![]() | 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. |
This is a little silly as they will all fail GA. Can someone just close them all? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. The high-quality media from this session will probably be used to illustrate current or future GAs, hence my message here. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone deleted the Miscellaneous section at some point in the last couple of days. I just tried to put it back, but the bot reverted me. Can someone who understands the coding please fix this? Dana boomer ( talk) 02:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Do we accept IP reviewers? If we do, what is to stop someone from reviewing their own nomination? I have noticed that at WP:GAC#Education both nominees have IP reviewers ( Talk:Manav Rachna College of Engineering/GA1 and Talk:The Doon School/GA1). Somehow, the latter nomination has triggered this Wikipedia:Good articles/recent edit.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Update; I think it is safe to say there is little to no support for my proposal. I appreciate the willingness of editors to have this discussion, which I think was helpful for the project. (No hard feelings) Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 22:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor -- whether with good intentions or not -- has nominated 25 articles for GA review. It is very unlikely that he/she will be able to respond to all GA review feedback and as the editor in question is not a primary contributor to any of those articles, he/she probably will not be able to respond effectively to suggested areas of improvement. Moreover, 25 nominations at the same time drown out other editors' submissions; these may have had more focus and time spent on them (as there are only so many one can focus on at a time), and thus such excessive nominations delays reviews of diligent people.
With this understanding, I wish to seek consensus on a limit on how many nominations an editor can submit or have pending at the same time.
I propose the following rule: "Editors should not nominate more than 10 articles for Good Article Review at the same time. Nominations in excess may be subject to quick-fails and/or delayed consideration of the review".
Lastly, note this would at present only affect one or two users. Please see this GA nomination stat.
Regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 03:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(added) I would love to open this discussion into an RfC, but before taking it to the broader community, I want to see what regular GA reviewers and nominators think. If this group disapproves, then there would be no point opening an RfC. On the other hand, if there is strong support, a consensus-driven rule can be implemented in the interim while we await community ratification. Lord Roem ( talk) 03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) It may also be worth considering that in this particular instance (with 25 nominations) the editor has done no work on the articles (or at least the half a dozen that I checked) and his talk page is littered with comments that show he's done this before. It is apparently his habit to show up every few months, nominate a batch of articles for GAN, and then not respond to comments/queries/etc. The articles are reviewed and if they are put on hold, the only way the comments are addressed is if another editor steps in to pick up the slack. So, in this instance, it seems to be more one particular "problem" editor, rather than a flaw in the process. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: I don't actually see an issue here. If nobody steps up to take the reviewer's notes and work on actually bringing the articles up to the standard, they will fail. If the articles are bad enough, they won't take much time; if they are close to GA, the reviews will make the further nominations take less time to cope with. In the end, this turns out to be a relatively harmless time-shifting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 18:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have two thoughts:
Support This is not really a single user problem. The Bali nine were all nominated at once, about a dozen albums/songs of Mercy Me were waiting for review at the same time as well as a heap of codex articles. This is just from memory before the drive began. Every other site wide quality improvement project (DYK, FA, PR) have ways to limit the number of nomiations that can be put forward at once and it is probably about time something similar is put in place here. I would support a limit and it may be a good idea to put it up for RFC to get wider input. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I support the idea of a limit. It does not need to be a limit of 1 article at a time, managing two or three at a time shouldn't be very hard and shouldn't create problems in the whole system, but 25 is something else and the limit should be established somewhere. And if someone wants a "personal queue", a reminder of new articles to nominate as the nominations are approved, they don't need an external system for doing so, a list in their own user page would be enough. After all, it would be a highly subjetive and personal list. Cambalachero ( talk) 02:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Is fair to call me the disruptive user and problem editor only because I nom many articles that already GA standard or very close? In past, many articles I nom pass without hold and very few fail without hold, those on hold, at least half passed in the end. Delete all the noms from me and limit number of noms, will minus growth of GA process, many articles which are GA standard do not get the GA, the GA count not accurate. Also will add systemic bias, because the 25 articles about Singapore law and politics, and limit the good writers who nom many articles because they see backlog, they know the noms will take long time to get review. For my noms, why not ask Jacklee (lawyer who write the articles) to help answer reviews? If you want stop noms from people who do not answer reviews, but no account still can nom, how can? -- Kaypoh ( talk) 04:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Support and set the limit to something absurd, like 10 or higher. -- Rs chen 7754 04:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose any limit below 30 The problem with a limit is it prohibits editorial contributions from the most prolific editors. Few people who exceed 10 noms at a time are nominating quick fails, in my experience. Those that are can be discouraged from numerous simultaneous noms without policy.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the right place to report it, but I just commented on Czarkoff ( talk · contribs) (sig:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff) review at Talk:10 złotych note/GA1. Per my comment there, the article suffers from numerous issues which he failed to spot. Some may be minor, but some are not and are quite serious (like the use of an obvious Wikipedia fork in references). Like everybody else, I appreciate good faithed attempts to help us with the reviews, but I am afraid Dmitrij is not familiar enough with Good Article requirements to carry out reviews at this point. The above article clearly does not meet GA criteria, and I am afraid if this is an example of review quality by him, we have to review all other reviews he has done. Dmitrij, please note that we appreciate your efforts, but you need to be more strict and look at more details in your reviews. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, is the article going to be delisted? I've removed the copyvio section btw. VolunteerMarek 18:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Iḿ currently reviewing the SMS Pillau article, and I spotted the "click for a larger view" part of an image's caption (with a link from the word "click" to the image on Wikimedia Commons). I have a feeling that it's an inappropriate to have such things in a caption (per WP:CAP), but the nominator insists on this. Any suggestions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
For the record: I removed the "click for a larger view" caption and passed the article. I urge everyone to check for these captions and remove them as a minimum for the article to pass on 6b criterion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 10:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm really in doubt, as this part of caption was removed, re-added, removed again and re-added again (this time right after the article was passed without the disputated part of caption). Should I perform a procedural de-listing of the article as it now fails criterion #5 (Stable)? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Could a bot possibly be coded - and I do not think its technically difficult - to notify the nominator of a GA that it has been reviewed - the initial step. It's easy to miss that your article has been reviewed because it isn't on your watchlist yet. The nominator is already a widely-used parameter on the talk page, and GAbot knows when it's been reviewed, so it could be tagged onto that or merely use the same ifexists-type thing that GAbot uses (I'm guessing). Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 09:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed an article ( 2011 Virginia earthquake) for GA status back on January 3, made my recommendations known on the review page, no changes were made in the 48 hour window (actually it was more like 96 cause I forgot,), so I failed the review and removed it from the GAN page. The bot added it right back to the GAN page just two minutes later, but that is my goof. Only found out today that I needed to remove the template from the talk page...'nother goof. Well, over the course of the past couple days, User:Mikenorton made all the changes for that I recommended and I told him to put it back through at GAN. Though I have failed the article and if there are no objections to me doing so, I would be glad to promote the article to GA status. Again, if there are no objections. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The majority of the 24 remaining nominations from kaypoh ( talk · contribs) were created by students of the Singapore Management University Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project. Kaypoh does not appear to be affiliated with the course and the students have since finished with the articles and are in the middle of another semester. The supervisor is not too happy about so many being nominated at once, but is willing to help out, time permitting (see User talk:Smuconlaw#Singaporean politics Good article candidates). It would probably be a good idea to ping smuconlaw ( talk · contribs) on his talk page if you have any concerns when reviewing these articles. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Can I get a bit of community insight?
I reviewed Catenary on the 18th December, and the nominee has been working on the article pleasantly, I was lax on the timing given the holidays and a week ago we argreed a deadline of today. Now, in my opinion the lede still isn't up to scratch (I could fix much of the other issues myself in a couple of hours) and I think I should probably fail the article, but this would be my first (non-straightforward) fail and I'd like the opinion of this board before I do - would anyone mind having a quick look and giving the opinion? (I took some general advice from Quadell earlier on - I mention for completeness rather than anything else). There's also the small issue that the blackout should probably warrant an additional day...
Any other GA-based developement points also welcome. Failedwizard ( talk) 13:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking at all the recent broken edit summaries, is it possible to put the bot on a 10 minute cycle instead of a 15 minute cycle?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
What is the procedure to follow if the GA1 page was created improperly, i.e. by the same person who added the {{
GA nominee}}
to the talk page? The specific case is
Elisabeth Sladen and
Talk:Elisabeth Sladen/GA1. The {{
GA nominee}}
was added by
Sfxprefects (
talk ·
contribs) who then created the
Talk:Elisabeth Sladen/GA1. This was then deleted under
WP:CSD#G2 (test page), with no further explanation. I then restored it, as it had appeared to be a fair start to a GA1 although I hadn't spotted that the nominator and reviewer were one and the same. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
GAReview}}
suggests a confused bot, and that simply deleting the GA1 page is not the proper action. Further advice would be welcome. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Some new subsections were added to the page, but not to the list in the instructions. Was the bot changed to accomodate these new subsections or should we revert?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 09:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a bit of a mess at Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/GA1. The readers digest version is: I rewrote the page and nom'd it for GA. Someone I had been in a dispute with on the page earlier created the review put it on hold. Another reviewer dropped by and said he was willing to do an objective review. I'm a little unfamiliar with the GA procedure here, but would like to have the second reviewer cleared to take over the review. I had resolved to disengage from the article due to what I see as disruptive editing by one party, but am willing to work to fix any issues identified in a GA review. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As of today's morning the El Chico del Apartamento 512 article was the longest waiting one (in queue since September 15). I started its review on January 7, but failed to finish it before my vacation (starting January 21). As some issues are already addressed, finishing review might be an easy task, so I would like to ask someone to do that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 18:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I nominated M-36 (Michigan highway) on January 15. A reviewer put it "on hold" (corrected by the bot to "on review") without a review about 15 hours later. On January 21, I pinged the reviewer [[[User:Rahulmothiya|Rahulmothiya]] ( talk · contribs)] to see if s/he was still interested in doing the missing review. Two days later, I pinged again, and was told it would be done "today"; as of this writing, there is still no review a day later. (All times are UTC; the reviewer is in India and I'm in the US.). Am I expecting too much to have a timely review? Imzadi 1979 → 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to inform everyone here that the template {{ Harvard citation}} is now undergoing TFD, and the nominator intends to nominate the rest of the Harvard citation templates for deletion in case of success. This probably means that all the reviews of the articles using these templates should probably be put on hold until the issue is solved there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 22:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What do editors think about splitting the music and theatre, film and drama categories into smaller groups. Something similar was brought up a month ago at WT:GA#Spliting over populated categories, but is more likely to get responses here. Personally I like the idea of splitting songs out of music and episodes out of theatre, film and drama. They are usually the largest categories and splitting them this way is pretty distinct and should roughly halve them; currently resulting in an exact split for music and 35 episodes (mostly X-files) vs 22 other theatre, film and drama articles. I also admit that this type of split would suit me as I have no real desire to review most songs or episodes making it easier to find articles I am more interested in. It should also work in reverse for editors who want to review these sorts of articles. I am thinking it would be relatively easy to implement, a change to the bot and some minor adjustments when nominating. AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
When I wrote this I was referring specifically to the GAN page, but would also support the refinement of at least the songs and episodes list at GA. I don't know if we are at the stage where we need to split the categories to the level of GA just yet, it might be better to concentrate on the more overpopulated ones first. As to implementation I was thinking it would just be a case of making new headings here, updating the GA bot, and then informing/reminding nominators until they get used to the change. I have just left a message informing the bot operator about this discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Some positive support and no one has disagreed yet. If no one objects in the next few days I will look into enacting the change. The proposal based on the above will at this stage be to have three subcategories under music (songs, albums and other) and two under tf&d (television episodes and other). AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Chris G ( talk · contribs) made a change and I've done some recategorisation. There are a few problems right now.
I think the first problem is the most pressing, and so working out a way to display the whole thing intuitively on the GAC page should be the first priority. J Milburn ( talk) 18:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares from 2012-01-06 to 2012-01-13. During the review I outlined the most basic issues with the article (like missing references, formatting breakages, basic prose issues), fixed some minor reference-related issues myself and failed the nomination after 7 day timeout of no activities. Now I notice that the article is nominated again by the same person and with no single edit since my review. What is the due process in this case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The nominator, Philcha, has been among the most dedicated long-term contributors to GA. Sadly, for several years now, he has been suffering from a chronic illness limiting his ability to edit. I do not know the nature of the illness or whether it is terminal, but it is likely to be wiki-terminal in the sense that his ability to contribute has been rapidly declining over these few years. Nevertheless, he apparently remains dedicated to the goal of achieving GA status for Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares, despite the fact that the article requires more work, and he is not able to do it. What we do here could be a defining moment for the spirit of GA.
I offer all my help towards option 2. What do others think? Geometry guy 01:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Back to the topic at hand...I loved MOO2. I'll look maybe tonight sometime tomorrow.....terrible to hear about Philcha.
