of fell off the list. So then what is the requirement for GA? The images could only ever be used under fair use, the lab has strict licensing requirements and won't consider CC-by-SA or similar (yes, I tried). Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
In Sinyavin Offensive (1942), it seems a more Common name, Siniavino Offensive (1942), should have been used (see Talk:Sinyavin Offensive (1942)/GA1). Considering the GA process is sort of semi-automated by GAbot, our question is whether the article should be renamed now or after the GA review is concluded? Jappalang ( talk) 00:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
While reviewing Battle of Tabu-dong I forgot that we have a functional GA bot now and manually changed the WP:GAN page. It did some sort of maintenance, and so has not passed the article which I have. What needs to be done to fix it? NativeForeigner Talk/ Contribs 02:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I am curious as to whether an orphan such as Rose Catherine Pinkney is eligible for WP:GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I want a second opinion on the review for Steph Cunningham. More it's probably best if it is someone who have reviewed a fictional character article before. The review it recieved is impossible. Asking for all the storylines to be sourced when it's not a requirement per the MOS. Everytime I change something the editor desputes it. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose that WP:Good article nominations/guidelines#How to review an articlebe amended: Current text:
# On the article talk page, follow the link in the {{ GA nominee}} template to start a review subpage. Leave an initial comment, and save that subpage.
Proposed new text:
# On this page follow the Start Review link in the {{ GAN entry}} template to start a review subpage. If you like, leave an initial comment, one line below the automatically inserted reviewer signature and timestamp and save that subpage. The GANbot will then change WP:GAN to indicate that you are reviewing the article.
My reasons for resuggesting this are that many reviewers enter text above the reviewer signature and timestamp which the bot cannot parse. Improvements to this propsed wording welcome. Jezhotwells ( talk) 11:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have been having issues lately at both GAN and DYK where random editors have descended upon my freshly written articles and nominated without talking to me first. In the case of my latest creation, Conservation of slow lorises, I was going to spend the evening touching it up before nominating it. However, I was tired when I came home from work and fell asleep. After waking up, I have discovered that someone nominated it for me. I left a note on the nominator's talk page, but I was wondering how best to handle this in the future. This is becoming an increasingly frequent problem, and it's not just one editor that's doing it. A lot of times, I finish writing articles at 3am, and although I have now started making sure that I stay up to complete the DYK nomination to avoid this issue, the last thing I want to do is either stay up even later to prepare my work for GAN or delay publication until the article is 100% ready for GAN. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
So what's the concensus here? Add my name to the nomination (and if so, where exactly?) Revert the nomination? Either way, I plan to finish up the article tonight. All that needs to be done is a proofread/copyedit. Also, I want to add a few pictures that need to be uploaded from Flickr. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Tony Blair/GA1 was originally created by an IP vandal and then deleted. Is subsequently came along and started the review properly, but the bot is listing the IP as the reviewer and reverted my edit (which is seriously bad form for a bot to be doing) when I changed it to my signature. Why is the bot the sole maintainer of GAN and why is it overriding human editors? And how do I get it to list me as the reviewer and not some IP vandal? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I started a review of South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe and the WP:GAN page link changed to "discuss review" instead of "start review". However, the bot did not change the status parameter of the talk page template to onreview or add the transclusion of the review page. I have manually added onreview and transcluded the review page in the hope that it will kickstart the robot into acknowledging the presence of the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Racepacket ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The article on Tokyo was just nominated and while I don't review articles, and don't want too, I just looked at the article and noticed that a reviewer shouldn't even take the time to look at it. This article should have never been nominated. It's currently rated as a C and I don't even know if it would be a B. Large parts of the article, including full paragraphs and full sections, are not referenced once and there are multiple "citations needed" in other areas. I have an article here that I have been waiting to get reviewed which has already been skipped over by another article and I don't like the thought that it could be looked over again for an article that should have never been nominated. Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 16:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the bot may have fallen over so it would be wise to manually update the Wikipedia:Good articles/recent page. I have informed User:Jarry1250. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I've come across a few GA reviews from User:GreatOrangePumpkin ( talk | contribs), and have concerns. The first I've seen got somewhat out of hand on the respective users' talk pages, although the nominator (now indeffed) certainly had a part to play in that. But he then summarily promoted this nomination, and is on the verge of promoting Aruba at the 2008 Summer Olympics. I'm not sure if there are any other GANs that will need looking at. For what it's worth, I am convinced that he is an enthusiastic young editor acting in good faith, as demonstrated by his efforts at Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Regards, — W F C— 08:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Back to the topic, it's a stub, and promoting stubs as "good articles" is clearly incorrect. This needs to be addressed, and quickly, before it further undermines the GAN process. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree in that a biography of an obscure man may be a good article, if the information about him is properly organized... on the mere level of the hypothetical ideas. In the discussion hold here, this does not apply to the specific Aruba at the 2008 Summer Olympics. There's not even a single important paragraph bigger than three sentences. MBelgrano ( talk) 11:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I could do with a second opinion at Talk:Mince pie/GA1 if anyone has the time. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 12:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am not certain whether my role at Talk:Case Closed/GA1 has gone beyond what a reviewer should have done. Could any veteran GA reviewer take a look and advise? Jappalang ( talk) 03:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Can this article be eligible for Good article nomination? I have been told that "Timeline of..." article has ever gone through GAN. -- The Egyptian Liberal ( talk) 10:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just reviewed this article. Nice little article. Definatly will be a GA either if he does the improvements or in the future. My issue is. Is this GAC a bit too early. Is the article just a bit too much of a stub. I've hinted this in the review, and want to know what others thought before promoting/declining. KnowIG ( talk) 21:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed the Lost article Because You Left and feel it is ready for promotion as a GA. However, there is a minor ongoing edit war over four small words, which several anonymous IP users feel should be included. As I'm not accustomed to dealing with edit wars, I thought I would seek a second opinion. Is the issue so trivial that I should ignore it and pass the article for GA anyway? The consensus on the article's talkpage leans against the words' inclusion, but the issue was never completely resolved (and one IP user continues to edit the article, adding the same four words over and over again). A second opinion would be appreciated. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please delete Talk:Vision of Love/GA1 and Talk:Hillel Slovak/GA1, as they were inadvertently created by someone who is not intending to review. -- Beloved Freak 22:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Can some one please help facilitate the netball GA? The reviewer cited bias but won't present any information regarding bias so we can work to fix it. I showed it to people in #wikipedia-en-help and no one saw the bias there either. The reviewer said the article is too stuffed with information. They didn't say the article had too much random trivia and articles are supposed to be comprehensive about their subject. He's asked for tables to be removed that other people who have gone through the GA process have repeatedly assured me are acceptable and important for the article. The reviewer has asked for information that doesn't exist (the number of players by continent, historical styles of play) to be included in the article. He's extended the time out for doing this, against my request because I don't feel we can address his concerns in a timely manner. I feel we've reached an impasse and I want the article failed so that we can get a new reviewer in who can be more helpful. It isn't like we haven't tried. We've made this level of editing to try to conform to his requests. I think we're both first timers at this process so I'm a bit lost with how to proceed. -- LauraHale ( talk) 23:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I went looking in history to see if a submission of mine passed or failed, I saw that it failed. I added GA1 to the talk page to find the review. Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tet_Offensive/GA1
What? This says passed? Help please. -- Iankap99 ( talk) 03:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Love Story (Taylor Swift song)/GA1 was created by an unregistered user, who is not allowed to do a GA review. An admin declined speedy, but is there way to get it deleted quicker than through WP:MFD? Adabow ( talk · contribs) 03:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone delete this page. It was a premature GAN nomination, which I quick failed. The nominator had started the review page. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Students in a course I teach on Communication in Groups and Organizations have been working on 11 articles relevant to this topic, with the goal of getting them to GA status by the beginning of April. The list of articles is here. I wanted to alert potential reviewers that the students will be making requests to have their articles review starting on April 4th. I was hoping to reserve some time from reviewers during April to handle this load. Thanks. Robertekraut ( talk) 13:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I will keep an eye out for the noms. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 16:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Can this be deleted? As
the page history shows, this review was accidentally started.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 08:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
There is something that warrants close scrutiny occuring in the netball articles. User:LauraHale is from Illinois and understands American English. She nominated both Netball and Netball in the Cook Islands for GA. Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA1 was reviewed by Canadian Paul who failed it on March 11 because "the overall structure of the article needs to be redone and that extends beyond the reach of a seven day hold." Five hours later, she renominated it and I reviewed it in Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA2. Although we are both from Illinois, LauraHale claimed that she did not understand what I was saying. She insisted that when I said "women's basketball" that I meant "netball" because in a few countries up until 1970, some people called netball women's basketball even though my meaning was clear from my statements. She repeatedly assured me that she understood that an "Olympic sport" was one that was played in the Olympic games, and then repeatedly revised the article to state that netball was an "Olympic sport", when in fact it was only recognized by the International Olympic Committee as a "sport" and was not a part of the Olympic Games schedule. After giving her one last opportunity to address important concerns, I failed the article on March 20 stating that it needed a careful rewrite to eliminate POV. A few hours later, without the rewrite, she nominated it a third time and Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3 is being reviewed by User:Hawkeye7. I am seeking clarification because Hawkeye7 made substantial contributions to both this article ( diff and diff) and the main Netball article as well. So I am wondering if he would be allowed to review the article under the rule, "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review."
In the meantime, LauraHale also nominated Netball on March 5 and User:Bill william compton started Talk:Netball/GA1. Although Bill made good efforts to communicate with LauraHale, he ran into similar WP:HEAR problems, and he put out the call for a second opinion. I volunteered to take over that review on March 13. We are still working through the concerns with that article.
What is the proper procedure to handle a reviewer who made recent substantial edits? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 06:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have now raised the concern on the reviewer's talk page, and left specific examples of problems in Talk:Netball in the Cook Islands/GA3, and we will see what happens. Racepacket ( talk) 15:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone has nominated this Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. Now Ok. Fine whatever you may say. The problem is the article is ok but could be a lot better. And I bet that whoever reviews this will have to do a load of work to it. Please someone chuck it out, so that it can be improved at the right people get credit. Cheers. KnowIGhas ( talk) 00:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I figured I would put this here for the record. I with my nomination for Good Article status for netball. The most recent reviewer insisted on putting in factually incorrect information (about the history of netball and about the Olympics) and a whole set of other issues. The most appalling of which for me included making unsubstantiated allegations of plagiarism and insisting that the burden of proof was on me to prove that I didn't: He wanted me to scan book sources I had used and e-mail the pages from those sources to him. Given this appalling, factually incorrect allegation that the reviewer could not support, given that we'd bent over backwards to try to meet his demands and we weren't making any headway (and the article was actually degrading), I decided it was time to retract it. When we put this article back up for good review later, I would really appreciate any support to insure that he does not review the article again. -- LauraHale ( talk) 08:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Edited to add having not read the comments above: I finally withdrew the request. The article assessment wasn't going any where. We couldn't make the changes to the article to appease the reviewer. It had been open for close to three weeks. The article quality was beginning to degrade. I felt the review needed to be withdrawn to give us time to make improvements to the article. I asked three individuals who have worked on Good Articles before how to withdraw my request as the procedure was not outlined. They told me that I needed to change the status to failed, leave a not saying I withdrew the request in the edit summary, and add a section to the article talk page to say why I withdrew it. I followed this procedure. Racepacket re-opened the review, claiming that I could not withdraw my request. I am under the impression from the Good article nomination page that editors cannot be forced to go through the Good article process against their will. Thus, Racepacket re-opening it in violation of my request otherwise feels very intrusive and like it puts unfair requirements on me as an editor. -- LauraHale ( talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Per the GAN page, all reviewers should be reigstered, but an article I nominated, Rosa Mendes is currently being reviewed by an IP. What, if anything, should be done? Nici Vampire Heart 14:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this article eligible to be a GA or not? -- 07:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I nominated an article and the GA Bot failed it very quickly. I probably made a mistake in my nomination or there was probably one little tiny formatting error in the article that the immediately recognized and failed it on just that. If the article is not good enough, I want this article, One Bayfront Plaza delisted as a good article. It is way out of date and some facts are incorrect. The article I tried to nominate is Port of Miami Tunnel, a well covered and well known development in South Florida. I think there might be some tiny reference formatting error that triggered the bot. No way a bot can give a fair review of such a thing. I will nominate it one more time to see if the same thing happens again. I'm not sure if having a good article status really means anything, but for what it's worth, I guess I think it meets the criteria and might as well be one. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 05:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed when I went to check on the status of one of my in-progress reviews, that this user ( KnowIG) has been banned. He has several reviews underway, and I am not sure what the protocol is in these cases. Canada Hky ( talk) 02:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Template:GAN/subst doesn't seem to be getting subst'd into the GA subpage any more. Is this deliberate?
I discovered this anomaly when looking through the templates. Based on the comments above, I think that it might useful to include a brief statement that "All editors interested in improving this article are invited to participate in the review." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to request the opinion of the community on whether another bot should be requested to assist in the activities of the current bot: User:GA bot. There has been a tremendous amount of new good article nomination and in my opinion there is a need for another helper around these parts. Don't get me wrong GA bot is doing a great job in it's current state however the growing number of article who are being nominated for GA status needs to be handled by two equally important bots. My proposal is that a new bot: User:SCGBot be created to help GA bot in the tasks it has been programmed to undertake. I also propose that the bot be encoded in the same code and code format as GA bot. If you would like to see a preview of the request page for the bot, please click here. Thanks you. Jessy ( talk) ( contribs) • 00:33, April 1, 2011 ( UTC)
Once upon a time, the GAN guidelines included explicit instructions on how to withdraw a nomination, but they were removed in this edit aimed at shortening the guidelines. The associated discussion did not mention withdrawing nominations, so perhaps a baby got thrown out with the bath water.
It remains common sense and folk knowledge among many reviewers that nominators can withdraw nominations, and the /FAQ reflects this to some extent, but perhaps it would be helpful to restore a couple of sentences to the guidelines. Views? Geometry guy 21:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This came up rather quickly, and I did not see this item, because I had been discussing a similiar topic here. I would propose the following langauge instead:
To withdraw a nomination before the review has begun, remove the {{ GA nominee}} from the article talk page. If you wish to withdraw a nomination after the review has begun, get consensus of those participating in the review, and have the reviewer use the fail process to record the outcome of the review.
There are cases where a number of people are involved in a GA Review, and the withdrawal should be discussed because it is unfair to the group if the first nominator has the right to "pull the plug" on a review when other parties are willing to continue. In many cases, differences between a nominator and a reviewer can be resolved by getting a second opinion rather than starting the review process from scratch.
As a matter of policy, should we adopt a "cooling off" period before the withdrawn nomination can be renominated? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 04:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Looie496 and I have such different approaches that I would appreciate a 2nd opinion. Please comment at Talk:Nemertea/GA1#Philcha_asking_for_a_2nd_opinion. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please delete Talk:Juliette Binoche/GA1, accidentally satrted by the GA nominator. -- Beloved Freak 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Can someone delete this as it appears to have been accidentally started by the nominator. Jezhotwells ( talk) 16:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the backlog of GA requests-currently 183 pending or underway-and the resulting time delay may discourage people from submitting articles for GA review. It appears that the requirement that any one who submits an item to DYK also review an item is very successful. It seems perfectly reasonable that anyone who can get an article to GA status is qualified to review another article to see if it passes. I suggest we consider such a policy for GA articles. — btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 20:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
To respond to Jezhotwells, there is a lot of "distance learning" software that can take a panel of questions, select a random sample from the preloaded questions, present the sample to the user and automatically grade them. The policy question becomes whether you want to create a new bit in the signon record to reflect the people who have passed the exam, or just put a category on their user page. I am proposing a system that would involve no administrative tasks other than writing the 25 questions and developing the interface to send the test results back to the record of the users. My motive is that it is clear to me that many reviewers either have never read the GA criteria or have forgotten them. In the United States, people must take an automated test to demonstrate knowledge of driving laws, every six years, no matter how long they have held a license. If GAN exists six years from now, I would not object to demand people to be retested to show that they have not forgot the criteria.
There are two big benefits to the reviewer/testing requirements. First, people who review get a valuable perspective that helps them do a better job of preparing articles for GA nomination. Second, because anyone who nominates more than 5 articles would have to take the test to become a "certified GA reviewer", it guarantees that the nominators also have read and understood the GA criteria, also resulting in better prepared nominations. Racepacket ( talk) 23:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I and my reviewer, User:Philcha, disagree regarding the structure of Blotchy swell shark#Description; the comments relevant to the dispute are here. Please leave your comments on the review page. -- Yzx ( talk) 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The reviewer who was going to review my GA has been block indefinitly, can some other take over his reviewer duties on this article? If so thanks! :) -- TIAYN ( talk) 06:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Somneone has nominated the article Nick Loren for GA under theatre and film. The images are obviously suspect.. the fansite refs and the layout. Rain the 1 BAM 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate a second opinion. The article has been nominated by and editor who has disclosed that they worked on Chico's campaign to become Mayor of Chicago. This appears to be a major conflict of interest, but it looks as if most self serving material has been removed. Nevertheless, I am somewhat uncomfortable with this situation. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is now at GAR. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Gery Chico/1 Geread ( talk) 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
My computer is on the blink and I don't have much time on my hands atm. Would anyone else be willing to try and tie up my open reviews for Tony Blair and C. W. A. Scott? Thanks, and sorry to burden whoever takes them on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Looie496 and I have such different approaches that I would appreciate a 2nd opinion. Please comment at Talk:Nemertea/GA1#Philcha_asking_for_a_2nd_opinion. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI: It has been proposed that "WP:GAC" be retargeted to Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Feel free to contribute to the discussion. Thanks! Swarm X 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Looie496's review at Talk:Nemertea/GA1 was inadequate because it did not cover their anatomy and physiology, which are very strange even for invertebrates. The review mainly concentrated on the lead, which IMO is the wrong way round, as the lead should summarise the main text and hence the main text should be reviewed first. I don't understand Looie496's comment "Without topic sentences I can't tell what the paragraphs are intended to be about, so there is no way for me to evaluate the adequacy of their content", as I think I understand what the sources say about these animals. The sources don't give the topic sentences that Looie496 likes - journal articles are written for other experts, and good general zoology books begrudge space for "minor phyla" (e.g. most phyla); and without support from sources, IMO topic sentences would be editorialism and forbidden by WP:V. So I've used the template to start Talk:Nemertea/GA2 -- Philcha ( talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Has there been a formal GAN on this page: [[Commander United Kingdom Maritime Forces]? I can't see one, but yet it seems that it has been promoted anyway with this edit: [8]. Is this correct? Has there been a change in policy? 124.185.236.32 ( talk) 01:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have recently added a bit of sourced info to this article, and nominated it for GA candidacy. I chipped in to the review process, and I am currently reviewing another article from the topic. ;) I was wondering if we could get a GA Reviewer who would be willing to help out with an expedited review process for Santorum (neologism)? I am dealing with some ongoing personal life issues, and it would really be a favor and help me out.