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs)
03:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Although GA bot ( talk · contribs) may understand the changes, StatisticianBot ( talk · contribs) is ignoring all the Arts articles in WP:GANR lists.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I have given out awards for the December 2011 backlog drive. However, some users had their reviews flagged by me and I would appreciate a volunteer or two providing 2nd opinions on those. Please see the awards thread on the drive talk page for information. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 23:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I submitted my first GAN, " Yes/No", using the "|subtopic=Episodes" parameter, as the instructions say, but when I went to look, the bot had put it in the "Other" catchall section of Theatre, film and drama, not the "Episodes" section. So it's getting into the correct subtopic, but not getting placed into the correct, specified sub-subsection. Any ideas what went wrong, and how it can be prevented from happening again? BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I forgot to clarify that when I saw it had been placed wrong, I moved it by hand from "Other" to "Episodes", which is why it's in the correct sub-subsection now. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Further addendum: The GA Bot just moved it back to "Other". Can someone who knows what's causing this problem fix things so "Yes/No" will be placed in "Episodes" and stay there? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a further note here, the Report page apparently has yet to recognise the new subtopics on the nominations page (for instance, not counting nominations listed under the new subtopics when compiling its list of "longest reviews" or "most nominations", etc). Haven't the first clue about fixing it though. GRAPPLE X 20:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
NSB Di 6 ( review) has undergone a review, the reviewer came with good comments and I have amended them accordingly. Despite nagging, and the reviewer stating that the article meets the criteria, the reviewer is not willing to pass the article, ask for a second optioning (or fail it for that matter). Could someone please take a look at it. Thanks, Arsenikk (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just finished Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore and once its peer review ends, the article will go on GAN. Which section should I place its nomination in? Asking because I plan to write GAs about other Singaporean charities catering to special needs people. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Bot requests#Bot owner not responding about what to do if StatisticianBot is not fixed. If we get no response from the owner soon it is likely that this bot will be blocked. There is also the possibility of getting a new bot to update the reports page. If it goes ahead it might be a good opportunity to request some changes/additional features for the bot. For starters I think it would be nice if the links on the page went to the actual GA reviews when possible and if there was a way to identify new reviewers. I don't know whats possible, but it can't hurt to ask. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is StatisticianBot ( talk · contribs) ignoring and removing {{ nobots}} at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items? Does anyone know how to edit its code so that it can account for all the recent WP:GAC modifications?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, StatisticianBot should properly update the report again now, with all the correct categories covered! I've run a test report which you can take a look at on User:StatisticianBot/Sandbox5. The bot will run as normal at 09:00 UTC as always - if it doesn't update properly please let me know ASAP! As well, the bot should now properly adhere to {{ nobots}} (and its variants). — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 05:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It's only a minor issue, but the bot for some reason put Missoula, Montana under the subheading Geography instead of Places where it makes more sense. I tried to fix it, but the bot simply put it back. Thanks Dsetay ( talk) 07:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that Raunaq.sarcar ( talk · contribs) reviewed Delaware Route 41 and passed it. However, a review page was not created. I left a message on the talk page advising him about it. Dough 48 72 19:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I failed Sherlock Holmes (play) and GA bot denoted the action with a maintenance edit summaary. This has been happening frequently with passes and fails lately.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I found copyvio in The Dirty Picture. Couldn't check the whole thing because my browser freezes on some citations. I notified the nominator and put it in the copyvio queue. Should it be removed from the GAN queue? MathewTownsend ( talk) 17:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that StatisticianBot ( talk · contribs) and GA bot ( talk · contribs) are now operating correctly for the most part although I am not sure I agree that when an article goes on review and then is failed in the same 10 minute GA bot cycle it should be chalked up to maintenance. LivingBot ( talk · contribs), continues to have issues with human error. It seems to miss both instances where the reviewer passes the article on its talk page but fails to list it on the proper WP:GA subpage and fails to put a proper topic in the topic field (see Talk:About a Girl (Sugababes song)) as well as instances where even though it is listed on the proper subpage, the reviewer forgot to change the article talk page field from subtopic to topic (see Talk:Non-fatal offences against the person in English law). These are just two very recent examples of human error problems in passing articles. I am wondering about the variety of types of human error in the passing of articles. Most importantly, is there a check for talk pages with the {{ GA}} template that are not listed on any WP:GA subpage?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Should the "Archaelogy" sub-section be merged with the "World history" one? I see no reason to keep a fairly quiet category when we often have a backlog here. DCI talk 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Current page format and numbers of current good articles under each heading (in brackets)
|
---|
|
What about the following format? Nomination topics in bold, subtopics listed beside each nomination topic.
Currently the TOC of WP:GAN shows all sections regardless of the current nominations. Could it be possible for Bot to make empty subsections a level lower then others and tuning TOC to hide them (see Help:Section § Limiting the depth of the TOC). This would give a benefit of showing the choice of current GAN topics in a glance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
And another thing about GA bot. Can it be tuned to notified the subscribed users of the new nominations via talk pages (the way RFC bot does it). It should be possible to tune the notifications on topics via GAN and kind of events. I wanted to go to Wikipedia:Bot requests for this, but may be GA bot would be a right bot to do it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I as considering revieing Narragansett land claim and when I looked at it it was entirely based on publically available court documents - which I would consider primary sources. I would be very reluctant to giving GA status to an article that relied this heavily on primary sources - but I realize that in legal articles the use of court documents is not that uncommon. Is there any precedent for promoting articles with no secondary sources - particularly legal articles? Extra eyes on Narragansett land claims would ge appreciated - perhaps I am being to harsh. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that the page was overhauled this morning. The instructions need to be amended to keep up. Also, are we going revise the WP:GA subpages? If so we will need to revise the section links in each WP:GAC subsection.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Should we call for handcount on whether to revert this latest change?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the last seven edit summaries of Wikipedia:Good article nominations, Hurricane Alma (1966) seems to be messing up User:GA bot. It shows as new in the last seven edit summaries.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I was reviewing Douglas W. Owsley and all was going fine until I found multiple instances of copyvio/close paraphrase in the lede.I posted many instances from the lede on Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 The nominator User:Cindamuse argued extensively that I was wrong, accused me of bad faith etc. Other editors were consulted: User:Worm That Turned and User:Dcoetzee and User:Moonriddengirl. The consensus was that the lede contained unacceptable copyvio/close paraphrasing, as posted on Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 and Moonriddengirl's talk page.
Because of the many instances of close paraphrase/copyvio in the lede (I didn't evaluated the rest of the article because Cindamuse did not feel my findings were valid), and because Cindamuse is now accusing me on multiple pages of bad faith and other things, I didn't think I could continue working with her. I therefore failed the article and suggested that she renominate it and start over with a new reviewer.
Now Cindamuse is deleting Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 from the talk page of Douglas W. Owsley. I have tried to explain to her that the review is part of the article's history and the next reviewer needs to see what happened in the first reveiw. (I had also left some comments on prose problems.) Here is a link to the review in case she deletes it again. [5]
I'm open to any suggestions as to how I could have handled this better. I've reviewed at least 70 article and never had a nominator turn on me before. I admit this has been very stressful.
Best wishes, MathewTownsend ( talk) 11:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that a reviewer placed {{GA|14:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)|topic=|page=1}} on Talk:Paterson's worms/GA1 instead of Talk:Paterson's worms. This caused GA bot to recognize the article as having failed. Meanwhile other editorial actions (either placing {{good article}} on the article page or listing the article at WP:GA) caused LivingBot to recognize the article as having passed. Are there checks in place for {{ GA}} being malplaced on GAC talk pages?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw today that User:He to Hecuba was actually a sockpuppet of a banned user. He promoted an article that I had nominated for GA so I wasn't sure if I should have someone else re-examine the article. It looks like he conducted a few other reviews, as well: [6] [7] [8] [9], is there a specific process that is followed when banned users conduct GA reviews? Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
He to Hecuba ( talk · contribs) was discovered to be a sock and had all his submissions deleted. Unfortunately these included some GA reviews. This means that currently there are articles passed as Good without any review and a few article histories with red links.
What is the best way to deal with this? I am away this weekend so unfortunately won't be able to help until Monday. AIRcorn (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I nominated the Saint-Inglevert Airfield article yesterday but its not showing up. The section link from the talk page to the transport section is not working either. I'd appreciate it if someone would sort out any error I may have made with the nom. Mjroots ( talk) 03:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
|subtopic=
field has been filled in with something the bot doesn't recognise.
GRAPPLE
X
03:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone want to review the article? :/ - Till I Go Home ( talk) 12:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any policy or guideline which defines exactly what the qualification for a "major contributor" is? X.One SOS 12:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I just notified User:Chris G, but I think User:GA bot is not running. I just nominated Anthony Davis (basketball) and it did not notice. It has not updated WP:GAC for 4.5 hours, which is an unusually long time.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Some first-time editor created a page to review The Lion King, and obviously never returned to review; now the only thing Talk:The Lion King/GA2 is doing is screw with the "launch GA review" templates in both WP:GAN and Talk:The Lion King. What's the solution, speedy deletion to allow for a fresh relaunch with a proper review, or someone else take over that page? igordebraga ≠ 04:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you please pass on GA how I can nominate. The template "The {{ GAN}} template should be substituted at the top of the article talk page. seems to give me error message. --Philcha
I have sat on this for a while, but with the backlog building up it is probably a good time to bring it out. Like most projects here new members are important to replace those that leave and to generally help keep things running smoothly. It can be daunting though if you have never reviewed a Good article before. So I propose the introduction of a page dedicated to providing advice to reviewers. It will be a cross between a help desk and a noticeboard. I know this one takes on that role in some respects, but I feel a newer reviewer would feel more comfortable asking a question at a page set out solely for that purpose. Another advantage would be that keeping the information in a single place would make searching for answers a lot easier. I know I do that a lot at noticeboards before asking a question.
A few things still need to be sorted. The scope should probably be made clear. I think it should be solely for asking questions about the process and should make clear that it is not the place to request reviews, propose changes to the criteria or to argue over whether an article is Good ( WP:GAN, WP:GACR and WP:GAR are available for that). If it is adopted I would like to advertise it (at least at the top of WP:GAN and in the screen that appears when you create a GA review). The most important thing for this to work is that editors are willing to watch the page and respond to any questions answered. Nothing would be worse than having this page and then no one answers or the same person each time.
I would like to incorporate a FAQ into this page too. I am thinking of using the one at the top of this talk page for starters. Dividing it up into sections that relate to the criteria could be a useful way to set it out (i.e "Alt text is not required for images" under the "Illustrated, if possible, by images" section). Any questions, thoughts or ideas? I have made a mock-up of how I think the page should be presented at User:Aircorn/Good Article mentor (the title will change to Wikipedia:Good article help desk if accepted). Feel free to edit it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The GA review of this article is not properly transcluded in the talk page. The reviewer had transcluded it manually when they reviewed the article for the first time. Further edits to the review were not reflected on the talk. I tried purging the talk page, no changes yet. Thanks in advance. — Vensatry (Ping me) 07:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The talk page states that the article was listed/delisted, but does not link to the discussions. Where can I find those discussions? Smallman12q ( talk) 03:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I nom's "MOO II" in late 2011 but there' no sign that this for review. What is not OK?
Please also check that I nom of "Warcract: Orge vs Humans" in the QU. -- Philcha ( talk) 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Please tell me whether an article I nominated for FL belongs there or here at this section. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the current instructions in "How to nominate an article", step 1 says "Find the most appropriate subsection/subtopic from those listed on the right." The two available under "Theatre, film and drama" are "Episodes" and "Other theatre, film and drama articles". However, when the latter is used, the article is shunted into "Miscellaneous".
I initially thought the problem on "Pamela Barnes Ewing" was that the nominator had added an extra comma in "Other theatre, film and drama articles", but when the comma was removed, the article remained in "Miscellaneous". Not until I changed the subtopic to "Theatre, film and drama", the topic, as had been the instructions previously, did the article get placed properly under "Other theatre, film and drama articles".
Can this be fixed so "Other theatre, film and drama articles" works as advertised? (And the "Other music articles" subtopic should probably also be checked to make sure it is set up to work properly.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey folks. User:Ocaasi has organized an opportunity for Wikipedians to get free access to a large online database. Here's the breakdown:
Might help you with your next GA. The Interior (Talk) 18:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this article long enough for any chance GA? -- BCS ( t · c · !) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:GAC has not been updated since 23:01. I have promoted one GAC to GA ( Dan Leno) and nothing has happened.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure what should be done, but User:Stausifr, who originally nominated Tamil Nadu for GAN—the GAN template was badly malformed, and I had to fix it on the article's talk page, which is why I've been paying attention—has just started a review of the article.
I think this is someone who is not clear on how this works: the review page says "The article complies with all the qualities to be a good article. Please add your comments and views whether or not the article can become a good article." Still, I suspect the review itself needs to be stopped so a new reviewer can take care of it.
Can someone who is versed in such matters take care of this? I have no experience in how to deal with a GAN gone so bizarrely awry. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been going GA reviews as I probably should have been, maybe grabbing one or two the past couple months. I figured it would have again plateaued at 350 or so as it did before the last backlog drive. Instead, I see 415 articles waiting for a review and very few reviews actually taking place (for once abandoned GAs don't seem to be most of the number, so there's that at least).
I know this is brought up every few months, but after taking a hiatus, seeing those kinds of numbers actually intimidates me away from doing more; is there a way to get more reviewers in that we could think up that hasn't been discussed ten times prior? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This may have only a minimal impact on the backlog, but what about having a bot done up? One that scans new nominations for maintenance templates and scans references for dead links. If it finds one, it would withdraw the nomination (rather than quick fail) and leave a note for the nominator outlining such problems and asking they be fixed before renomination. Someone could also possibly write a script that checks for some basic things - close paraphrasing of live references, status of images, and the like. Would that help speed up reviews/make it easier for newer reviewers to perform this task? Reso lute 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably we could duplicate the nomination info in the interested WikiProjects, so that the active members could easier discover the nominations. This requires quite a massive change in bots and some discussion on per-WikiProject basis, but it could work. Effectively, if this suggestion was implemented and the bot compiled a nomination log ("date: article1, article2...") I would patrol the log to make sure all relevant WikiProjects are aware of relevant GAs. As this change would also benefit WikiProjects, I think it could work. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel the need to award an editor with a WP:BARNSTAR for specifically great development of the article (eg. the editor alone expanded hopeless stub into a good article). As I noticed, some other reviewers are giving awards even more frequently. Though The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is OK, may be we should have a specific project-approved barnstar like this one? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 14:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I started the discussion about adding "watch the review" link to {{ GA nominee}} on its talk page. Comments are welcome. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 05:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | I have some opinion (and suggestions) on GA nomination process, but, I have noticed the comment of
User:Wizardman in a
related thread
Okay so, I'll try to concentrate on detailing in my post (but, I'll try to keep it too the point too). I'll appreciate adding a {{TB}} template in my talk page if anyone replies! Tip: If you do not have time, skip to bottom of my post and read "Suggestions" only, but, in first few paragraphs, there are some good arguments too, IMO! |
Abuse of Nominations
I feel only a regular editor / major contributor should have the right to nominate the article. Or, we should make some changes in the process!
Explanation
See
Talk:Indian_Railways, the person who has nominated the article has hardly 2-3 edits in the article (and I doubt if he personally read the article completely or not). I have not started reviewing (not going to review), but, on the first look I found, the article has 7-8 dead refs, the article will need many more additional citation, Indic script should be removed according to recent consensus etc. In short, the article is not properly ready for GA. I feel the regular editors of the article will feel same!
And here is the problem, suppose you, I and some people are continuously working hard to improve an article, and we know we can make it a Good article in next few months, and also suppose we have some plannings and strategies too to improve the article.
But, suddenly, bang! A newbie in the article will come in and without even reading the article or discussing with anyone, he will nominate it for GA.
Problems
Suggestion
Here are my suggestions
Thank you! --
Tito Dutta
(Send me a message)
01:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment from
Mo Rock...Monstrous
Just to play devils advocate I will point out a few similar cases to the list above.
3 out of the 4 cases all passed GA while it's not always an ideal situation there are times when a nomination from a "non-regular" editor results in the article reaching GA status when they otherwise would not have.--
Mo Rock...Monstrous
(leech44)
02:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment from
WhatamIdoing
Comment from Ruby
Comment from
Tito Dutta
See, the situation when two editors that initially have pretty opposite thoughts have to come to some consensus over procedural issue is potentially more troublesome then the situation of pending review with pre-existing negative second opinion from an involved editor. In fact, if the opinion has proper grounds, the nomination may be quick-failed, so the real overload of WP:GAN is minimal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 20:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In this case, User:Tomtomn00 did the GAN, and then started the review a minute later..
This happened with another user recently, and someone here took care of it. Whoever does so, let me know whether you're dropping a note on Tomtomn00's talk page about the problem, or if you'd like me to do so. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 11:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I ask because I considered reviewing it, but felt that an in depth review was needed, especially as the writer is a student ("This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Alberta—Augustana Campus supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term."). It's a psychology article and should follow WP:MEDRS. A major source for the article is a study of chimpanzees. MathewTownsend ( talk) 17:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
GA review
Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi/GA2#Clarification_please
In the article, they have written like this:
I suggested to write full name of these people since - surname like Watson etc is very common. One editor feels a) Full name is included in Reference section! b) "scholarly articles do not usually include information on the author's first name or status as "researcher". (Also note there is not any Wikipedia articles on most of these scholars or they are not linked). Any opinion? -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The nominator and main editor of " Pilot (Sports Night)" has sign up to review it. Am I missing something?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that <the nominator is the reviewer, and have already passed the article. This needs a proper review, I assume the nominator is AGF confused with regards to the procedure. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Wisdomtenacityfocus ( talk · contribs), the nominator of Joe's Garage, has just been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet before I could finish the review. Should I still finish the review? My gut says I should finish it regardless of who nominated it, and give it a fair go. What say you? Viriditas ( talk) 02:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
For reasons I don't quite understand, GA1, which had been failed by Puffin last year, was reopened on April 18 by reverting the talk page to its pre-fail state by the same Puffin. There were edits to the article later that day and since, but the fact that the article was failed has been erased.
It seems to me that the article should have been submitted for a completely new GAN. Right now it appears that the article has simply remained on hold for 179 days. Something definitely needs to be done here, but I'm not sure how—if we copy the current GA1 contents with the new updates as a GA2, and restore the GA1 result, then who gets credit for the second nomination? BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This editor User:Philades passed there own articles as a GA in 2009 in these edits [12]. I have removed it. Are there processes in place now to prevent / detect this sort of activity?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:Alaska Airlines/GA1, it appears the nominator is reviewing their own GAN. Dough 48 72 03:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to split these two? Biology and medicine are two very different fields. It would make things easier to follow. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone help tackle the articles that have been waiting four months for a review, eight of them to be exact? I'm doing my best to hit them, but my wiki time is limited and the increasing backlog is taking its toll mentally. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Should we require that the nominator has made a minimum number of edits to Wikipedia as a whole before nominating an article for GA? Discussion is here [14] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I would support something like this as someone should not be nominating articles in their first few edits. Although at this stage I don't know what the minimum number of edits should be and how this would be enforced. AIRcorn (talk)
It appears the bot removed a bunch of nominations from the page randomly. Dough 48 72 21:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to add this text in 5.Stable in
Template:GATable in
Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/GA2:
On 23 March [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=483547628&oldid=483512859 a large portion was deleted] which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=483549386&oldid=483547628 fixed on the same day]. If we see [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&action=history article's history], we'll notice editors of this article are constantly working to improve the article. <br/>Comparison of article versions:<br/>*[http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=490479154&oldid=479887271 3 March and 3 May– time difference 2 months]<br/>*http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=490479154&oldid=485313547 3 April and 3 May— time difference 1 month]<br/>So, it can not be said, the content of the article does not change by day to day. But, an article which gets more than 300,000 digital footprints each months, it is not very uncommon. And most of these edits in last two months are constructive. I'd like to give a ¾ pass here.--~~~~
In the template it is told, Put "3=" at the beginning of any comment containing such a url, else it shows Pending... but where should I put this "3=" exactly? Wherever I am putting this I am getting text "pending". Can anyone help? Feel free to test in the
Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/GA2 page! --
Tito Dutta
Message
03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
RomeAntic14 ( talk · contribs) has attempted to promote Selena Gomez, Rihanna, " TTYLXOX", and " Something to Dance For" to WP:GA this weekend without putting any of them through the WP:GAC process. I have reverted article, talk page and Wikipedia:Good articles/recent edits for all instances. Please help me keep an eye on this guy.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking it might be useful to make the quickfail criteria more obvious. So far it is mentioned in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, but I propose moving it to its own section of the criteria. This could be one way of encouraging the reviewers' willingness to fail articles that don't meet the criteria ( mentioned above). I also proposed some rewording of the proposal at the talk page, which so far has not got any response.
I have also recently requested a clean up listing of GAN nominations here. It could be useful in finding article that may meet the quickfail criteria. Caution should be used however as it is only updated once a week so some tags might no longer be present and it includes tags that fall outside the criteria. Also some articles are tagged after nomination either by reviewers or other concerned editors and time should be allowed for these to be addressed by the nominator. It is useful for finding those articles nominated with outstanding tags. I have commented on the talk page of some of the worst offenders. AIRcorn (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to request a second reviewer for Talk:Wildwood (novel)/GA1. This didn't work; the bot deleted it. So I changed the talk page template and next thing you know the Bot has passed it. Why? Can somebody explain? How do I fix it? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
So, is there a procedure for requesting a second opinion on a nomination that hasn't passed yet? As ChrisGualtieri and I (one of the main contributors, though not the nominator who has disappeared from the radar) have a difference of view as to whether " Presidential Council for Minority Rights" lacks neutrality, I think a fresh pair of eyes might be helpful. — SMUconlaw ( talk) 10:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The bot is down, I have lefty a note on the operators talk page.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
12:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The bot's not down, but right now it's going insane, taking off 5kb and re-adding it back in 10 minutes later seemingly randomly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Those issues should now be resolved. There are however some other issues relating to the accuracy of the edit summaries which I am still working on. Sorry. -- Chris 06:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
(moved from AN) Structuration was passed as GA recently, and sent to GAR. The reviewer at GAR ( Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Structuration/1) said, "The article was created as a student project and was then promoted to GA by the student's supervisor. I think this is procedurally problematic. Two other editors made comments during the GAN which do not appear to have been addressed." A copy edit was requested immediately afterward, which brought up a lot of issues (see Talk:Structuration#Copyedit).
The promotion to GAN seems extremely problematic and out of process. Since process was so egreigously bypassed here, could this not be "speedy delisted" without having to sit in the GAR queue? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it time to do something about student nominated GAs. While I would be happy nuking them entirely we need some way to at least separate the wheat from the chaff. AIRcorn (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
User:FocalPoint left this note
on my talk page, not noticing the banner stating that I am on holiday until 12 June, so perhaps someone else would like to step in? Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Hahc21 ( talk · contribs) is picking fights with me about my WP:GAC nominations in the WP:SONG area. He has quickfailed both " Cat Daddy" (and started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Daddy) and " Zou Bisou Bisou" in a manner that leads me to believe he wants to pick a fight rather than evaluate the content. Having been through several hundred WP:GAC reviews. I know the difference between fair evaluations and unfair ones. I am renominating " Cat Daddy without making any changes and will be considering doing the same for " Zou Bisou Bisou" to the article and posting notice of my decision to do so here for all to see.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
This is something that some might consider obvious and unnecessary, while others might think it's not so obvious. Therefore it should be stated explicitly that reviewers create a conflict of interest when they rewrite too much of an article during review, and so should request a second reviewer if they have made more than WP:MINOR edits. This is not to limit the right of anyone to edit; it's a (soft) limit on the role of reviewer. Suggested changes in red:
When choosing an article to review, keep in mind:
Review carefully—see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for more advice. You may also wish to consult a mentor.
[...no changes...] |
[...] |
[...] |
![]() If you are unsure whether an article meets the Good article criteria, or have become a significant contributor to the article, you may ask another reviewer or subject expert for a second opinion:
|
Boldly make the change? Support? Oppose? Different wording? Needs an Rfc? My sense is it's a fairly trivial change and should be done unless significant opposition appears. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Suggested rewrite (if we need to spell it out):
WP:MINOR is quite detailed and widely understood. Reviewers can avoid getting into questionable gray areas by trying hard to confine themselves to suggestions on the review page and letting the nominator and others carry them out. This serves the important goal of coaching nominators on how to write better articles. If the reviewer does all the work themselves, it undermines the learning process. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why, and give suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not immediately meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. Consider If a problem can be resolved in a short period. If so, place the review "On Hold" and allow time for the nominator or others to fix the problem(s) and then re-review. For minor edits, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. If a significant rewrite or reorganization is needed, an "On Hold" may not be the appropriate action. After the review is complete and closed, you may choose to improve the article yourself. An article that has been awarded GA and has undergone a significant rewrite or reorganization may need to be resubmitted to WP:GAN. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
This whole section is getting somewhat confused. I'd like to step back and check where all the text is coming from. There is Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and there is Wikipedia:Good article nominations. This appears to have all come from Wikipedia:Good article nominations, so I'll consider that first. Having working your way down Steps 1 to 4 of "How to review an article" of Wikipedia:Good article nominations the nomination has already been passed or failed, and the nominator informed. So this particular paragraph, i.e.
Where the article meets the Good article criteria, you might like to consider making suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. If a problem is easy to resolve, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself.
is explanation / clarification.
It could be dumped and the existing Review carefully—see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for more advice. You may also wish to consult a mentor be left in place. That might or might not suit "MF".
I could also try this editorial excursion: delete "Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why" and substitute: "Firstly, assess the nomination against Good article criteria and make a judgement as to whether it is complaint. If it does, justify those conclusions".
The explanation then becomes:
Firstly, assess the nomination against Good article criteria and make a judgement as to whether it is complaint. If it does, justify those conclusions"and give suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not immediately meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. Consider If a problem can be resolved in a short period. If so, place the review "On Hold" and allow time for the nominator or others to fix the problem(s) and then re-review. For minor edits, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. If a significant rewrite or reorganization is needed, an "On Hold" may not be the appropriate action. After the review is complete and closed, you may choose to improve the article yourself. An article that has been awarded GA and has undergone a significant rewrite or reorganization may need to be resubmitted to WP:GAN.
Is that any better ? Pyrotec ( talk) 11:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I find it very hard believe that they only way to unclog the GA queue is for the reviewers to shoulder most of the editing. That seems like a very odd, and improbable situation. Are typical nominators really that incompetent? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where this discussion is going. Especially in the light of: "I and several others feel that the integrity of GA review also matters. Self-review, and self-promotion to GA status, is a conflict of interest. An editor whose only goal was to improve articles could lurk in the GA queue and, rather than doing reviews, could jump in and assist the nominators in correcting any problems the reviewer notes. They'd be free to edit in any way without a conflict of interest, and could accomplish their goal of getting articles to pass, without creating the awkward appearance of impropriety in giving a pass to their own writing. Plus, unburdened from the role of reviewer, they could spend all their time on article improvement. I find it very hard believe that they only way to unclog the GA queue is for the reviewers to shoulder most of the editing. That seems like a very odd, and improbable situation. Are typical nominators really that incompetent?"