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi ya'll - I noticed that Azerbaijan was within the past few hours passed as a GA. I did a PR on this article a few days ago and found numerous problems, so I was surprised to see it passed as a GA so quickly. When I clicked on the talk page, I found a very cursory review and many of the problems that I had found still existing in the article. These include over a dozen dead links (shown here), over half a dozen sources that even on a cursory examination look unreliable, others that don't have enough information to show what they are, unsourced statistics, etc. My PR can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Azerbaijan/archive2, and many of the comments are still valid, although some are more focused on the FA criteria. Does someone have the time to talk with the nominator and reviewer on this, and perhaps take it through a GAR if necessary? I don't have the time this weekend, or I would do it myself... Dana boomer ( talk) 11:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if people have noticed or not, put there is a particularly high number of articles in the Music section (75), some being there since March 2011. Should we be concerned? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In the past month, we had a net increase of 120 articles in the backlog. Meanwhile, it does feel like there are fewer reviewers these days, as I only see the same handful handling all the articles. Honestly though, I'm entirely out of ideas on how to find people to tackle the backlog, and I don't have the desire to review multiple articles a day anymore. Anyone have any ideas? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit there are two types of nominations I tend to prefer: clear-cut failures (whether quick or not), and easy nominations where the prose is good and only small issues need to be looked into. One area that is often avoided are articles which are clearly below standards, but still not a fail. Often these have portions lacking references, and have a below-standard prose. A lot of feedback is needed to bring them up to standards. There seems to have developed a culture that the threshold to fail an article is quite high, leaving many such articles unreviewed. If they are failed, the nominator often complains that they were not granted an "on hold" time and a very extensive review (of course, some people also complain because the review is too extensive). To take a current example with Lhasa: the article as it stands now is short of the standards, with sections with single-sentence prose, lacking references, overuse of images and bare references; perhaps it is better to make a fairly rough review, fail it, let the nominator work with the issues, and then bring it up later? Arsenikk (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps posting notices on wikiprojects? I know many are dead, by our WP:POLAND is quite live, and it is not impossible that some of our members (or myself) would be motivated to review a Poland-related GA if you notify us of it on our talk page. Now, we have Article Alerts, but bot notification is not as personal nor urgent as a talk page note would be. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
After I posted on WT:POLAND, following my idea above, an editor has volunteered to review most Polish-related GAs (see here). Has anybody asked for help at any other WikiProjects? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
In the FAC page states:Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. is there something similar in the GAN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone ( talk • contribs) 19:39 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Have in mind Wikipedia:Four Award, a recognition that may be lost if the article is nominated by some passing-by nominator. Besides, the editor may intend to nominate the article but not now, but after achiving a certain number of expansions and improvements, a passing-by nominator that simply "thinks" the article is ready would create an unnecesary dispute. Or the editor may have limited editing time right now (for off-internet concerns, for example), and may delay nominations or other community-related issues until having such time Cambalachero ( talk) 01:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been informed on my talk page that quoting the FAQ above (rather than agreeing with Malleus' opinion) is "off topic", "patronizing", "wasting editors' time", "misbehaving", and "trolling". Malleus' response, i.e., "I'd recommend to you that you extract your head from your arse ", is deemed merely "unhelpful", rather than an appalling act of rudeness by an editor who has an unquestionable reputation for rudeness. If other editors agree with this surprising (to me) assessment, I'd like to know this. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
In the past WP:SUP and GAN have successfully collaborated on teaching students how to write Good Articles ( past example with link to older ones). Basically, a new bunch of educational assignment projects will soon be nominated for GAN. Full list of 3 articles that are subject to this assignment can be below ( and details of the assignment are here). As before, those GANs are a bit more urgent then others (as many students, unlike your average editor, will be much less motivated to address the reviewers comments and fix the articles after they receive their grade). For this educational assignment, nominations will take place on 6 June, and grading is expected on 20 June. I am well aware of our backlog problems, and while I have no problem with my own GANs waiting for a reviewer for many weeks (and sometimes, months), in this case I'd appreciate if some reviewers would volunteer to review those articles outside of our chronological queue, with reviews appearing hopefully around 7-9 June. Below is the list of the articles in this batch, they all should be nominated by students today. If a reviewer would like to take care of a given article, please strike it out and sign below. If you are interested in learning more about Wikimedia Foundation educational initiatives, check out Wikipedia:Ambassadors page. Thanks! -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Group 1: Economic globalization ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Group 2:
Archaic globalization (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 3:
Social web (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
I note that Keller Fountain Park is listed under Geography but should probably be "Sports and recreation" and that Karachi is also listed there but should really be under "Places". I am reluctant to move them as I don't see any protocol for this and in any case I have a mild COI as I have an article up for review behind them in the queue. Ben Mac Dui 07:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
== Quick Decline GA2 No comments or review made. ==
I re-listed
The Rocky Horror Picture Show and made all the changes per talk page from the de-listing but
User:Queenieacoustic quick failed it with no comments just a list of references the comment: "Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article". Am I wasting my time with my reviews by actualyl starting that darn pesky Review Page?? Can they really quick decline the article without reason? Cause if that's all I gotta do....I could clear your backlog in about 4 hrs.--
Amadscientist (
talk) 12:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
User admits he could have held but didn't think it could be corrected in 7 days. Review did not show up on the talk page [9] and is still not there. Are the bots misbehaving? Article has simply been re-listed and an invitation to the original reviewer to return if they are interested in continuing.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 13:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I want to bring up a point concerning several current noms in this category. The articles Neurolaw, Hyperkinesia (neurology), Satellite glial cell, KC (patient), and Cushing reflex were all expanded as part of a university educational assignment in the Spring, and part of the assignment was that the students would receive additional credit if their articles reached GA status. However, the class ended over a month ago, and it is unlikely that we will ever see any of the nominators again.
I have to admit that I signed up to review Neurolaw and then dropped the ball on it, partly due to discouragement at the conflict of interest I knew to be present in the nomination. However this one in particular may be different from the others, in that there are editors who were not part of the class who have shown some interest in it. For the others, though, I think there is minimal chance that a GA review will go anywhere. I am wondering whether it would be better to simply let them fail one by one, or to be proactive in some way. Looie496 ( talk) 23:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
What is the meaning of Category:Wikipedia good articles in talk space and Category:Good articles in article space? Where does the official GA count come from?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears that User:Racepacket is shopping for GA. [10] I may be wrong but, if anything, he is being a bit of a problem in that his behavior is making reviewers uncomfortable. [11]-- Amadscientist ( talk) 23:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else...but I'm moving on now. If mistakes were made than we should discuss that of course, but I will no longer interact with the member and want nothing further to do with reviewing any of the members articles. Consensus can be a hard mistress and she doesn't always agree with us. Let her be the final judge if she is even interested now.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I had a number of articles that I had nominated. I have withdrawn them to reduce the workload of reviewers as the articles still need work and using review to bring them to standard at this time is just adding extra work to an already back logged project. As the articles are improved and are actually GA in my view I will renominate. Hopefully this will reduce any additional fixes that may be caught by a reviewer in the future.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to take up the reviews for: Kesha's "Blow" and Lady Gaga's "Hair"? I've decided that due to real life circumstances I must semi-retire from wikipedia. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Racepacket ( talk · contribs) has been banned from Wikipedia for the period of a year, and currently has some outstanding GA nominations. Talk:Getty Villa/GA5 has been taken up by Pyrotec ( talk · contribs), but Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee and Blue Line (Washington Metro) are outstanding. Is there some precedent here? What is the best course of action? J Milburn ( talk) 00:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the nominations should be removed summarily for lack of an unblocked nominator. We have an opportunity here as a community to deal with these nominations. If reviewed and they pass, they pass and get listed. If they don't pass on the first review, then they can be held pending someone willing to step up and deal with the content of the articles and the review comments. If no one shows up, they can be "not listed". Now, isn't that easy? Imzadi 1979 → 17:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Canoe River train crash ( review) has a very tricky NPOV issue; everything else in fine with the article, but it would be nice to get some feedback on that bit. The issue is a bit simplified that all available sources are more or less POV, so how does one create NPOV from that. Arsenikk (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The current reviewer of Manila hostage crisis (review: Talk:Manila hostage crisis/GA1), Gatoclass, is leaving Wikipedia for a while and may not be able to complete the review. [18] Gatoclass left open the possibility that I ask for the article to be relisted for review, so I'm asking here for another reviewer to pick up on this review. Der yck C. 17:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a quick question about good articles. I had two good articles up for good article nomination, which were Who We Are (Lifehouse album) and First Time (Lifehouse song). They were failed by User:Mattchewbaca in bad faith as you can see at: Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mattchewbaca. Do you think I should renominate both of these articles for a second good article nomination or have it as a first nomination since the review by Mattchewbaca was in bad faith? Thanks. - Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm reviewing, and the nominator and I now think it should be merge with another article? Is there a way to stop the review without a formal "Fail"? -- Philcha ( talk) 07:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I was about to suggest to two editors that they may want to review one anther's article, speeding up the process. But how is such mutual review viewed? AGF on one side, there is some potential COI to be considered. Should I make this suggestion to the two editors, or would you advise against it? Your thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
(←ec) GAN reviewing is not about appearances, but about making the (usually) first GA review of an article as fair and accurate as it can be on whether the article meets the criteria. A nitpicky review is not necessarily a good review: such a review may require unnecessary changes, or overlook significant issues of coverage or bias. I do not think it is a good idea for editors to be reviewing each other's articles simultaneously, as it unnecessarily clouds editorial judgment. (I hope Wehwalt meant to say "even the impression...")