Pyrotec ( talk) 21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of seeking help. I mean, couldn't we develop a tool so we can post somewhere which GANs are abandoned and finding someone willing to help? (just an idea). About the "quick" reviewers: I think that quality doesn't mean quantity. If you spend 14 days reviewing an article, that doesn't mean your review is way better than another that only took 3 days. The quality depends on the understanding the reviewer has of the GA process, the experience and/or expertise he/she have achieved from past reviews, and many other factors such as article length, the quality of the article pre-nomination and so on. So, i'm confident that the idea of "quick" as bad review should be treated on a case-by-case basis, just as happened recently with an user. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 00:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I need a hand on this. I've been reviewing the article The Great Otis Redding Sings Soul Ballads but some improvements were needed. I put the article on hold for 7 days, which finalized yesterday May 24. So, reviewing it again, i don't think it meets the GA criteria, but i have some kind of doubts about how to explain why it fails. So, if someone could take a look at the article an comment, i'd be thankful. I'm not sure about asking for a second opinion, so i'd like to receive some feedback first. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 03:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Pyrotec ( talk) 16:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Well. I've had some problems in the past with TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) and seems he is causing a lot of trouble through all Wikipedia with the "X on Twitter" articles. Now, we have Justin Bieber on Twitter and Lady Gaga on Twitter nominated for Good Articles. I think, as a discussion is being held on WP:ANI about the need of existence of those "X on Twitter" articles on Wikipedia, to prevent such articles from being nominated until a conclusion is reached. Comments are very welcomed, please. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 22:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Notability is not a criteria and instabilty does not occur because an article is being discussed on a talk page. In the future it would be nice if a note is left for potential reviewers if a discussion is being held on a Wikipedia page other than the articles talk that might impact the review. If you come across an article here you don't think should be in the encyclopaedia the best thing to do is to nominate it at WP:AFD. AIRcorn (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think this was a speedy pass; at least I cannot find the review anywhere? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Oakley77 reviewed one article on May 10, and is on his fourth today. I looked at the one from May 10, and it gives me great concern as to the quality of the work:
The following reviews have been started and passed by Oakley today:
A fourth, Talk:Queen's University/GA1 was started at 21:00. I have to go out for the evening now, or I would pursue this further, though I don't know proper procedure in such a case. In any event, my apologies for dropping it in someone else's lap, but this is someone who doesn't seem to understand the GA review process. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
As much as I disagree with these assumptions, I must respect them. I vow that from now on, my GA reviews will be lengthy and detailed. I apologize for any harm my edits have created. I also thank the editors who alerted me to this issue. Please, forgive me. Oakley77 ( talk) 03:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Oakley77 has submitted another bunch of GANs today, none of which he has ever even edited, and most of which still have outstanding tags or are otherwise clearly not ready. I quickfailed tea, but perhaps with some of the others it might be more efficient to rollback/undo the GAN? Sasata ( talk) 20:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is a speedy fail from the same user. It's frivolous, overly informal (and therefore impolite) in tone, and the "reviewer" quickfailed the article without addressing a single issue. A comment below the review indicated that the "reviewer" has a murky history of GA reviews, and then I saw the above discussion, so here we are. Geschichte ( talk) 08:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
[18] - seems he has moved on to FAC. -- Rs chen 7754 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion, and I have to point that this user nominated the article Argentina, which he has never edited, and regardless of the last thread (previous to the nomination) where I mentioned the huge size of the article, nearly 78 KB of readable text (the suggested max is nearly 50 KB), and the need to trim it down, which I am undergoing right now. Only after that step is done it would make sense to go on with a deeper copyedit, checking and improving the references, etc; and only by then it would be time for nominations. Given the context, I removed the nomination: the article is not ready, and we don't need to waste anyone's time to notice something that I (the second highest contributor to the article) already know and work about.
Thing is, there's a similar pattern in other articles: Talk:Didgeridoo, Talk:Hamline University, Talk:Namibia, Talk:Nunavut, Talk:Alhazen, etc. (and that just for May 29). I know that mass nominations are not rejected per se, but considering the context, we should do that as well. Cambalachero ( talk) 02:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
In the light of the above comments and the disruption that Oakley77 is causing to the GA process, I propose the following:
1. Oakley77 is barred from reviewing articles nominated for GA status for a minimum of six months from the closure of this discussion. For the avoidance of doubt, Oakley77 may nominate articles for GA status, and may participate in reviews initiated by other editors.
2. After six months Oakley77 may apply to this talk page for the restriction to be lifted, whereupon a discussion will take place to see if Oakley77 understands and can apply the GA reviewing principles, and a decision will be reached on whether to extend, lift or modify the restriction.
In the light of the above comments and the disruption that Oakley77 is still causing to the GA process and other editors, I propose the following:
1. Oakley77 is barred from nominating any articles for GA status, and barred from commenting on the reviews of articles that others have nominated for GA status, in both cases until at least 25 November 2012.
2. After 25 November 2012 Oakley77 may apply to this talk page for the restriction to be lifted, whereupon a discussion will take place to see if Oakley77 understands and can apply the GA criteria and reviewing principles, and a decision will be reached on whether to extend, lift or modify the restriction.
No, please don't do this. I swear, from now on I will only nominate one article at a time, and will announce my intention on the talk page first as well. I now understand the nominating criteria, so please don't ban me from nominating. I will change, and become a great, textbook nominator. Please. Oakley77 ( talk) 13:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"Great, textbook nominator" s are usually the article writers themselves or at least strongly associated with the article writer's so they are at least informed..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
How did I get a ban on nominating articles to become GAs? I followed procedures well. If i wasn't a major contributor to the article, I contacted the editors first. I only nominated B-class articles, and didn't do anything stupid or untrustworthy. I really don't deserve this. I am committed to the GA cause, and am thrilled to see articles become GAs. Why have I been barred from participating in favorite part about Wikipedia? Also, my bad about placing a notice on the talk page beforehand. I really just forgot about that procedure and will do it from now on. I have been contacting the editors though. I am sorry for anything done wrong, and wish to not only make good on promises (swear to actually), but to try and become a model GA nominator. Also, I am done in the FAC department, I am just going to be in the GAC dept. I am committed to the GA cause, and am thrilled to see articles become GAs. Please, let me participate in my favorite part about Wikipedia again. Oakley77 ( talk) 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
First off, with all respect, that nomination was slightly different from he rest. On my latest ones, I have contacted the editor. I apologize again for anything hassle or disruption those nominations may have caused. I also want to state that I am NOT asking to be allowed to review again, just to NOMINATE. I want to make it clear I am committed to becoming a model nominator, as the guidelines are now crystal-clear to me. Also, I think it would be an excellent idea for me to post possible nomination on this discussion, or an alternative place where possible proposals can be commented on, it would benefit everyone involved. I love the GA process, and would love if I were allowed to be a part of it again. Oakley77 ( talk) 22:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. I really wasn't aware that nominators make the changes, but from now on that will be done too. The only thing I can't do are refs/citations, I just am not learned in that field. Besides that, I can pretty much correct anything the reviwer needs me two. Thanks for filling me in on that. What else do I need to do to become a beloved nominator again? Oakley77 ( talk) 22:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Oakley77, you have 4 open nominations listed the GAN page (The Canterbury Tales, Loch Ness Monster, Alhazen, and Hamline University). Should these be closed or will you do the work, in a timely manner, as requested by reviewers for them to meet GA criteria? maclean ( talk) 22:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, anything requested but citations I will try to complete. Loch Ness Monster has been failed, so that can close, anything else I will do my best to do. Oakley77 ( talk) 00:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
My only active nomination is The Canterbury Tales, and I have helped out the reviewer greatly with things he has asked. As soon as the other nomination's reviews start, I will help that reviewer out too. Oakley77 ( talk) 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
From my very limited knowledge of citations, I just can't be sure. It appears to have a suitable amount of citations, but my guess is just that, an educated guess. Oakley77 ( talk) 12:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for teaching those nuances of the GA nomination process, they were greatly appreciated. I really hope that everyone will realize I am dedicated to the GA cause, and am ready to become a nominator. This citation system, it is now alot clearer. Please gentlemen/women, allow me to be placed again as a GA nominator, with this new understanding now available to me. Oakley77 ( talk) 19:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I would to address some things mentioned above. First off, the only edits I have made to Wikipedia SINCE I have understood the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation have been constructive, or at least I had the mindset of being constructive. It is not therapy, it is dedication. Secondly, nominating articles for the GA process is my favorite thing to do on Wikipedia, and I enjoy seeing articles become GAs. There is lots else I can do and HAVE been doing, but the GAN process is my favorite. Oakley77 ( talk) 22:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Has this been enacted yet? He just tried to nominate Babe Ruth for GA status, even though it's far from meeting criteria. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I see that there have previously been issues with the review style of TeacherA ( talk · contribs) (See here and here for the archives). After a year away he is now back and undertaking a similar, rather unhelpful approach to the process on two articles (see Felix Leiter and Illinois election for further details of his activities. Is there not some way that this guy can be stopped from reviewing without having to have a mentor work with him, or just stopped? In the meantime, is it possible to have a more constructive review undertaken on these two articles? - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little tardy to this party, but I will say that after reading that review of my nomination (the Illinois election), I did think of coming here to ask for advice or a new reviewer. The review provided is very vague and confusing. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There are complaints that no template was used and articles are not being passed. The record shows that I pass nearly all articles and I do use templates. Editors who fail to get quick promotion to GA should not attack the reviewer. Of the two articles mentioned, one (Felix Leiter) is now a GA and the other one is not quite there yet. TeacherA ( talk) 03:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The Hayward, California article is a GA. All the template criteria are met. However, the history of the city since 1899 is covered in only 5 sentences, covering two ideas, one minor. The history from prehistoric times to 1899 has many paragraphs. This is certainly a major, major flaw yet the criteria for GA are met. See, this is why editorial consideration, what I also do, is important. As for the Hayward aritcle, I simply made suggestions and hope the editors fix it. TeacherA ( talk) 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous: if someone wants to undertake a sensible review of the Felix Leiter article to help it improve and iron out any wrinkles, I'll be happy for them to do so and be happy to follow their thoughts and suggestions. In the meantime if this editor could be stopped from reviewing artticles in future until they've grown up a little I'd be grateful. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 04:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1. TeacherA is barred from reviewing articles nominated for GA status indefinitely from the closure of this discussion.
2. After 12 months TeacherA may apply to this talk page for the restriction to be lifted, whereupon a discussion will take place to see if TeacherA understands and can apply the GA reviewing principles, and a decision will be reached on whether to extend, lift or modify the restriction.
Bottom line: TeacherA will co-review articles for GA and discuss it with another reviewer. That reviewer must consider TeacherA's suggestions in good faith but will have final authority on promotion. TeacherA's review work will make the co-reviewer's job quicker since he only needs to review the review. Faster work will help Wikipedia cut the backlog.
Therefore, we the undersigned support...
- Teacher A will work with others for the next 12 months to review GA and only co-review articles for GA. The co-reviewer can look over the review and approve it.
- Articles that Teacher A have reviewed will remain as GA except Hayward, California
- For Hayward, California, Teacher A will wait for an uninvolved user (not voting here or on this issue) to co-review it.
- When Teacher A co-reviews articles, the co-reviewer must act politely and consider all suggestions in good faith but the final decision for GA will rest with the co-reviewer. Nobody can be a co-reviewer if they have commented on this issue.
- This should be a non-confrontational solution, unlike the previous one, which includes a bar and is highly confrontational.
- Support for this proposal only constitutes support for the proposed solution (after the word "Therefore"), which is essentially a co-reviewer proposal.
- Teacher A may complete a GA review if a co-reviewer does not completion review of an article within 3 months of when the GA review is started but Teacher A will proactively seek co-reviewers if the 3 month period is coming to a close.
Putting a bar on someone is very confrontational. Nobody can say it is not. In Wikipedia, when there is disagreement, sometimes a compromise solution is used.
- TeacherA understands that some people are unhappy. Therefore, for the next 12 months, TeacherA will ALWAYS consult with other users before a decision to promote or not is made and the other user's opinion will be the deciding opinion. Because there is a huge backlog, TeacherA will actively seek out consultants, such as seeking out other reviewers, if none visit the article.
SUPPORT - Very non-confrontational, everyone wins, Wikipedia wins. Wikipedia is not a vote but this makes perfect sense. TeacherA ( talk) 01:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Closing discussion as bar enacted.
Bencherlite
Talk
06:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Talk:A Song of Ice and Fire/GA1 has been open for seven weeks. The reviewer User:Sadads initially stated that the review might take a while due to the article length and his upcoming exams, which was okay since it allowed me some more time for copyediting and going on vacation. However, Sadads hasn't been on-wiki for over a month now, and he also hasn't replied to an e-mail I sent him four days ago. Due to the current uncertain situation, I ask an experienced GAN reviewer to close/fail/restart/whatever the current GAN (but leave it in the queue) so that it can be picked up for review by someone else. Thank you. – sgeureka t• c 08:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I've resubmitted Sudan women's national football team for GAN after a quickfail because it does not appear to have been quickfailed against the criteria. Nothing in the review actually referenced the article text. Kaypoh has a history of problems with GAN on their contributions list. Can their actions in relation to the process be reviewed? -- LauraHale ( talk) 07:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I remember, after I nominate many Singapore law articles for GAN, many people complain, but end up, Singapore WikiProject now has 14 more GAs, recognise hard work of Singapore Wikipedians and help counter systemic bias. Now I have new idea, to encourage faster reviews for GANs that counter systemic bias, so encourage Wikipedians to write and nominate GANs that counter systemic bias.
GANs from February that counter systemic bias, help to review faster:
GANs from March that counter systemic bias, help to review faster:
Of course, when encourage Wikipedians to write and nominate GANs that counter systemic bias, must be careful. I see a few GANs about women's football teams in Africa, but they all cannot be broad, do not even list the players, so I fail one. But overall, if more Wikipedians write GANs that counter systemic bias and we reward them by reviewing their GANs faster, is good for Wikipedia.
-- Kaypoh ( talk) 07:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we can as a project do much to counter systemic bias. People are generally going to review and nominate topics that interest them and there is nothing wrong with that. However there is nothing stopping editors trying to counter it at an individual level, although that is in itself a form of bias. Personally I would much rather focus on the so called WP:Vital articles. As for the football teams, I think broadness is a relevant concern, but it would be good for the reviewer to show that more information exists before failing those articles. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The backlog's getting terrible again. might be time to finally have one of these, Either 6/15 to 7/15 or through 7/31. Anyone willing to take the lead if I make the pages? I don't have the free time to take a major role. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, nowhere do I say that the majority of the backlog is due the wikicup. I've been reviewing continuously, apart from a recent break, at GAN for some three and half years so I'm quite familiar with the magnitude of backlog (for those that are not, it can be found here). I also review more than I nominate. Wikicup is possibly just a "bump" on the backlog, but more points are awarded for nominating than reviewing (at GA: 30 points for a pass and 2 for a review) and last year was (I believe) the first time that reviewing was considered at wikicup. Secondly, wikicup takes place over four rounds and no points are gained from GA unless the relevant articles are produced, nominated and passed within the time frame of each round. So wikicup must produce both short term peaks on the general trend; and pressure for short/quick reviews. Thirdly, in the April 2010 backlog elimination drive I did 58 reviews in one month and was second, but there were others who did 50, 40 and 30 (in round figures). I don't believe that many articles were "wrongly" passed or failed, however, some reviews were struck out as the reviews were clearly inadequate, but I do consider that overall effect might have been more quantity than quality. I've never organised a backlog elimination drive but I have participated in several and no drive has ever managed to spot check more than an insignificant fraction of the reviews. Finally, it can also be seem from the Backlog archive that drives only have a relatively short term effect. They bring in reviewers for the elimination drive, and they often appear at the next elimination drive, and so on, but does little in the way of continuity of reviewing. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
So, the veredict was? I have a proposal (that surely will ger rejected but i don't lose anything asking). Maybe, after the drive is done, a team of X users (preferably the drive's reviewers) will oversee 3 random reviews for each participant to verify the quality of the review. This can be done between July 16-20. I'm just proposing ideas. Regards. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, no problem. By now, only Wizardman and me are the reviewers. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 06:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I volunteer to help out too. I took a long break but I've been back editing WP for months now. I'm ready to start helping out in maintenance/janitorial/etc. stuff again now too, so I just did a relatively easy one that's been listed since April.-- William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 23:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
If anyone would like to send messages to previous frequent reviewers or wikiprojects on the drive, that would help greatly. I'll hit up a few that are usually good for this kind of stuff. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I created Talk:Keri Hilson/GA1 a few days ago but did not begin the review until today. Is it eligible for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I've checked all reviews and removed those which doesn't meet the guidelines. I'll be doing this each 2 two or three days.
Hi,
See Talk:Ayrton Senna/GA1. The article was quick failed because the "author of the article has [not] been asked about this. Quick Fail." Is this a valid reason? I don't see a requirement that the nominator must ask the permission of the "author of the article" before nominating.
I think this should be reversed. (Or else the nomination directions changed to made this clearly a requirement.)
Thanks!
MathewTownsend ( talk) 12:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
After helping someone correct their article for GA status I realized it is something I would like to get involved with. Helping people write things better seems to be a gift of mine. I would like to formally request a place in the GA review team <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and blocked Oakley77 ( talk · contribs) for violating his ban [23] from GAN. Talk:Missouri Fox Trotter/GA1 is an example of where he took over a GAN from another nominator without warning. Oakley77 is specifically banned from commenting on any GAN, which would definitely include this obnoxious behavior. -- Rs chen 7754 04:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Beyond the article shown, he violated the ban here and here. Also like here. -- LauraHale ( talk) 05:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Could someone have a look at the recent GA review of The Lokpal Bill, 2011 (see Talk:The Lokpal Bill, 2011/GA1). I have concerns over the fact that it was reviewed by a new editor ( User:India maniac) who registered an account less than ten minutes before passing the article. France3470 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I floated this idea in March (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 16#Help Desk), but it didn't attract any attention. I bring it up again as we currently have the largest backlog I have ever seen here and one way to get sustainable reduction is to get more editors, which this may help encourage. Also we have recently had trouble with editors that do not understand the process and, while this may not have been much use in the above cases, this could be an easy way to improve the quality of reviews. However, for this to work it needs people willing to watch and respond to it. An idea of how it would look is here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless anyone specifically objects I am going to inact this in a week or so. I hope that most of you watching here will at least watch this page. I admit to being a little worried about how well this will work when a proposal for a trophy cabinet gets immediate response while this is largely ignored. However, if it does fail it should be easy enough to remove. AIRcorn (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Am I counting reviews that I shouldn't? It seems I am the only person failing articles.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I finally re-did the numbers in the FAQ to present 2011's average. We're basically holding steady: one more nom on the list each day compared to 2010, and one fewer waiting for a reviewer each day. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
hello,
is there a list of users with the most GAs? If not, how can it be created? Can a bot count all that? It would be interesting to know who are the first. Regards.-- GoP T C N 18:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have developed a draft here: User:Hahc21/List of Wikipedians by Good Articles. Also, i've created the template {{ User:Hahc21/GA Userlist Entry}} to be used when adding data to the table. — Hahc 21 21:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Until i find a workaround, I deleted the first parameter from the table and added the sortable element. Think now it works. If you have no idea, you can leave it blank or write and the template will write {{
n/a}}. I do have my list handily ordered, but you can calmly do the search. You can make the task easy of you search for GAn on your contributions and select that only the Talk namespace to be shown. Then, count the N's —
Hahc
21
22:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It's been indicated that as a part of the current review drive that there are some editors overseeing the reviews that are being done. Are any of them verifying that any passed articles are being listed on WP:GA? I've had to manually list two of my "promoted" nominations myself. In short, an article can't be considered "listed" as a GA until, well, it's listed as a GA.
There seems to be some confusion over what the bot does in the process. In short, it adds new nominations to the section of the queue based on the parameters on the talk page of the article. It also updates the status of nominations, including removing closed nominations (whether passed or failed). It also will add the to the article itself if needed. It does not list the article because the {{
GA}} or {{
ArticleHistory}} templates do not contain the exact subsection of the overall list. That last crucial step is part of the "paperwork" that every reviewer needs to do, and if it isn't done because people thing the bot is doing it, then our list will be out of sync with the supposed status of our articles.
Imzadi 1979
→
00:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Listing the article is the second of three steps, but recently almost all of the articles passed by GAN drive participants from the Transport section have been listed on WP:GA, by their nominators not their reviewers after successful completions of the reviews. Frankly, that's unacceptable. Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)1. Replace {{ GA nominee}} on the article's talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}.[1] The "page=" parameter should be a number only - no letters. Please include "GA" in your edit summary.
2. List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section.[2] Encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves.
3. Add {{ Good article}} to the article (It dosn't matter where this is placed as it will automatically present itself at the top of the page).
Hi everyone - It would be appreciated if anyone who has a few minutes could poke their heads into Illegal immigration. A new user has just removed a significant amount of info (70,000 kb and 100 references) and then nominated the article at GAN. A couple of us have already expressed our opinion of this on the talk page, but I need to go offline now, so more eyes on the situation would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer ( talk) 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
2012 Core Contest | |
Let it be known that the third incarnation of the Wikipedia Core Contest will take place from August 1 to 31 2012 CE/AD..... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:32, 26 June 2012 (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. |
This is a little silly as they will all fail GA. Can someone just close them all? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. The high-quality media from this session will probably be used to illustrate current or future GAs, hence my message here. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone deleted the Miscellaneous section at some point in the last couple of days. I just tried to put it back, but the bot reverted me. Can someone who understands the coding please fix this? Dana boomer ( talk) 02:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Do we accept IP reviewers? If we do, what is to stop someone from reviewing their own nomination? I have noticed that at WP:GAC#Education both nominees have IP reviewers ( Talk:Manav Rachna College of Engineering/GA1 and Talk:The Doon School/GA1). Somehow, the latter nomination has triggered this Wikipedia:Good articles/recent edit.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Update; I think it is safe to say there is little to no support for my proposal. I appreciate the willingness of editors to have this discussion, which I think was helpful for the project. (No hard feelings) Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 22:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor -- whether with good intentions or not -- has nominated 25 articles for GA review. It is very unlikely that he/she will be able to respond to all GA review feedback and as the editor in question is not a primary contributor to any of those articles, he/she probably will not be able to respond effectively to suggested areas of improvement. Moreover, 25 nominations at the same time drown out other editors' submissions; these may have had more focus and time spent on them (as there are only so many one can focus on at a time), and thus such excessive nominations delays reviews of diligent people.
With this understanding, I wish to seek consensus on a limit on how many nominations an editor can submit or have pending at the same time.
I propose the following rule: "Editors should not nominate more than 10 articles for Good Article Review at the same time. Nominations in excess may be subject to quick-fails and/or delayed consideration of the review".
Lastly, note this would at present only affect one or two users. Please see this GA nomination stat.
Regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 03:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(added) I would love to open this discussion into an RfC, but before taking it to the broader community, I want to see what regular GA reviewers and nominators think. If this group disapproves, then there would be no point opening an RfC. On the other hand, if there is strong support, a consensus-driven rule can be implemented in the interim while we await community ratification. Lord Roem ( talk) 03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) It may also be worth considering that in this particular instance (with 25 nominations) the editor has done no work on the articles (or at least the half a dozen that I checked) and his talk page is littered with comments that show he's done this before. It is apparently his habit to show up every few months, nominate a batch of articles for GAN, and then not respond to comments/queries/etc. The articles are reviewed and if they are put on hold, the only way the comments are addressed is if another editor steps in to pick up the slack. So, in this instance, it seems to be more one particular "problem" editor, rather than a flaw in the process. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: I don't actually see an issue here. If nobody steps up to take the reviewer's notes and work on actually bringing the articles up to the standard, they will fail. If the articles are bad enough, they won't take much time; if they are close to GA, the reviews will make the further nominations take less time to cope with. In the end, this turns out to be a relatively harmless time-shifting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 18:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I have two thoughts:
Support This is not really a single user problem. The Bali nine were all nominated at once, about a dozen albums/songs of Mercy Me were waiting for review at the same time as well as a heap of codex articles. This is just from memory before the drive began. Every other site wide quality improvement project (DYK, FA, PR) have ways to limit the number of nomiations that can be put forward at once and it is probably about time something similar is put in place here. I would support a limit and it may be a good idea to put it up for RFC to get wider input. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I support the idea of a limit. It does not need to be a limit of 1 article at a time, managing two or three at a time shouldn't be very hard and shouldn't create problems in the whole system, but 25 is something else and the limit should be established somewhere. And if someone wants a "personal queue", a reminder of new articles to nominate as the nominations are approved, they don't need an external system for doing so, a list in their own user page would be enough. After all, it would be a highly subjetive and personal list. Cambalachero ( talk) 02:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Is fair to call me the disruptive user and problem editor only because I nom many articles that already GA standard or very close? In past, many articles I nom pass without hold and very few fail without hold, those on hold, at least half passed in the end. Delete all the noms from me and limit number of noms, will minus growth of GA process, many articles which are GA standard do not get the GA, the GA count not accurate. Also will add systemic bias, because the 25 articles about Singapore law and politics, and limit the good writers who nom many articles because they see backlog, they know the noms will take long time to get review. For my noms, why not ask Jacklee (lawyer who write the articles) to help answer reviews? If you want stop noms from people who do not answer reviews, but no account still can nom, how can? -- Kaypoh ( talk) 04:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Support and set the limit to something absurd, like 10 or higher. -- Rs chen 7754 04:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose any limit below 30 The problem with a limit is it prohibits editorial contributions from the most prolific editors. Few people who exceed 10 noms at a time are nominating quick fails, in my experience. Those that are can be discouraged from numerous simultaneous noms without policy.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the right place to report it, but I just commented on Czarkoff ( talk · contribs) (sig:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff) review at Talk:10 złotych note/GA1. Per my comment there, the article suffers from numerous issues which he failed to spot. Some may be minor, but some are not and are quite serious (like the use of an obvious Wikipedia fork in references). Like everybody else, I appreciate good faithed attempts to help us with the reviews, but I am afraid Dmitrij is not familiar enough with Good Article requirements to carry out reviews at this point. The above article clearly does not meet GA criteria, and I am afraid if this is an example of review quality by him, we have to review all other reviews he has done. Dmitrij, please note that we appreciate your efforts, but you need to be more strict and look at more details in your reviews. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, is the article going to be delisted? I've removed the copyvio section btw. VolunteerMarek 18:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Iḿ currently reviewing the SMS Pillau article, and I spotted the "click for a larger view" part of an image's caption (with a link from the word "click" to the image on Wikimedia Commons). I have a feeling that it's an inappropriate to have such things in a caption (per WP:CAP), but the nominator insists on this. Any suggestions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
For the record: I removed the "click for a larger view" caption and passed the article. I urge everyone to check for these captions and remove them as a minimum for the article to pass on 6b criterion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 10:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm really in doubt, as this part of caption was removed, re-added, removed again and re-added again (this time right after the article was passed without the disputated part of caption). Should I perform a procedural de-listing of the article as it now fails criterion #5 (Stable)? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Could a bot possibly be coded - and I do not think its technically difficult - to notify the nominator of a GA that it has been reviewed - the initial step. It's easy to miss that your article has been reviewed because it isn't on your watchlist yet. The nominator is already a widely-used parameter on the talk page, and GAbot knows when it's been reviewed, so it could be tagged onto that or merely use the same ifexists-type thing that GAbot uses (I'm guessing). Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 09:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed an article ( 2011 Virginia earthquake) for GA status back on January 3, made my recommendations known on the review page, no changes were made in the 48 hour window (actually it was more like 96 cause I forgot,), so I failed the review and removed it from the GAN page. The bot added it right back to the GAN page just two minutes later, but that is my goof. Only found out today that I needed to remove the template from the talk page...'nother goof. Well, over the course of the past couple days, User:Mikenorton made all the changes for that I recommended and I told him to put it back through at GAN. Though I have failed the article and if there are no objections to me doing so, I would be glad to promote the article to GA status. Again, if there are no objections. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The majority of the 24 remaining nominations from kaypoh ( talk · contribs) were created by students of the Singapore Management University Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project. Kaypoh does not appear to be affiliated with the course and the students have since finished with the articles and are in the middle of another semester. The supervisor is not too happy about so many being nominated at once, but is willing to help out, time permitting (see User talk:Smuconlaw#Singaporean politics Good article candidates). It would probably be a good idea to ping smuconlaw ( talk · contribs) on his talk page if you have any concerns when reviewing these articles. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Can I get a bit of community insight?