On the other hand, this may not be what Piotrus is suggesting. It is a good idea to draw the attention of both editors to articles they might be willing to review. It is also fine in principle for Editor B to review an article by Editor A and then Editor A to review an article by Editor B (given the relatively small numbers of reviewers/editors involved in GA, this happens all the time, not just accidentally, but inevitably). However, in such a circumstance, Editor B should ensure that the review takes place uninfluenced by any expectation of "return favors" by Editor A, and after the review is complete, Editor A should only review the article of Editor B if Editor A is confident that their judgment will be unaffected (positively or negatively) by the conduct/outcome of the earlier review by Editor A. (The same principles apply to all editors reviewing articles by other reviewers.)
Per Wizardman's last remark, the editors should feel comfortable to invite (indeed welcome) comments and scrutiny from other reviewers. In that case, they probably don't need such scrutiny, and the process will be speeded up. Otherwise, reassessment is likely, and time saved at GAN is a false economy. Geometry guy 01:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that the WikiCup has muddied the waters here, and I am not happy with quid pro quo reviews. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely NOT, due to WP:COI! All we need is two editors out of the Family Guy Wikiproject and all of a sudden, every single Family Guy episode article will be listed at GA! Ok, so that's just one example, but you get the point. Too much room for abuse here,... WTF? ( talk) 16:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I clicked that I would review it, but I am sort of Wiki-tired. Besides that, I need to read the criteria and figure out how to do GA reviews. Not sure when I will get to it, so please put the article back in queue with no prejudice. TCO ( talk) 03:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
TCO (
talk) 15:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Would someone please take over Talk:Golding Bird/GA1. I have an persistent illness which weakens my stamina and concentration, and Golding Bird is a fairly long and detailed article. I regret that I will not be fit to review further articles to GA standard. -- Philcha ( talk) 13:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi
The article Klemens von Metternich was nominated but failed ( GA1 here). The review was, IMHO less than satisfactory, but it should be noted that it was the reviewers first attempt (I believe) and they did ask for advice here.
I have advised the nominating editor to re-submit; however, I am unsure as to which it should be: a re-nomination or a community review.
Can someone please take a quick look and advise as to which it should be, if any (as it may also be that the review is correct of course!) Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
After I passed Inception, why did the bot say I failed it.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hill 262 has been nominated by someone who has never worked on the article, is already a milhist A-Class, and the primary writers are unavailable at the moment to respond to a review. I think the simplest solution is to remove the nom from the list but I'd prefer to leave that to someone more familiar with GA these days that I am. Thanks! EyeSerene talk 11:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm noticing an uptick in articles that are simultaneously sent to GAN and PR, apparently in the hopes that issues can be addressed while it waits in the queue. While there's no rule against it, it causes an article to stick in two backlogs, and I'm wondering if this is something we need to start policing. If an article's at PR, then it's implying that it's not ready for a GA nom; if that's the case then wait for the PR to wrap up. Then again, maybe I'm just noticing issues where none exist. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that a policy change should be discussed. Is the the right talk page or should it be at WT:GA? I would be happy to phrase the question, subject to input from others. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
(note: I have moved this section here from WT:WPGA. Looie496 ( talk) 23:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC))
I'm very concerned about the review process at Talk:Vere Bird, Jr./GA1. See also User talk:Electronscope44 and User talk:Ironholds. I think the review process is currently going far outside the remit of the GA process. GA reviews are supposed to be lightweight; this one is most certainly not. It would be useful if someone could provide some guidance on whether this is going in the right direction or not. I have seen other reviews go far off into similar territory and the results have never been pleasant for any of the parties involved. — Tom Morris ( talk) 14:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Given that (a) the reviewer does not seem to have the experience to carry out a proper review, and (b) the reviewer is currently indef-blocked, it might be appropriate to terminate the review so that somebody else can take it up. Looie496 ( talk) 23:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What are the criteria for a quick-fail? It appears that Puffin ( talk · contribs) nominated Pancake for GA status, despite doing no work on the article. A quick glance at the article revealed widespread violations of WP:MOS, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Given that he has also done no work on the article (other than nominating it for GA and tagging all the B-class criteria as "yes", I am wondering whether to just fail it immediately. Thanks! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 20:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there an automated log of this month's successful GA noms, similar to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2011? – Quadell ( talk) 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I've started reviewing GA noms after a long period of inactivity, and I periodically have questions about what is and is not acceptable in a GA. I know the reviewer has wide latitude in these things, but still, I was wondering if other reviewers might have some advice on some points. (And is there a more appropriate venue for these sorts of questions?)
Thanks for any tips, – Quadell ( talk) 12:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. I may have similar questions in the future... I suppose I'll ask them here, if no better spot presents itself. – Quadell ( talk) 01:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I nominated the article St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador earlier this year, at the time it was put on hold and eventually failed due to the introduction not being long enough. I have since expanded the introduction and the member that had originally reviewed the article has since helped me expand the introduction and so they fell they are unable to re-assess the article. I was wondering if I had to go through the whole review process again just to get the introduction reviewed or not? Newfoundlander&Labradorian ( talk) 15:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, my names MayhemMario and i've have done quite a lot of GA reviews and nomiantions lately ( Heather Chasen, Dotty Cotton, Manda Best etc...) Well whilst reveiwing Si Una Vez the user who nominated it ( User:AJona1992) english wasnt great as the article was full of past tenses where they shouldnt be (etc...). The other day another user, ( User:Belovedfreak) noticed the same thing but this time told him on talk page, the discussion is here. Then I put forward the idea if he does the main bulk of the review and I just do the english/grammar/punctuation side of it, AJona could still do GA reviews. He agreed. What im asking is can we do a joint review of an article, and has it ever been done before? Mayhem Mario 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Recently, the Feedback Request Service was successfully implemented. This allows for users who sign up for certain request for comment categories to be randomly notified of an RFC at a frequency of their choosing. This works like opt-in jury duty and allows people to participate more casually in the RFC process than if they were to keep abreast of all goings-on at RFC. A similar system could be implemented at Good Article Nominations, where those who opt-in will be notified at random of a new good article nomination, similar for the process used at RFC. Is this an idea worth pursuing? If you are interested, you can sign up at Wikipedia:Feedback request service#Good article nominations. hare j 04:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi the Battle of the Wilderness was nominated for a GA review by User:Wild Wolf at 19:52, 15 June 2011. The article is not ready for GA as suggested on Talk:Battle of the Wilderness#GA review and agreed by the original author. A request for the nominator to remove the nomination has so far not been acted or commented upon. It would be easy to quick fail but then that would be on the article history. Is there any way someone other than the nominator can remove the nomination? Jim Sweeney ( talk) 06:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to announce the first featured (or good) article contest for the US National Archives WikiProject, as part of the National archives' ongoing collaboration with Wikipedia. The National Archives has graciously provided us with prizes to give out to winners, including National Archives publications, tote bags, and other swag. This first contest is a challenge to get any of the articles on the three documents on display in the National Archives building's rotunda—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—featured (in any language). There is a smaller prize for achieving good article status.