I reviewed Catenary on the 18th December, and the nominee has been working on the article pleasantly, I was lax on the timing given the holidays and a week ago we argreed a deadline of today. Now, in my opinion the lede still isn't up to scratch (I could fix much of the other issues myself in a couple of hours) and I think I should probably fail the article, but this would be my first (non-straightforward) fail and I'd like the opinion of this board before I do - would anyone mind having a quick look and giving the opinion? (I took some general advice from Quadell earlier on - I mention for completeness rather than anything else). There's also the small issue that the blackout should probably warrant an additional day...
Any other GA-based developement points also welcome. Failedwizard ( talk) 13:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking at all the recent broken edit summaries, is it possible to put the bot on a 10 minute cycle instead of a 15 minute cycle?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
What is the procedure to follow if the GA1 page was created improperly, i.e. by the same person who added the {{
GA nominee}}
to the talk page? The specific case is
Elisabeth Sladen and
Talk:Elisabeth Sladen/GA1. The {{
GA nominee}}
was added by
Sfxprefects (
talk ·
contribs) who then created the
Talk:Elisabeth Sladen/GA1. This was then deleted under
WP:CSD#G2 (test page), with no further explanation. I then restored it, as it had appeared to be a fair start to a GA1 although I hadn't spotted that the nominator and reviewer were one and the same. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
GAReview}}
suggests a confused bot, and that simply deleting the GA1 page is not the proper action. Further advice would be welcome. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Some new subsections were added to the page, but not to the list in the instructions. Was the bot changed to accomodate these new subsections or should we revert?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 09:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a bit of a mess at Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/GA1. The readers digest version is: I rewrote the page and nom'd it for GA. Someone I had been in a dispute with on the page earlier created the review put it on hold. Another reviewer dropped by and said he was willing to do an objective review. I'm a little unfamiliar with the GA procedure here, but would like to have the second reviewer cleared to take over the review. I had resolved to disengage from the article due to what I see as disruptive editing by one party, but am willing to work to fix any issues identified in a GA review. Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
As of today's morning the El Chico del Apartamento 512 article was the longest waiting one (in queue since September 15). I started its review on January 7, but failed to finish it before my vacation (starting January 21). As some issues are already addressed, finishing review might be an easy task, so I would like to ask someone to do that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 18:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I nominated M-36 (Michigan highway) on January 15. A reviewer put it "on hold" (corrected by the bot to "on review") without a review about 15 hours later. On January 21, I pinged the reviewer [[[User:Rahulmothiya|Rahulmothiya]] ( talk · contribs)] to see if s/he was still interested in doing the missing review. Two days later, I pinged again, and was told it would be done "today"; as of this writing, there is still no review a day later. (All times are UTC; the reviewer is in India and I'm in the US.). Am I expecting too much to have a timely review? Imzadi 1979 → 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to inform everyone here that the template {{ Harvard citation}} is now undergoing TFD, and the nominator intends to nominate the rest of the Harvard citation templates for deletion in case of success. This probably means that all the reviews of the articles using these templates should probably be put on hold until the issue is solved there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 22:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What do editors think about splitting the music and theatre, film and drama categories into smaller groups. Something similar was brought up a month ago at WT:GA#Spliting over populated categories, but is more likely to get responses here. Personally I like the idea of splitting songs out of music and episodes out of theatre, film and drama. They are usually the largest categories and splitting them this way is pretty distinct and should roughly halve them; currently resulting in an exact split for music and 35 episodes (mostly X-files) vs 22 other theatre, film and drama articles. I also admit that this type of split would suit me as I have no real desire to review most songs or episodes making it easier to find articles I am more interested in. It should also work in reverse for editors who want to review these sorts of articles. I am thinking it would be relatively easy to implement, a change to the bot and some minor adjustments when nominating. AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
When I wrote this I was referring specifically to the GAN page, but would also support the refinement of at least the songs and episodes list at GA. I don't know if we are at the stage where we need to split the categories to the level of GA just yet, it might be better to concentrate on the more overpopulated ones first. As to implementation I was thinking it would just be a case of making new headings here, updating the GA bot, and then informing/reminding nominators until they get used to the change. I have just left a message informing the bot operator about this discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Some positive support and no one has disagreed yet. If no one objects in the next few days I will look into enacting the change. The proposal based on the above will at this stage be to have three subcategories under music (songs, albums and other) and two under tf&d (television episodes and other). AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Chris G ( talk · contribs) made a change and I've done some recategorisation. There are a few problems right now.
I think the first problem is the most pressing, and so working out a way to display the whole thing intuitively on the GAC page should be the first priority. J Milburn ( talk) 18:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares from 2012-01-06 to 2012-01-13. During the review I outlined the most basic issues with the article (like missing references, formatting breakages, basic prose issues), fixed some minor reference-related issues myself and failed the nomination after 7 day timeout of no activities. Now I notice that the article is nominated again by the same person and with no single edit since my review. What is the due process in this case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The nominator, Philcha, has been among the most dedicated long-term contributors to GA. Sadly, for several years now, he has been suffering from a chronic illness limiting his ability to edit. I do not know the nature of the illness or whether it is terminal, but it is likely to be wiki-terminal in the sense that his ability to contribute has been rapidly declining over these few years. Nevertheless, he apparently remains dedicated to the goal of achieving GA status for Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares, despite the fact that the article requires more work, and he is not able to do it. What we do here could be a defining moment for the spirit of GA.
I offer all my help towards option 2. What do others think? Geometry guy 01:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Back to the topic at hand...I loved MOO2. I'll look maybe tonight sometime tomorrow.....terrible to hear about Philcha.
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs)
03:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Although GA bot ( talk · contribs) may understand the changes, StatisticianBot ( talk · contribs) is ignoring all the Arts articles in WP:GANR lists.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I have given out awards for the December 2011 backlog drive. However, some users had their reviews flagged by me and I would appreciate a volunteer or two providing 2nd opinions on those. Please see the awards thread on the drive talk page for information. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 23:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I submitted my first GAN, " Yes/No", using the "|subtopic=Episodes" parameter, as the instructions say, but when I went to look, the bot had put it in the "Other" catchall section of Theatre, film and drama, not the "Episodes" section. So it's getting into the correct subtopic, but not getting placed into the correct, specified sub-subsection. Any ideas what went wrong, and how it can be prevented from happening again? BlueMoonset ( talk) 06:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Addendum: I forgot to clarify that when I saw it had been placed wrong, I moved it by hand from "Other" to "Episodes", which is why it's in the correct sub-subsection now. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Further addendum: The GA Bot just moved it back to "Other". Can someone who knows what's causing this problem fix things so "Yes/No" will be placed in "Episodes" and stay there? Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 07:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Just a further note here, the Report page apparently has yet to recognise the new subtopics on the nominations page (for instance, not counting nominations listed under the new subtopics when compiling its list of "longest reviews" or "most nominations", etc). Haven't the first clue about fixing it though. GRAPPLE X 20:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
NSB Di 6 ( review) has undergone a review, the reviewer came with good comments and I have amended them accordingly. Despite nagging, and the reviewer stating that the article meets the criteria, the reviewer is not willing to pass the article, ask for a second optioning (or fail it for that matter). Could someone please take a look at it. Thanks, Arsenikk (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just finished Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore and once its peer review ends, the article will go on GAN. Which section should I place its nomination in? Asking because I plan to write GAs about other Singaporean charities catering to special needs people. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Bot requests#Bot owner not responding about what to do if StatisticianBot is not fixed. If we get no response from the owner soon it is likely that this bot will be blocked. There is also the possibility of getting a new bot to update the reports page. If it goes ahead it might be a good opportunity to request some changes/additional features for the bot. For starters I think it would be nice if the links on the page went to the actual GA reviews when possible and if there was a way to identify new reviewers. I don't know whats possible, but it can't hurt to ask. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is StatisticianBot ( talk · contribs) ignoring and removing {{ nobots}} at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items? Does anyone know how to edit its code so that it can account for all the recent WP:GAC modifications?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, StatisticianBot should properly update the report again now, with all the correct categories covered! I've run a test report which you can take a look at on User:StatisticianBot/Sandbox5. The bot will run as normal at 09:00 UTC as always - if it doesn't update properly please let me know ASAP! As well, the bot should now properly adhere to {{ nobots}} (and its variants). — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 05:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It's only a minor issue, but the bot for some reason put Missoula, Montana under the subheading Geography instead of Places where it makes more sense. I tried to fix it, but the bot simply put it back. Thanks Dsetay ( talk) 07:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that Raunaq.sarcar ( talk · contribs) reviewed Delaware Route 41 and passed it. However, a review page was not created. I left a message on the talk page advising him about it. Dough 48 72 19:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I failed Sherlock Holmes (play) and GA bot denoted the action with a maintenance edit summaary. This has been happening frequently with passes and fails lately.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I found copyvio in The Dirty Picture. Couldn't check the whole thing because my browser freezes on some citations. I notified the nominator and put it in the copyvio queue. Should it be removed from the GAN queue? MathewTownsend ( talk) 17:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems that StatisticianBot ( talk · contribs) and GA bot ( talk · contribs) are now operating correctly for the most part although I am not sure I agree that when an article goes on review and then is failed in the same 10 minute GA bot cycle it should be chalked up to maintenance. LivingBot ( talk · contribs), continues to have issues with human error. It seems to miss both instances where the reviewer passes the article on its talk page but fails to list it on the proper WP:GA subpage and fails to put a proper topic in the topic field (see Talk:About a Girl (Sugababes song)) as well as instances where even though it is listed on the proper subpage, the reviewer forgot to change the article talk page field from subtopic to topic (see Talk:Non-fatal offences against the person in English law). These are just two very recent examples of human error problems in passing articles. I am wondering about the variety of types of human error in the passing of articles. Most importantly, is there a check for talk pages with the {{ GA}} template that are not listed on any WP:GA subpage?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Should the "Archaelogy" sub-section be merged with the "World history" one? I see no reason to keep a fairly quiet category when we often have a backlog here. DCI talk 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Current page format and numbers of current good articles under each heading (in brackets)
|
---|
|
What about the following format? Nomination topics in bold, subtopics listed beside each nomination topic.
Currently the TOC of WP:GAN shows all sections regardless of the current nominations. Could it be possible for Bot to make empty subsections a level lower then others and tuning TOC to hide them (see Help:Section § Limiting the depth of the TOC). This would give a benefit of showing the choice of current GAN topics in a glance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
And another thing about GA bot. Can it be tuned to notified the subscribed users of the new nominations via talk pages (the way RFC bot does it). It should be possible to tune the notifications on topics via GAN and kind of events. I wanted to go to Wikipedia:Bot requests for this, but may be GA bot would be a right bot to do it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I as considering revieing Narragansett land claim and when I looked at it it was entirely based on publically available court documents - which I would consider primary sources. I would be very reluctant to giving GA status to an article that relied this heavily on primary sources - but I realize that in legal articles the use of court documents is not that uncommon. Is there any precedent for promoting articles with no secondary sources - particularly legal articles? Extra eyes on Narragansett land claims would ge appreciated - perhaps I am being to harsh. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that the page was overhauled this morning. The instructions need to be amended to keep up. Also, are we going revise the WP:GA subpages? If so we will need to revise the section links in each WP:GAC subsection.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Should we call for handcount on whether to revert this latest change?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the last seven edit summaries of Wikipedia:Good article nominations, Hurricane Alma (1966) seems to be messing up User:GA bot. It shows as new in the last seven edit summaries.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I was reviewing Douglas W. Owsley and all was going fine until I found multiple instances of copyvio/close paraphrase in the lede.I posted many instances from the lede on Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 The nominator User:Cindamuse argued extensively that I was wrong, accused me of bad faith etc. Other editors were consulted: User:Worm That Turned and User:Dcoetzee and User:Moonriddengirl. The consensus was that the lede contained unacceptable copyvio/close paraphrasing, as posted on Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 and Moonriddengirl's talk page.
Because of the many instances of close paraphrase/copyvio in the lede (I didn't evaluated the rest of the article because Cindamuse did not feel my findings were valid), and because Cindamuse is now accusing me on multiple pages of bad faith and other things, I didn't think I could continue working with her. I therefore failed the article and suggested that she renominate it and start over with a new reviewer.
Now Cindamuse is deleting Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 from the talk page of Douglas W. Owsley. I have tried to explain to her that the review is part of the article's history and the next reviewer needs to see what happened in the first reveiw. (I had also left some comments on prose problems.) Here is a link to the review in case she deletes it again. [5]
I'm open to any suggestions as to how I could have handled this better. I've reviewed at least 70 article and never had a nominator turn on me before. I admit this has been very stressful.
Best wishes, MathewTownsend ( talk) 11:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that a reviewer placed {{GA|14:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)|topic=|page=1}} on Talk:Paterson's worms/GA1 instead of Talk:Paterson's worms. This caused GA bot to recognize the article as having failed. Meanwhile other editorial actions (either placing {{good article}} on the article page or listing the article at WP:GA) caused LivingBot to recognize the article as having passed. Are there checks in place for {{ GA}} being malplaced on GAC talk pages?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw today that User:He to Hecuba was actually a sockpuppet of a banned user. He promoted an article that I had nominated for GA so I wasn't sure if I should have someone else re-examine the article. It looks like he conducted a few other reviews, as well: [6] [7] [8] [9], is there a specific process that is followed when banned users conduct GA reviews? Mark Arsten ( talk) 20:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
He to Hecuba ( talk · contribs) was discovered to be a sock and had all his submissions deleted. Unfortunately these included some GA reviews. This means that currently there are articles passed as Good without any review and a few article histories with red links.
What is the best way to deal with this? I am away this weekend so unfortunately won't be able to help until Monday. AIRcorn (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I nominated the Saint-Inglevert Airfield article yesterday but its not showing up. The section link from the talk page to the transport section is not working either. I'd appreciate it if someone would sort out any error I may have made with the nom. Mjroots ( talk) 03:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
|subtopic=
field has been filled in with something the bot doesn't recognise.
GRAPPLE
X
03:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone want to review the article? :/ - Till I Go Home ( talk) 12:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any policy or guideline which defines exactly what the qualification for a "major contributor" is? X.One SOS 12:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I just notified User:Chris G, but I think User:GA bot is not running. I just nominated Anthony Davis (basketball) and it did not notice. It has not updated WP:GAC for 4.5 hours, which is an unusually long time.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Some first-time editor created a page to review The Lion King, and obviously never returned to review; now the only thing Talk:The Lion King/GA2 is doing is screw with the "launch GA review" templates in both WP:GAN and Talk:The Lion King. What's the solution, speedy deletion to allow for a fresh relaunch with a proper review, or someone else take over that page? igordebraga ≠ 04:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you please pass on GA how I can nominate. The template "The {{ GAN}} template should be substituted at the top of the article talk page. seems to give me error message. --Philcha
I have sat on this for a while, but with the backlog building up it is probably a good time to bring it out. Like most projects here new members are important to replace those that leave and to generally help keep things running smoothly. It can be daunting though if you have never reviewed a Good article before. So I propose the introduction of a page dedicated to providing advice to reviewers. It will be a cross between a help desk and a noticeboard. I know this one takes on that role in some respects, but I feel a newer reviewer would feel more comfortable asking a question at a page set out solely for that purpose. Another advantage would be that keeping the information in a single place would make searching for answers a lot easier. I know I do that a lot at noticeboards before asking a question.
A few things still need to be sorted. The scope should probably be made clear. I think it should be solely for asking questions about the process and should make clear that it is not the place to request reviews, propose changes to the criteria or to argue over whether an article is Good ( WP:GAN, WP:GACR and WP:GAR are available for that). If it is adopted I would like to advertise it (at least at the top of WP:GAN and in the screen that appears when you create a GA review). The most important thing for this to work is that editors are willing to watch the page and respond to any questions answered. Nothing would be worse than having this page and then no one answers or the same person each time.
I would like to incorporate a FAQ into this page too. I am thinking of using the one at the top of this talk page for starters. Dividing it up into sections that relate to the criteria could be a useful way to set it out (i.e "Alt text is not required for images" under the "Illustrated, if possible, by images" section). Any questions, thoughts or ideas? I have made a mock-up of how I think the page should be presented at User:Aircorn/Good Article mentor (the title will change to Wikipedia:Good article help desk if accepted). Feel free to edit it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The GA review of this article is not properly transcluded in the talk page. The reviewer had transcluded it manually when they reviewed the article for the first time. Further edits to the review were not reflected on the talk. I tried purging the talk page, no changes yet. Thanks in advance. — Vensatry (Ping me) 07:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The talk page states that the article was listed/delisted, but does not link to the discussions. Where can I find those discussions? Smallman12q ( talk) 03:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I nom's "MOO II" in late 2011 but there' no sign that this for review. What is not OK?
Please also check that I nom of "Warcract: Orge vs Humans" in the QU. -- Philcha ( talk) 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Please tell me whether an article I nominated for FL belongs there or here at this section. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the current instructions in "How to nominate an article", step 1 says "Find the most appropriate subsection/subtopic from those listed on the right." The two available under "Theatre, film and drama" are "Episodes" and "Other theatre, film and drama articles". However, when the latter is used, the article is shunted into "Miscellaneous".
I initially thought the problem on "Pamela Barnes Ewing" was that the nominator had added an extra comma in "Other theatre, film and drama articles", but when the comma was removed, the article remained in "Miscellaneous". Not until I changed the subtopic to "Theatre, film and drama", the topic, as had been the instructions previously, did the article get placed properly under "Other theatre, film and drama articles".
Can this be fixed so "Other theatre, film and drama articles" works as advertised? (And the "Other music articles" subtopic should probably also be checked to make sure it is set up to work properly.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey folks. User:Ocaasi has organized an opportunity for Wikipedians to get free access to a large online database. Here's the breakdown:
Might help you with your next GA. The Interior (Talk) 18:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Is this article long enough for any chance GA? -- BCS ( t · c · !) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:GAC has not been updated since 23:01. I have promoted one GAC to GA ( Dan Leno) and nothing has happened.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not at all sure what should be done, but User:Stausifr, who originally nominated Tamil Nadu for GAN—the GAN template was badly malformed, and I had to fix it on the article's talk page, which is why I've been paying attention—has just started a review of the article.
I think this is someone who is not clear on how this works: the review page says "The article complies with all the qualities to be a good article. Please add your comments and views whether or not the article can become a good article." Still, I suspect the review itself needs to be stopped so a new reviewer can take care of it.
Can someone who is versed in such matters take care of this? I have no experience in how to deal with a GAN gone so bizarrely awry. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been going GA reviews as I probably should have been, maybe grabbing one or two the past couple months. I figured it would have again plateaued at 350 or so as it did before the last backlog drive. Instead, I see 415 articles waiting for a review and very few reviews actually taking place (for once abandoned GAs don't seem to be most of the number, so there's that at least).
I know this is brought up every few months, but after taking a hiatus, seeing those kinds of numbers actually intimidates me away from doing more; is there a way to get more reviewers in that we could think up that hasn't been discussed ten times prior? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This may have only a minimal impact on the backlog, but what about having a bot done up? One that scans new nominations for maintenance templates and scans references for dead links. If it finds one, it would withdraw the nomination (rather than quick fail) and leave a note for the nominator outlining such problems and asking they be fixed before renomination. Someone could also possibly write a script that checks for some basic things - close paraphrasing of live references, status of images, and the like. Would that help speed up reviews/make it easier for newer reviewers to perform this task? Reso lute 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Probably we could duplicate the nomination info in the interested WikiProjects, so that the active members could easier discover the nominations. This requires quite a massive change in bots and some discussion on per-WikiProject basis, but it could work. Effectively, if this suggestion was implemented and the bot compiled a nomination log ("date: article1, article2...") I would patrol the log to make sure all relevant WikiProjects are aware of relevant GAs. As this change would also benefit WikiProjects, I think it could work. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel the need to award an editor with a WP:BARNSTAR for specifically great development of the article (eg. the editor alone expanded hopeless stub into a good article). As I noticed, some other reviewers are giving awards even more frequently. Though The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is OK, may be we should have a specific project-approved barnstar like this one? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 14:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I started the discussion about adding "watch the review" link to {{ GA nominee}} on its talk page. Comments are welcome. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 05:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | I have some opinion (and suggestions) on GA nomination process, but, I have noticed the comment of
User:Wizardman in a
related thread
Okay so, I'll try to concentrate on detailing in my post (but, I'll try to keep it too the point too). I'll appreciate adding a {{TB}} template in my talk page if anyone replies! Tip: If you do not have time, skip to bottom of my post and read "Suggestions" only, but, in first few paragraphs, there are some good arguments too, IMO! |
Abuse of Nominations
I feel only a regular editor / major contributor should have the right to nominate the article. Or, we should make some changes in the process!
Explanation
See
Talk:Indian_Railways, the person who has nominated the article has hardly 2-3 edits in the article (and I doubt if he personally read the article completely or not). I have not started reviewing (not going to review), but, on the first look I found, the article has 7-8 dead refs, the article will need many more additional citation, Indic script should be removed according to recent consensus etc. In short, the article is not properly ready for GA. I feel the regular editors of the article will feel same!
And here is the problem, suppose you, I and some people are continuously working hard to improve an article, and we know we can make it a Good article in next few months, and also suppose we have some plannings and strategies too to improve the article.
But, suddenly, bang! A newbie in the article will come in and without even reading the article or discussing with anyone, he will nominate it for GA.
Problems
Suggestion
Here are my suggestions
Thank you! --
Tito Dutta
(Send me a message)
01:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment from
Mo Rock...Monstrous
Just to play devils advocate I will point out a few similar cases to the list above.
3 out of the 4 cases all passed GA while it's not always an ideal situation there are times when a nomination from a "non-regular" editor results in the article reaching GA status when they otherwise would not have.--
Mo Rock...Monstrous
(leech44)
02:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment from
WhatamIdoing
Comment from Ruby
Comment from
Tito Dutta
See, the situation when two editors that initially have pretty opposite thoughts have to come to some consensus over procedural issue is potentially more troublesome then the situation of pending review with pre-existing negative second opinion from an involved editor. In fact, if the opinion has proper grounds, the nomination may be quick-failed, so the real overload of WP:GAN is minimal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 20:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In this case, User:Tomtomn00 did the GAN, and then started the review a minute later..
This happened with another user recently, and someone here took care of it. Whoever does so, let me know whether you're dropping a note on Tomtomn00's talk page about the problem, or if you'd like me to do so. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 11:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I ask because I considered reviewing it, but felt that an in depth review was needed, especially as the writer is a student ("This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Alberta—Augustana Campus supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term."). It's a psychology article and should follow WP:MEDRS. A major source for the article is a study of chimpanzees. MathewTownsend ( talk) 17:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
GA review
Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi/GA2#Clarification_please
In the article, they have written like this:
I suggested to write full name of these people since - surname like Watson etc is very common. One editor feels a) Full name is included in Reference section! b) "scholarly articles do not usually include information on the author's first name or status as "researcher". (Also note there is not any Wikipedia articles on most of these scholars or they are not linked). Any opinion? -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The nominator and main editor of " Pilot (Sports Night)" has sign up to review it. Am I missing something?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that <the nominator is the reviewer, and have already passed the article. This needs a proper review, I assume the nominator is AGF confused with regards to the procedure. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Wisdomtenacityfocus ( talk · contribs), the nominator of Joe's Garage, has just been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet before I could finish the review. Should I still finish the review? My gut says I should finish it regardless of who nominated it, and give it a fair go. What say you? Viriditas ( talk) 02:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
For reasons I don't quite understand, GA1, which had been failed by Puffin last year, was reopened on April 18 by reverting the talk page to its pre-fail state by the same Puffin. There were edits to the article later that day and since, but the fact that the article was failed has been erased.
It seems to me that the article should have been submitted for a completely new GAN. Right now it appears that the article has simply remained on hold for 179 days. Something definitely needs to be done here, but I'm not sure how—if we copy the current GA1 contents with the new updates as a GA2, and restore the GA1 result, then who gets credit for the second nomination? BlueMoonset ( talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This editor User:Philades passed there own articles as a GA in 2009 in these edits [12]. I have removed it. Are there processes in place now to prevent / detect this sort of activity?-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
At Talk:Alaska Airlines/GA1, it appears the nominator is reviewing their own GAN. Dough 48 72 03:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to split these two? Biology and medicine are two very different fields. It would make things easier to follow. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Can someone help tackle the articles that have been waiting four months for a review, eight of them to be exact? I'm doing my best to hit them, but my wiki time is limited and the increasing backlog is taking its toll mentally. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Should we require that the nominator has made a minimum number of edits to Wikipedia as a whole before nominating an article for GA? Discussion is here [14] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I would support something like this as someone should not be nominating articles in their first few edits. Although at this stage I don't know what the minimum number of edits should be and how this would be enforced. AIRcorn (talk)
It appears the bot removed a bunch of nominations from the page randomly. Dough 48 72 21:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I want to add this text in 5.Stable in
Template:GATable in
Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/GA2:
On 23 March [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=483547628&oldid=483512859 a large portion was deleted] which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=483549386&oldid=483547628 fixed on the same day]. If we see [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&action=history article's history], we'll notice editors of this article are constantly working to improve the article. <br/>Comparison of article versions:<br/>*[http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=490479154&oldid=479887271 3 March and 3 May– time difference 2 months]<br/>*http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=490479154&oldid=485313547 3 April and 3 May— time difference 1 month]<br/>So, it can not be said, the content of the article does not change by day to day. But, an article which gets more than 300,000 digital footprints each months, it is not very uncommon. And most of these edits in last two months are constructive. I'd like to give a ¾ pass here.--~~~~
In the template it is told, Put "3=" at the beginning of any comment containing such a url, else it shows Pending... but where should I put this "3=" exactly? Wherever I am putting this I am getting text "pending". Can anyone help? Feel free to test in the
Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/GA2 page! --
Tito Dutta
Message
03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
RomeAntic14 ( talk · contribs) has attempted to promote Selena Gomez, Rihanna, " TTYLXOX", and " Something to Dance For" to WP:GA this weekend without putting any of them through the WP:GAC process. I have reverted article, talk page and Wikipedia:Good articles/recent edits for all instances. Please help me keep an eye on this guy.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking it might be useful to make the quickfail criteria more obvious. So far it is mentioned in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, but I propose moving it to its own section of the criteria. This could be one way of encouraging the reviewers' willingness to fail articles that don't meet the criteria ( mentioned above). I also proposed some rewording of the proposal at the talk page, which so far has not got any response.