Please read more about how to participate here. Good luck! Dominic· t 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
A somewhat infrequent editor has not properly closed Talk:Daniel Coughlin/GA1.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 11:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is the worst review I've ever had. This article was nominated on the 3 May, it just had a review. However the editor was blatantly rude and curt throughout. So it now has to re-enter the cue because the editor won't let anyone else review it before he fails it. Anyone willing to review it? Is there nothing that could be done to keep it at the top of the list? RaintheOne BAM 17:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Let me state this bluntly. Raintheone claims that I'm a bad reviewer, but the truth is that he's a bad nominator. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to close the circle, Raintheone and I managed to come to an understanding and with the help of several other editors the article is now listed as a GA. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I request for a 2nd opinion at Talk:Portia labiata/GA1. The reviewer, Binksternet, demands that the lead be only 4 paras, despite the banner at the top of WP:LEAD, which says, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." I showed that the leads of several of my zoology GAs have more than 4 paras, including the jumping spiders Maevia inclemens (with Casliber) and Phaeacius (with Stemonitis), as the subjects are complex. Binksternet replied, "The other reviewers are not my concern at this time. I think they were lax." Binksternet also wants me to restructure the lead so that the "interesting parts" are at the top of the lead: "cannibalism, trickery, mimicry, stabbing, venom and intelligence". My concern is that the result would be incoherent - these behaviours are based on the size and appearance, body structure, movement, senses, and hunting. I suggest we review the rest of the article and then return to the lead, and Binksternet replied that he/she had read the rest but would not review the rest of the article unless the lead was resolved. -- Philcha ( talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
In order for the WikiCup to be fair, the WikiCup points for GAs need to be attainable, meaning that GANs from WikiCup members need to be reviewed within a reasonable amount of time. If they're not reviewed within a reasonable amount of time, the bottleneck creates an unfair advantage to the people that are not getting their points from GAs. Since no one wants that, I urge reviewers to tackle the following GAs:
I will be giving barnstars out to anyone that helps clear these out. The barnstar is being done for the review, and will be given irregardless of the final outcome, however insta-passing or insta-failing, (i.e. screwing these people over for a star), won't fly. Please send me a talk page message linking the review once it's completed to claim your star. Since I'm not counting and didn't list the GANs that were already in the process of review as of this posting, I count 20 barnstars for the taking here. Please note that this round of the Wikicup ends on August 29, so this offer is only good until then. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Sven, I appreciate the intent of this message, but I've got to agree with Pyrotech that we should not be giving WikiCup nominations any kind of priority- opening this thread with "[i]n order for the WikiCup to be fair" really only sells it to those who support the WikiCup, rather than GA reviewers generally. I agree that it would be great to get everything nominated reviewed, and I am frequently encouraging participants to get reviewing (especially towards the end of rounds- IE, in a month's time) but there should be no kind of "hey, you reviewers, get on with WikiCup stuff". As for the other issue of two points for a GA review, two points were always meant to be a token amount, a "thank you for doing your bit". Last year, we encouraged participation in review processes, but didn't really reward it- this year, it may well tip the balance, as well as potentially showing competitors who are not "pulling their weight". What we did not want were people "farming" GA reviews for points; this would be potentially very damaging, even more so than, for instance, "farming" did you knows. There were a number of reasons we decided not to award points for other kinds of reviews, but it can essentially be boiled down to two key ones. Firstly, the community at FAC was strongly opposed to the idea, and, secondly, reviews elsewhere are not so quantifiable. A GA review is meant to be one person dealing with the entire review- a review at FAC could be anything from a few words to a long list and considerable work on the article. Of course, different GA reviews take different amounts of work and time (as a reviewer, I understand that) and some reviewers spend more time than others. We did introduce a bare minimum review ("Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will not be awarded points. As a rough guide, no review shorter than 1000 bytes will be considered, though the judges reserve the right to remove other short reviews." This is not to say that shorter reviews are never decent reviews, it is just to say that they will not be awarded points.) However, we are of course open to suggestions for how reviewing points will work next year. J Milburn ( talk) 10:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I already reviewed three out within the last 30-45 days, but I've taken another two Polish-related ones to review. I can't pick up a third because I was tangentially involved with the article. Would be nice if more people stepped up to be reviewers. Would be nice if people NOT in the WikiCup were able to get our nominations reviewed too. Ajh1492 ( talk) 12:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The GAN backlog is steadily creeping back up to 300 articles. The last one took place in March so perhaps it's time to tackle the backlog (again)? OhanaUnited Talk page 06:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It appears most of the backlog is TV Shows, Sports and Songs. Military history has a smaller backlog. Ajh1492 ( talk) 15:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I can think of two big reasons I don't review many articles. The first is, I'm not willing to review things I know nothing about. I suppose one could look at the references and see that they are reputable publications and do back up what is being claimed, but I don't feel comfortable doing that. The other is that I some things are just too narrow to need an article, and thus no article on such a narrow topic can be good. The prime example is individual episodes of TV shows. Sure, the episode of the Ed Sullivan show featuring the first American appearance of the Beatles deserves an article, but normally, no. I don't think it would go over too well if I started failing individual episodes left and right, so I just let the sit there. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
A wikipedian has retied and has retired and he had some articals for GAN. What do we do with thease articals. Pedro J. the rookie 03:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm minded to review the British European Airways Flight 548 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) GAN, but I've had some previous input to the article. Therefore I'm asking whether or not my input is significant enough to disqualify my as a reviewer. As it would be my first GAR, I would seek the assistance of a more experienced reviewer in any case. Mjroots ( talk) 07:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:Portia labiata/GA1 Binksternet says, "What must be taken out (of the lead): specifics on size, and specifics on color, markings and hairs. ... I believe it is not, that it is immediately overly-specific and thus dulls the reader's interest. If you wish this GAN to go forward with positive results then fix it." Please comment at the bottom of Talk:Portia labiata/GA1#Lead. I think the short description in the lead helps readers to identify this Portia species.-- Philcha ( talk) 19:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This GA is currently at AfD. Here is the review page. The reviewer, however, retired. -- Efe ( talk) 12:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Boron group is in Biology, should be in Chemistry. -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Somehow the GA bot writes my username as Jaime1=070996 instead of Jaime070996 in WP:GAN#SPORT. Jaime 070996 00:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I have an issue here. The article was put up for review, and within the hour a new user account passed it. I reverted it and was reverted back. I left a note on the talk page, which was reverted as well. The lack of listening went from me assuming a good faith new user to a potential sock, and would like someone else to look. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Techno Cumbia was listed as a good article on 13 August. The review, such as it was, was performed by the nominator. Checkuser has confirmed it and the SPI is waiting administration/closure. In the meantime, should this article go through WP:GAR or simply be removed from the GA list? -- Beloved Freak 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Diatribe |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The nominator of Julia Gillard wishes to withdraw their good article nomination. Should it be marked as a quick fail or is there a way to withdraw it without failing the article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Talk:Havørn Accident/GA1. The reviewer seems to have abandoned the review. I have ensured that all his comments have been seen to. Arsenikk (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that a new editor passed his own nomination of Muhammad Syukri Ridwan, which clearly does not meet the criteria (this footballer has never played professionally and is thus not notable). This came two days after my nomination of Xiaxue was failed with reasons such as "needs more content to pass" and "one picture, a GA needs more". Please deal with these accordingly. Thanks. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Judging from the comments trending above there seems to be an increase in people gaming the system as well as the usual number of inexperienced editors struggling with the criteria. While a moderator might be a solution, a more practical approach could be the use of a bot to automatically keep track of reviewers and the number of reviews they have done. If something could be added to the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report (envision something like the Nominators with multiple nominations section with the reviewer name, number of reviews and links to open/recently closed reviews listed) then interested/experienced GA reviewers could easily identify and keep an eye on reviews conducted by inexperienced editors. If the review is satisfactory nothing needs to be done (or a note could be given thanking them and offering help in the future), if there are minor mistakes they could be pointed out and if it is completely rubbish then it could be dealt with easier. Some rough guidelines on how to handle bad reviews could also be useful - when to take it to GAR, when to just revert. AIRcorn (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I was just about to come here and post a message about the Grey's Anatomy review, but Wizardman beat me to it, above. On a related note, is it time to put some kind of minimum standard on GA reviewers? I believe this has been discussed before and I know that the general feeling is that we want to keep the process light-weight without unnecessary bureaucracy. I'm not talking about preventing inadequate reviews, which would be quite difficult to do, I'm talking specifically about some measure that reduces the temptation for nominators to create a sock that passes their own article. I have seen this happen now with Gabi Hernandez, Ajona1992, and now possibly this Grey's Anatomy one. That's only three, but they're just ones that I've happened to notice - the first two because I was already familiar with the editors in question. I haven't gone looking for suspicious reviews, so who knows what has slipped through.
I know people are usually reluctant to implement "solutions looking for problems", and quite rightly. I believe this is a problem though. Editors eager to get their articles passed are able to undermine the process because of the "any logged in editor can review" rule. Can we not set some minimum standard for first-time reviewers? The first sock mentioned above was involved in more than the GA process, so may have still slipped through, but the other two should have been preventable. Any thoughts? -- Beloved Freak 19:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I definitely think change is needed. As for a moderator, I'm all for it, but there have to be some sort of guideline/rule. I don't think it will be fair if the moderator is a regular GA contributor, just simply someone who is familiar with the criteria. The person(s) need(s) to be someone who we can all agree on. Any volunteers?-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I was looking at Green Wing, and I don't think it passes GAR anymore. What's the easiest way to delist it? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A quick question. I'm reviewing an article at the moment which relies on a relatively small number of books for its references (one in particular is used for the majority of the references). A second editor has - helpfully and in good faith - noted a concern that there is a wider corpus of work on the subject that could be cited in the article. Both the original editor putting the article forward for review and the second editor agree that the article as it stands is accurate and is not necessarily missing any key points (i.e. it is broad in its coverage and verifiable). What I wanted to check, however, was whether there is any official GA requirement for an article to draw on a wide corpus of work in its references? I can't find anything stating that it is a formal requirement but was keen to check my understanding of this with the community. Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Don4of4 ( talk · contribs) very graciously agreed to review my GA nomination of Mayo Foundation v. United States on 22 August, just 8 hours (!) after I nominated it. I contacted him later that day to thank him for agreeing to take up the review and to offer my assistance in obtaining the non-online sources if he required them, which he did not acknowledge. He has not edited since 25 August. Am I being impatient, or is there something more I could be doing? NW ( Talk) 16:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
As I tried to fix something that ends up broken due to the template, but the bot removed it: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen needs a second opinion. The current review is not as in-depth as necessary (just the fact that the reviewer mentions "Everything has reliable references" while I as an editor am still working on removing fansites shows it all). If anyone steps in, thanks. igordebraga ≠ 01:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the mass delisting of GA articles Northamerica1000 ( talk · contribs) is initiating? It appears to be highly disruptive. Viriditas ( talk) 13:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes to this template have had the effect of removing the start date of the review, also adding a lot of irrelevant stuff about the reviewwer - can we not just go back to how it was? Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I was using {{ GATable}} to review an article today, but as you can see at Talk:Power dividers and directional couplers/GA2, the on hold symbol isn't loading correctly. I haven't been able to find the problem. Could someone more experienced with templates help me? Thanks, Nathan2055 talk - review 18:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey everybody. Due to personal reasons, I have to unfortunately leave Wikipedia for a full month starting tonight. I will therefore need someone to take over four reviews that I have begun. They are The Drug in Me Is You, " 1+1 (song)", Jessica Mauboy and " Good Enough (Evanescence song)". Thanks to all :)-- CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Here we have another case of a white-wash review. The page was created and passed exactly at 3:14 timestamp. And there are three editors who have pointed out obvious issues with the article at my talk page. Music articles are getting so finnicky. Do we need to take this to GAR or can we delete the review and start afresh? — Legolas (talk2me) 10:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought the GA review was closed? [21] -- Efe ( talk) 12:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Like I said before, it's not really "plagiarism" since most of the copied text is attributed and in quotes. It's more that the article is not really "written" but rather just strings together verbatim quotes from other websites. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
On 23 August 2011, Plarem failed my nomination of Xiaxue, but his ridiculous review (which included reasons such as "One picture. A Good Article needs more.") was reverted by Wizardman. Two days ago, he failed the same article again, but this time, he raised several valid concerns (a poor image caption, overlinking and lack of a date of birth). I replied to his second review with a friendly note, saying that I would work on the article and suggesting that he learn more about GA reviewing, then nominated another article, Pathlight School.
To my surprise, Plarem reviewed that article several hours ago, placing the nomination on hold. Some of his concerns were valid, but some were rather dubious. He also replied to my friendly note with "PLEASE have the article go through C-Class and B-Class before it is nominated again. You cannot skip C and B class before you go to GA standards." Having written seven GAs, I know that is not how Wikipedia assessment works. That he reviewed a second, two-day-old nomination by me, when there are plenty of older nominations by other nominators, also raises suspicions.
Could an experienced reviewer, or two, please mentor and monitor him? He seems to be acting in good faith and has the potential to be a good reviewer. However, he needs guidance, and nominators should not have to suffer due to his mistakes.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 11:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The initiation of rugby union review appears to be a good faith comment, not a review. It has been started by an unregistered user so is technically invalid anyway. Could someone please delete it so it does not lose its place in the queue (I have moved the comment to the talk page). AIRcorn (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Why isn't Junior Hemingway listing at WP:GAC?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
How do find out if an article has ever been to WP:GAN, and what the outcome was? There doesn't seem to be an archives link on the main page. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that there are a couple of nominators listed as being retired, however looking at their contribs they seem to be still contributing to the project. I thought I'd flag it in case there was a bot that's gone haywire. I'm looking specifically at MayhemMario ( talk · contribs) and Adabow ( talk · contribs) who are listed as retired in the Theatre, film and drama section. -- Deadly∀ssassin 09:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a specific article I would like to get to GA status. I would like to get a review of what issues specifically need to be addressed for that article to pass GA review. At the help desk I was told that I should ask here. So should I simply list the article here at the project page? Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 09:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that in any recent reviews, any time a review tag is added, it ends with {{toolbar|separator=dot rather than the date. From the looks of it, the toolbar template is broken, but I can't figure out how to fix it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Could an admin please delete Talk:Revolution Software/GA1 and Revolution Software/GA1 (created by the GA nominator). -- Beloved Freak 20:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I looked over the mass nominations of User:Drewcifer's articles. Most, if not all, pertaining to the band Nine Inch Nails. Most, if not all, the articles are no where near B-Class and some even have {{citation needed}} tags. Just a note here for reviewers. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Michael Jordan statue/GA1. 6 minute review? Jezhotwells ( talk) 21:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Canpark has written an article Action of 7 May 1968 which relates to the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft during the Vietnam War. This article was assessed and passed for GA by User:SCB '92. I have questioned whether this event is notable particularly as the operative part of the article seems to be drawn from 1 page of one book. User:Canpark has also written another article Action of 16 June 1968 which essentially repeats all of Action of 7 May 1968 in order to recount a story of the shooting down by the North Vietnamese of 1 US aircraft. User:Canpark seems to be writing articles in order to transcribe the book by Topcerzer of Mig kills of the Vietnam war. Are these individual events notable and/or worthy of GA? Mztourist ( talk) 13:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm seeing a good deal of articles waiting 2.5 months for a review while an influx of articles getting reviewed in 24 hours. Can we start knocking down the old side of the queue? Not fair to those who have been waiting. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Jaguar's right. For instance, the article Tin was placed on hold after 16 days of waiting for a reviewer, then forgotten about by the reviewer until 1 month and 9 days later, when somebody finally noticed that the reviewer wasn't reviewing the article anymore. Another 16 days on, and it's still on hold. Total waiting time: 2 months and 10 days. Result: On hold. And the nominator doesn't seen to be very interested, either. If what Jezhotwells said was true, then tin would be as about as important as this article, for instance! Thanks, GoldRock23( talk - my page - contribs) 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, Jaguar said exactly my words. We're not all idiots - you know, some of us want to get somewhere and maybe even (gasp) go to university! Thanks, GoldRock23( talk - my page - contribs) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to pick up the review of this article, which was abandoned by the previous reviewer -- I have already started by adding comments to Talk:Coordinated Universal Time/GA1. I'm not sure of the proper way to let the bot know that I am reviewing it, though. (For what it's worth, I am aware that there has been some weirdness, but I'm not worried about it at this point.) Looie496 ( talk) 17:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I am ill and cannot continue with "Aniru Conteh". -- Philcha ( talk) 18:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
:Sorry to hear that. I'll take over the review if you like and
User:Viriditas doesn't object.
Malleus
Fatuorum 18:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on whether/how to change the process with which WP deals with disruptive editors. All input/ideas are welcome - I'd love it if we could develop some proposals to put to the broader community. Karanacs ( talk) 19:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice there is a 3 month backlog in GAC (although it seems to vary widely between the various topic areas). Is that about average? or has it gotten larger lately? Has there ever been a discussion of processes to incentivize editors to perform GA reviews? For example, the Copy Editing guild awards barnstars for doing significant amounts of work; and DYK has a "quid pro quo" requirement where anyone submitting a DYK nomination must review a pending DYK. Have such processes been considered for GA? (Obviously, there would have to be some protections put in place to ensure that GA approvals were not given out without due process, but there are always ways to make that happen). -- Noleander ( talk) 16:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I saw this appear in my watchlist. I think some form of drive is a good idea. I work on Music articles, and there are currently 90 articles waiting to be reviewed/process of being reviewed. And I saw that even though some music articles had been waiting over two months (number 5, Romances, nominated by Erick on August 17 is the oldest one waiting to be reviewed), Talk:Mahalia Jackson/GA1 was nominated on October 21 and was selected to be reviewed less than 5 days later, yet the reviewer hasn't even reviewed anything in the article yet. My point is, I think it's a bit unfair that people are waiting nearly two and a half months without any sign of getting reviewed, yet some people review nominations which are literally 2/3/4 days old. I understand that people will review ones they are interested in, but I think it should be made a rule that no one can review a nomination less than a week old (if there is over a certain amount of articles in that topic waiting to be reviewed); perhaps this way people will be prompted to review older ones. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Positive reinforcement is always a good idea. Some form of GAN-reviewer award of barnstar has been long overdue. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 23:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is what is annoying me. Last night, Talk:Scott Joplin/GA1 was nominated at 22:14, 28th October 2011. By 22:58, 28th October 2011, it had a reviewer. Only 42 minutes went by. I'm sorry, but this nomination should be quick failed or something. I'm not allowed to review GANs anymore because I was told that I was only reviewing Mariah Carey articles and Mariah articles which were nominated a very short time before I reviewed them. Since this has been pointed out to me, I am now aware of how it is not fair and wrong. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 10:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like there is consensus for a GA drive. 182.68.38.234 ( talk) 01:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I think a drive is acceptable. I don't think any new rules about who can review or what people have to review is necessary. I have tried to do my part by reviewing articles further back in the backlog, and have even branched out in to articles outside my main interests of television and science. I quite enjoyed John Rowan, for example - an article unlikely to pique the interests of many reviewers due to its apparently dry and history-centric subject matter. One problem I have with reviews is that many GANs I have encountered seem to be nominations for the purpose of a peer review, rather than an assessment of the GA criteria that an an article meets. I'm not saying that GA reviews should be a quick rubric check, but when major structural changes, copy editing, or content additions are needed, I'd rather feel ok with doing a quick fail or withdrawal request than having to do a peer review to outline everything the nominator needs to do to improve the article. I have done that, and many nominators are good sports. Other have not been such good sports. That makes me less likely to start a review of a backlog article that I think will need major improvements. AstroCog ( talk) 15:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Portia labiata says the articles was promoted to GA on October 21, 2011 - see also Talk:Portia labiata/GA2, where User:Unionhawk reviewed. But Portia labiata still says, "An unassessed article ... Currently a good article nominee." How can it be resolved? -- Philcha ( talk) 23:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
What is going on with the Boardwalk Empire review. I failed it and the bot removed it and showed it as being renominated.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I am ill and must give up reviewing for GA. At the same time I can still write articles, hopefully to GA level but very slowly. Is there any way I can reduce the load on other reviewrs? -- Philcha ( talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I had quick fail the article. Anyone else is welcome to tell the nominator anything else I missed. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 15:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The GAN for OWS needs an uninvolved editor to pick up the review from a very involved editor who mistakenly began reviewing the article, using the GAN process to push his POV against consensus. Please go to Talk:Occupy Wall Street/GA1 and check in. Binksternet ( talk) 18:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I've created a sub-page for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/December 2011. Let's organize our efforts there. I'll add some other stuff to it later. AstroCog ( talk) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to point out for all here: there is a talk page for the upcoming drive here. AstroCog ( talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I nominated this article here a little while ago; it's got a little while to wait before its turn, though. However, an editor brought to my attention that he sees it as more of a list, and therefore FLC, as opposed to an article for GAN. I had considered which was the more appropriate venue when I nominated it and chose GAN because I felt it was a list embedded in an article, rather than a list with prose. However, I may have been mistaken, and I sure don't want to wait however long it will take for this to come up for review only to be told I brought it to the wrong place, which delays this getting promoted and would delay my place in the queue with a confirmed article. Please give me some advice: does the above article belong here or at FLC? – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Some of you may already be familiar with that :) As I've done in the past, I am assigning my students to improve sociology-related articles on Wikipedia to Good Article. Since this is an educational assignment, the students will need their work reviewed within few days of them requesting a review (they are supposed to request one by November 14, and the course ends within a month of that - and we cannot expects the students to contribute past the grading period, sadly). At the same time I'd ask the reviewers to give students extra time if they need it - some groups may need an entire month to address the issues raised (and some may do it within days - no different from an average editor, really...). Just as I've done in the past several times, I am asking for reviewers to pre-sign for the articles to be reviewed (list below), and in exchange I promise to review myself an article from our backlog (I'll start soon). This time there will be eleven articles to review:
Group 1:
College and university dating (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 2:
Grounds for divorce (United States) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 3:
Double burden (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 4: Family honor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Group 5:
Personal wedding website (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 6:
Single parent (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 7:
Marriage in the United States (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 8: Family in advertising ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Group 9:
Open relationship (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 10:
Bride scam (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Group 11:
Joint custody (United States) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Promised reviews by me on my end of the bargain: 1) Talk:Weiquan movement/GA1 2) Talk:Nuclear energy policy of the United States/GA1 3) Talk:Tom Kahn/GA1 4) Talk:Birth control movement in the United States/GA1 5) Talk:Collaborative fiction/GA1 6) Talk:Outlaw Star/GA1 7) Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 82/GA1 8) Talk:Ivan Shishman of Bulgaria/GA1
If you would like to review one or more articles, please post here and cross it from the list above. I'll post the articles I've initiated a review for here, too. Thanks! PS. You are more than welcome to check the student progress before a good article review and offer comments. Some groups are progressing very quickly ( :) ), while others, despite graded course deadlines, have done little or nothing yet (sigh...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Still waiting for more reviewers... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Still need 5 more articles to be taken. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
For the educational projects described above. Expect the nominations to appear today or tommorrow, and I'd love to see reviews by the end of this week. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! I have a question regarding the use of Cyrillic in citations. In the review of Michael Shishman I have been told that the citiations should be in Cyrillic; while at the current GA review of Ivan Shishman, I am told the opposite and the reviewer has suggested to bring that issue here. How are we going to proceed? Should the citations of books in Cyrillic be left in that alphabet or transliteration into Latin? Regards, -- Gligan ( talk) 20:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
|trans_title=
to deal with that, and if you are using citation templates, that's probably the easiest way to go. If you aren't, you can emulate that output though.
Imzadi 1979
→ 03:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
As the reviewer who asked for the above changes, I want to clarify I am fine with the Imzadi's solution. The best reference will have both the original text (title and publisher, at least), and the translated text for them. For non-Latin alphabets everything really needs to be transliterated. I wonder if there is something in the MoS about it? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I just saw this nice footer now added to all Article Alerts page: Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report page footer. I think it would be helpful to have a variant of it added to all GAN nominations. I wanted to create a template/page for us, but there is a bit too much code for me to parse that page. Do you think it would be a good idea to add it to our nominations (we already have a toolbox with disambig/link tools)? If so, could somebody assimilate those tools for us? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
hello,
the nominator of Otis Redding is now away and will return at the end of this month. I don't want to wait so long, as I want to bring it to TFA on 10 December (not important if it fails or not, I just want to try it out; it is a challenge). There are now these options:
I now want to here from you any suggestions which of these two options are the most effective, and why. Thank you.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Request community reassessments for Warcraft II and Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. In individual GAR, both ended with new objections, giving me so change to response. And in Master of Orion II the reviewer wrote, "... indeed possibly also WP:NOT: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews" - but Master of Orion II has many good citations, including several game reviews from good sources - some about just this games, and some about its use as the "gold standard" for reviews of other games. -- Philcha ( talk) 15:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous nominees associated with university courses and, therefore on a tight timeline. Because they are being edited by new users a good degree of patience and instruction should be used. Such articles looking for reviewers include:
I have reviewed one and will keep the review open until the course is over. maclean ( talk) 03:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to review at least three from the list above as soon as I can, probably tomorrow. PS. The ones I am most likely to help are Proletarian poetry (started), Caste politics in India, Mouride (started), Feminism in India and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (started). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
See here: PowerPoint: Wikipedia's poor treatment of its most important articles
Some discussion of Good Articles albiet admittedly not much analysis there. I'm less familiar with them. 69.255.27.249 ( talk) 16:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't asserting a causality. I was making the point about correlation as a purely mathematical statement to agree with Resolute. If you look at slide 93, you'll see a weighted average of quality by page view. This is a different chart than if you did the same thing with articles only (I gave an example of this, above).
I didn't study it, but I highly doubt that ranking drives eyeballs. Traffic is coming in off of Google and off of inherent popular interest in the concept. It's not coming from the GA page or random GA article or the like. I suspect that the reason for the improvement to some minimal level has to do with more eyeballs. But actually more profound is probably the factor that more real content contributors are interested in more relavenet topics. Most prose "meat" on a given article is built up by a few heavy adders. (I haven't studied it, but other have and reported on it.) The model of every random user adding a word or two and that is how an article forms is not how the thing really functions. TCO ( reviews needed) 22:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi I have just been reading the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report. Some of the older reviews are of concern, with three of them over fifty days old, the oldest eighty-seven days. Should we automatically fail nominations if they are going on to long, say over twenty-one days? Jim Sweeney ( talk) 10:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I followed the instructions to list Yogo sapphire in the "Geology, geophysics and mineralogy" subsection, but the bot hasn't listed it after 30 minutes. What is wrong? PumpkinSky talk 20:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
For my remaining two educational GANs, family honor and family in advertising. Let me note that I've at this point delivered on my promise or reviewing one article for each that my students submit (as my class worked on 11 articles, 11 reviews have been started by me within the last two months, and 8 have already been closed). I do plan to continue and help with the backlog, going above the 11, and I'd hope that the GA reviewer community will do me the favor and in their work on backlog and educational GAs will consider prioritizing the two articles I mention above. I'd very much appreciate it if the reviews on them were started by the end of this month. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
As noted above, the recent trend in educational assignments that try to have students submit their work for GAN is increasing our backlog. I think that there is a simple solution: motivate the instructors to review at least one article for each article their students submit (this is what I do, and I don't see why other instructors should not be able to do the same). I am think that we could have a standardized message that we could append to talk pages or the instructors, and/or the educational good article reviews, informing the instructors (and ambassadors) that there is a backlog (most of them are probably blissfully oblivious to that), and asking them to review articles so that they at least do not contribute to it. In return, we would prioritize the review of their articles. This way we wouldn't have to deal with a growing backlog, and instructors and students would not have to worry about "will my article be reviewed before the class ends and grades are due". I am trying to word it so it is friendly and challenging, rather than "you are making us do more work, so you should feel obliged to help out" :> I'd appreciate suggestions as to the best wording, please see my early idea for an instructor's talk page message below. If people like it, we could template it. Also, do we have a page that explains the idea of the Good Article backlog better than this bare list? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
“ | Thank you for submitting the work of your students to the community Good Article review process. Please note that Good Article reviews have a considerable backlog. This backlog means that Good Article nominations may wait even more than two months before they are reviewed. To ensure that educational assignments are reviewed more promptly, we would like to encourage you to review one article from the list at Wikipedia:Good Article nominations for each good article that your students submit. If you do so, please announce that you are reviewing articles at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, and in return, we will try to expedite the reviews of your class' articles.) | ” |
I nominated Against All Odds (2008) 2 weeks ago, though I've had a problem. It has to do with the template and the talk page. The template had an error and now the text on the page won't show up and you can't edit it. Somehow I got another GAN template in there done correctly, but the old one is causing a problem still. I figured it would fix itself, but now there seems to be a confusion over whether the article has been passed or not due to its state.-- Will C 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that there is a huge backlog of nominations at the momment. I was wondering if there would be any consensus for a WikiProject Good Article Nominations Reviewing or something along similar lines to try and clear the backlog. I would be happy to create this is there is any consesus for it. Oddbodz ( talk) 19:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder for Good Article reviewers to join the backlog elimination drive that begins tomorrow, December 1st. Our goal is to reduce the backlog by 50% or more. Plenty of barnstars and medals to be awarded at the end of the drive. Go to the project page for more info, instructions, and to add your name to the participant list. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've never reviewed a GA nominee before, but I'm thinking about identifying an appropriate one to start on. I have knowledge of Core Four, but I'm also second on the list of contributions per editor. In this case, that means 16 of the 332 edits (4.8%). I will not review this article unless I'm absolved of any conflict of interest prior, and if I am absolved, I'll start the review this week. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really involved much in GAN, but this Monsey Church review just hit my watchlist, and looks unusually short. I've left a note on the reviewer's talk page, but wondered if those of you involved here wanted to take any action. One aspect of the article that looks problematic is that the writer claims authorship of images from both the 1800s File:Abram-Van-Houten.png and the 21st century File:Phillip-W.-Dennis-II.png. These are liable to be deleted as copyvios on Commons. -- 99of9 ( talk) 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi there I have come across a Good Article nomination for One Tree Hill (TV series). While on a very quick look through, it seems good. There is one striking thing missing. The final season starts in 2012. Would it be normal to nominate a series article for a GA review when its not complete. I am looking at the criteria number 2 Factually accurate and 3 Broad in its coverage, as it would be out of date every time a new episode aired. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 06:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The GA nomination for Java War (1741–1743) seems to have been goofed up. The article was [en.wikipedia.org/?title=Java_War_(1741%E2%80%931743)&oldid=464312228 moved] earlier today, which goofed up the link to the nomination from the talk page. As such, I moved the nomination to the new title to fix the talk page, but now the nomination is not showing at WP:GAN. Is there a way to fix this? Someone had already said that they were willing to review, but has not started yet. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
are the next articles in the GAN Queue for LAW and all have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Chan. In my opinion these nominations should await the outcome of that discussion. Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I am reviewing this article. However, there is only a very small amount on the life of the subject. I accept this may well be the sum of current knowledge about him. However, I am reminded of the section of WP:RGA (a guideline) that says: "Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria." Does this article fall under this criterion? Are there any similar articles which have or haven't been listed? Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Grandiose (thank you) has passed the article as a GA; thanks for Maclean25 for your comments. Bencherlite Talk 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Will someone review the GA status of Object permanence? It was passed a couple days ago [24] and I re-assessed it back down to B-class at Talk:Object permanence/GA1. It was re-nominated [25] and passed again [26] without creating Talk:Object permanence/GA2. maclean ( talk) 01:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I see that the nominator of Nonsynaptic plasticity also initiated a review, no doubt out of ignorance of the process (this is an article written for a class project). How should this be fixed? Looie496 ( talk) 00:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been doing a number of reviews lately, and whereas I'd like to thing I am pretty good at reviewing most criteria, my strength is NOT in prose. I can of course catch glaring errors, but as an ESL whose work often needs a native speaker polishing, I don't think I am able to review prose as well as some other reviewers. Now, to some extent, all reviewers have their strengths and weaknesses, but I wonder if there is somebody who would like to help with prose reviews in my reviews? In exchange, I'd help out with one of the other elements I am pretty confident with (MoS, references, coverage, images...). Alternatively, I am thinking of annoucing all reviews I do here, so that anybody who is so inclined can offer a second, supplementary review on prose. FYI, I currently have three reviews open: Talk:Proletarian poetry/GA1, Talk:Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper/GA1 and Talk:Caste politics in India/GA1. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The one linked in the reviewer's tools, alongside the dab and elink tools. What does it do? I admit I have not a clue. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 06:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I am new to nominations as such, so I'm am curious about something. If you get an article reviewed and make the changes, isn't it good practice for the reviewer to state all the problems at once? Rather than wait fail the article (with limited to no problems) then when the changes are made, tell you there are other things to do. Also, can an article be failed based on a classing placed on the articles talk-page that was obviously a mistake? Jayy008 ( talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
@Maclean, it was incorrectly labeled one of those. I wouldn't have nominated a list. @Wizardman, agreed, if there are issues seen, I don't see why the reviewer can't say all of them. Having to keep going back and changing things after you think it's done. Could somebody look here and actually tell me why it was failed. Jayy008 ( talk) 21:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be good to have an explanation of how to use the checklist template. For example, one is this:
Thanks, MathewTownsend ( talk) 00:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
{{GAList/check|}}
to add the right code (listed
here) to give the responses you want.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what to do. Is a week a long time? I posted Ely, Cambridgeshire to GAN about one week ago and within a few hours, Lampman ( talk · contribs) started the review. However, despite my gentle poke, admittedly using the phrase "take your time", nothing has happened. What is the correct protocol here? I really do not wish to upset the reviewer (is that ever wise?) yet I only have access to the source library books for a limited time -- Senra ( Talk) 15:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I am here: I am happy to try and help with the GA review process providing I had someone to mentor me. I have one FA and two GA's, so I am not well experienced. I have just looked through the backlog and could find nothing within my comfort zone; basically Geography of places, biography of people (not BLP's). I have some general interest in maths (but not at the level of Hilbert Transforms) and computing. I may be able to tackle one review per week. If you are willing to mentor, let me know on my talk page -- Senra ( Talk) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is a rule against an ip reviewing an article, but one reviewed Hit the Lights (Selena Gomez & the Scene song) and the bot removed it from the nomination list. I don't know how to reverse this. (I wasn't the nominator.) Thanks, MathewTownsend ( talk) 23:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where else to go, so I'm coming here. Jerem43 currently has two reviews that are 2.5 and 3 months old, WAY over the guidelines. After they were seemingly abandoned a month back I put them in the queue, which he reverted and said he was waiting for issues to be fixed. A month later, the issues remain, and I want to fail them, because clearly concerns are not going to be addressed if they haven't already. That was also reverted though, so I'm out of options. I don't really know why he wants to keep them under review indefinitely, but it's becoming a pain. Not sure what to do in this case. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The proposal is: "Any Good Article reviews over 30 days old (starting from when the review begins) are automatically failed." -- Noleander ( talk) 13:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Support Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me or did the review quality took a decided downturn in the last year? Since when did GAN become a machine to churn out green buttons people can put on their user pages? Don't get me wrong, that may be an effective motivation (at least for me it was an additional motivation, in the beginning), but by now I've seen many examples especially in the music section of people who tend review each others articles without the attention for detail, critical sense, and frankly language skills that I would have thought this process required. And unless one checks reviews made by others, which is tedious, this totally flies under the radar. We should make a thank you template for making good reviews instead of rewarding many nominations. Am I wrong/right/paranoid? Hekerui ( talk) 21:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The current boilerplate states "nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority, except where the nominator has other articles under review." I have six articles nominated, all members of one season, nominated intentionally in the order of their readiness and counting on being able to incorporate feedback into future reviews. The first nominated article is currently on hold, with some feedback I'm working on. The way I interpret the process would be that the rest of my nom'ed articles would be generally skipped over by reviewers until the one on review or hold has been dispositioned... but reading the above statement, it doesn't actually say that.
Am I wrong in expecting that reviewers should generally take things in the order of nomination, when a single editor has nominated multiple articles in the same subtopic? Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 19:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate some comment on this review. [31] I happened to notice it as I was considering reviewing the article myself, and I butted in (was that inappropriate)? Then the article was suddenly passed. But I don't think the nominator received a helpful review. Maybe this is just the luck of the draw. Did I muck things up? MathewTownsend ( talk) 15:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I posted this somewhere before but the destination is hardly active, so I thought it best to be placed here. There are conflicting opinions on what defines a list or a GA. My 90210 (season 3) was failed for reasons, which is fine. However, my One Tree Hill (season 8) was failed because somebody classed it as a list. They are the same. Also some TV series' seasons are listed as GA: Sanctuary (season 2), while others a "featured list": The O.C. (season 4). While I am personally not too fussed, I'd like it to be discussed so they can all be one thing and not different. A "list of episodes..." is already a list format, I do believe that a season article isn't a list. (I will not be able to respond quickly). Jayy008 ( talk) 16:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the info, guys. The main issue to me is that some are listed GA and some are listed FL, I think they should all be the same, considering they're the same articles. But judging by the explanations here and on that other discussion, I guess when the main focus of the article is the "list" it should be nominated as FL. Jayy008 ( talk) 14:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Currently, a redlink for E. W. @ is the most recent article listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/recent.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed Lost in the World (see my review here), a song that is "supposed" to be release as a single in the near future, and quickly failed it because the article is not stable. According to the revision in which I reviewed the article, this sentence "as of December 2011, it still has not been released as a single." caught my eye and believe that if/when this song is release, it will be updated frequently (peak positions, chart debuts, live performances, further promotion, certifications, more music reviews, etc). Also, the prose is not up to GA standards and have not gone through a decent c/e and through WP:PR (as suggestions for improvements). After the user removed the notifications, he renominated the article. Also, since this topic is being brought up, I believe creating a new rule that failed GANs cannot be renominated within a week, should be enforce. This can also help lower the poison chamber that is the backlog. Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever 01:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been waiting for almost two months for this article to be reviewed; can someone who is willing to review it please do so? Till I Go Home ( talk) 04:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)