I have also recently requested a clean up listing of GAN nominations here. It could be useful in finding article that may meet the quickfail criteria. Caution should be used however as it is only updated once a week so some tags might no longer be present and it includes tags that fall outside the criteria. Also some articles are tagged after nomination either by reviewers or other concerned editors and time should be allowed for these to be addressed by the nominator. It is useful for finding those articles nominated with outstanding tags. I have commented on the talk page of some of the worst offenders. AIRcorn (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to request a second reviewer for Talk:Wildwood (novel)/GA1. This didn't work; the bot deleted it. So I changed the talk page template and next thing you know the Bot has passed it. Why? Can somebody explain? How do I fix it? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
So, is there a procedure for requesting a second opinion on a nomination that hasn't passed yet? As ChrisGualtieri and I (one of the main contributors, though not the nominator who has disappeared from the radar) have a difference of view as to whether " Presidential Council for Minority Rights" lacks neutrality, I think a fresh pair of eyes might be helpful. — SMUconlaw ( talk) 10:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The bot is down, I have lefty a note on the operators talk page.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
12:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The bot's not down, but right now it's going insane, taking off 5kb and re-adding it back in 10 minutes later seemingly randomly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Those issues should now be resolved. There are however some other issues relating to the accuracy of the edit summaries which I am still working on. Sorry. -- Chris 06:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
(moved from AN) Structuration was passed as GA recently, and sent to GAR. The reviewer at GAR ( Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Structuration/1) said, "The article was created as a student project and was then promoted to GA by the student's supervisor. I think this is procedurally problematic. Two other editors made comments during the GAN which do not appear to have been addressed." A copy edit was requested immediately afterward, which brought up a lot of issues (see Talk:Structuration#Copyedit).
The promotion to GAN seems extremely problematic and out of process. Since process was so egreigously bypassed here, could this not be "speedy delisted" without having to sit in the GAR queue? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it time to do something about student nominated GAs. While I would be happy nuking them entirely we need some way to at least separate the wheat from the chaff. AIRcorn (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
User:FocalPoint left this note
on my talk page, not noticing the banner stating that I am on holiday until 12 June, so perhaps someone else would like to step in? Jezhotwells ( talk) 15:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems that Hahc21 ( talk · contribs) is picking fights with me about my WP:GAC nominations in the WP:SONG area. He has quickfailed both " Cat Daddy" (and started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Daddy) and " Zou Bisou Bisou" in a manner that leads me to believe he wants to pick a fight rather than evaluate the content. Having been through several hundred WP:GAC reviews. I know the difference between fair evaluations and unfair ones. I am renominating " Cat Daddy without making any changes and will be considering doing the same for " Zou Bisou Bisou" to the article and posting notice of my decision to do so here for all to see.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
This is something that some might consider obvious and unnecessary, while others might think it's not so obvious. Therefore it should be stated explicitly that reviewers create a conflict of interest when they rewrite too much of an article during review, and so should request a second reviewer if they have made more than WP:MINOR edits. This is not to limit the right of anyone to edit; it's a (soft) limit on the role of reviewer. Suggested changes in red:
When choosing an article to review, keep in mind:
Review carefully—see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for more advice. You may also wish to consult a mentor.
[...no changes...] |
[...] |
[...] |
![]() If you are unsure whether an article meets the Good article criteria, or have become a significant contributor to the article, you may ask another reviewer or subject expert for a second opinion:
|
Boldly make the change? Support? Oppose? Different wording? Needs an Rfc? My sense is it's a fairly trivial change and should be done unless significant opposition appears. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Suggested rewrite (if we need to spell it out):
WP:MINOR is quite detailed and widely understood. Reviewers can avoid getting into questionable gray areas by trying hard to confine themselves to suggestions on the review page and letting the nominator and others carry them out. This serves the important goal of coaching nominators on how to write better articles. If the reviewer does all the work themselves, it undermines the learning process. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why, and give suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not immediately meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. Consider If a problem can be resolved in a short period. If so, place the review "On Hold" and allow time for the nominator or others to fix the problem(s) and then re-review. For minor edits, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. If a significant rewrite or reorganization is needed, an "On Hold" may not be the appropriate action. After the review is complete and closed, you may choose to improve the article yourself. An article that has been awarded GA and has undergone a significant rewrite or reorganization may need to be resubmitted to WP:GAN. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
This whole section is getting somewhat confused. I'd like to step back and check where all the text is coming from. There is Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and there is Wikipedia:Good article nominations. This appears to have all come from Wikipedia:Good article nominations, so I'll consider that first. Having working your way down Steps 1 to 4 of "How to review an article" of Wikipedia:Good article nominations the nomination has already been passed or failed, and the nominator informed. So this particular paragraph, i.e.
Where the article meets the Good article criteria, you might like to consider making suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. If a problem is easy to resolve, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself.
is explanation / clarification.
It could be dumped and the existing Review carefully—see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for more advice. You may also wish to consult a mentor be left in place. That might or might not suit "MF".
I could also try this editorial excursion: delete "Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why" and substitute: "Firstly, assess the nomination against Good article criteria and make a judgement as to whether it is complaint. If it does, justify those conclusions".
The explanation then becomes:
Firstly, assess the nomination against Good article criteria and make a judgement as to whether it is complaint. If it does, justify those conclusions"and give suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not immediately meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. Consider If a problem can be resolved in a short period. If so, place the review "On Hold" and allow time for the nominator or others to fix the problem(s) and then re-review. For minor edits, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. If a significant rewrite or reorganization is needed, an "On Hold" may not be the appropriate action. After the review is complete and closed, you may choose to improve the article yourself. An article that has been awarded GA and has undergone a significant rewrite or reorganization may need to be resubmitted to WP:GAN.
Is that any better ? Pyrotec ( talk) 11:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I find it very hard believe that they only way to unclog the GA queue is for the reviewers to shoulder most of the editing. That seems like a very odd, and improbable situation. Are typical nominators really that incompetent? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see where this discussion is going. Especially in the light of: "I and several others feel that the integrity of GA review also matters. Self-review, and self-promotion to GA status, is a conflict of interest. An editor whose only goal was to improve articles could lurk in the GA queue and, rather than doing reviews, could jump in and assist the nominators in correcting any problems the reviewer notes. They'd be free to edit in any way without a conflict of interest, and could accomplish their goal of getting articles to pass, without creating the awkward appearance of impropriety in giving a pass to their own writing. Plus, unburdened from the role of reviewer, they could spend all their time on article improvement. I find it very hard believe that they only way to unclog the GA queue is for the reviewers to shoulder most of the editing. That seems like a very odd, and improbable situation. Are typical nominators really that incompetent?"
Pyrotec ( talk) 21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of seeking help. I mean, couldn't we develop a tool so we can post somewhere which GANs are abandoned and finding someone willing to help? (just an idea). About the "quick" reviewers: I think that quality doesn't mean quantity. If you spend 14 days reviewing an article, that doesn't mean your review is way better than another that only took 3 days. The quality depends on the understanding the reviewer has of the GA process, the experience and/or expertise he/she have achieved from past reviews, and many other factors such as article length, the quality of the article pre-nomination and so on. So, i'm confident that the idea of "quick" as bad review should be treated on a case-by-case basis, just as happened recently with an user. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 00:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I need a hand on this. I've been reviewing the article The Great Otis Redding Sings Soul Ballads but some improvements were needed. I put the article on hold for 7 days, which finalized yesterday May 24. So, reviewing it again, i don't think it meets the GA criteria, but i have some kind of doubts about how to explain why it fails. So, if someone could take a look at the article an comment, i'd be thankful. I'm not sure about asking for a second opinion, so i'd like to receive some feedback first. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 03:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Pyrotec ( talk) 16:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Well. I've had some problems in the past with TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) and seems he is causing a lot of trouble through all Wikipedia with the "X on Twitter" articles. Now, we have Justin Bieber on Twitter and Lady Gaga on Twitter nominated for Good Articles. I think, as a discussion is being held on WP:ANI about the need of existence of those "X on Twitter" articles on Wikipedia, to prevent such articles from being nominated until a conclusion is reached. Comments are very welcomed, please. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 22:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Notability is not a criteria and instabilty does not occur because an article is being discussed on a talk page. In the future it would be nice if a note is left for potential reviewers if a discussion is being held on a Wikipedia page other than the articles talk that might impact the review. If you come across an article here you don't think should be in the encyclopaedia the best thing to do is to nominate it at WP:AFD. AIRcorn (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think this was a speedy pass; at least I cannot find the review anywhere? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Oakley77 reviewed one article on May 10, and is on his fourth today. I looked at the one from May 10, and it gives me great concern as to the quality of the work:
The following reviews have been started and passed by Oakley today:
A fourth, Talk:Queen's University/GA1 was started at 21:00. I have to go out for the evening now, or I would pursue this further, though I don't know proper procedure in such a case. In any event, my apologies for dropping it in someone else's lap, but this is someone who doesn't seem to understand the GA review process. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
As much as I disagree with these assumptions, I must respect them. I vow that from now on, my GA reviews will be lengthy and detailed. I apologize for any harm my edits have created. I also thank the editors who alerted me to this issue. Please, forgive me. Oakley77 ( talk) 03:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Oakley77 has submitted another bunch of GANs today, none of which he has ever even edited, and most of which still have outstanding tags or are otherwise clearly not ready. I quickfailed tea, but perhaps with some of the others it might be more efficient to rollback/undo the GAN? Sasata ( talk) 20:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is a speedy fail from the same user. It's frivolous, overly informal (and therefore impolite) in tone, and the "reviewer" quickfailed the article without addressing a single issue. A comment below the review indicated that the "reviewer" has a murky history of GA reviews, and then I saw the above discussion, so here we are. Geschichte ( talk) 08:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
[18] - seems he has moved on to FAC. -- Rs chen 7754 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this discussion, and I have to point that this user nominated the article Argentina, which he has never edited, and regardless of the last thread (previous to the nomination) where I mentioned the huge size of the article, nearly 78 KB of readable text (the suggested max is nearly 50 KB), and the need to trim it down, which I am undergoing right now. Only after that step is done it would make sense to go on with a deeper copyedit, checking and improving the references, etc; and only by then it would be time for nominations. Given the context, I removed the nomination: the article is not ready, and we don't need to waste anyone's time to notice something that I (the second highest contributor to the article) already know and work about.
Thing is, there's a similar pattern in other articles: Talk:Didgeridoo, Talk:Hamline University, Talk:Namibia, Talk:Nunavut, Talk:Alhazen, etc. (and that just for May 29). I know that mass nominations are not rejected per se, but considering the context, we should do that as well. Cambalachero ( talk) 02:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
In the light of the above comments and the disruption that Oakley77 is causing to the GA process, I propose the following:
1. Oakley77 is barred from reviewing articles nominated for GA status for a minimum of six months from the closure of this discussion. For the avoidance of doubt, Oakley77 may nominate articles for GA status, and may participate in reviews initiated by other editors.
2. After six months Oakley77 may apply to this talk page for the restriction to be lifted, whereupon a discussion will take place to see if Oakley77 understands and can apply the GA reviewing principles, and a decision will be reached on whether to extend, lift or modify the restriction.
In the light of the above comments and the disruption that Oakley77 is still causing to the GA process and other editors, I propose the following:
1. Oakley77 is barred from nominating any articles for GA status, and barred from commenting on the reviews of articles that others have nominated for GA status, in both cases until at least 25 November 2012.
2. After 25 November 2012 Oakley77 may apply to this talk page for the restriction to be lifted, whereupon a discussion will take place to see if Oakley77 understands and can apply the GA criteria and reviewing principles, and a decision will be reached on whether to extend, lift or modify the restriction.
No, please don't do this. I swear, from now on I will only nominate one article at a time, and will announce my intention on the talk page first as well. I now understand the nominating criteria, so please don't ban me from nominating. I will change, and become a great, textbook nominator. Please. Oakley77 ( talk) 13:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"Great, textbook nominator" s are usually the article writers themselves or at least strongly associated with the article writer's so they are at least informed..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
How did I get a ban on nominating articles to become GAs? I followed procedures well. If i wasn't a major contributor to the article, I contacted the editors first. I only nominated B-class articles, and didn't do anything stupid or untrustworthy. I really don't deserve this. I am committed to the GA cause, and am thrilled to see articles become GAs. Why have I been barred from participating in favorite part about Wikipedia? Also, my bad about placing a notice on the talk page beforehand. I really just forgot about that procedure and will do it from now on. I have been contacting the editors though. I am sorry for anything done wrong, and wish to not only make good on promises (swear to actually), but to try and become a model GA nominator. Also, I am done in the FAC department, I am just going to be in the GAC dept. I am committed to the GA cause, and am thrilled to see articles become GAs. Please, let me participate in my favorite part about Wikipedia again. Oakley77 ( talk) 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
First off, with all respect, that nomination was slightly different from he rest. On my latest ones, I have contacted the editor. I apologize again for anything hassle or disruption those nominations may have caused. I also want to state that I am NOT asking to be allowed to review again, just to NOMINATE. I want to make it clear I am committed to becoming a model nominator, as the guidelines are now crystal-clear to me. Also, I think it would be an excellent idea for me to post possible nomination on this discussion, or an alternative place where possible proposals can be commented on, it would benefit everyone involved. I love the GA process, and would love if I were allowed to be a part of it again. Oakley77 ( talk) 22:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. I really wasn't aware that nominators make the changes, but from now on that will be done too. The only thing I can't do are refs/citations, I just am not learned in that field. Besides that, I can pretty much correct anything the reviwer needs me two. Thanks for filling me in on that. What else do I need to do to become a beloved nominator again? Oakley77 ( talk) 22:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Oakley77, you have 4 open nominations listed the GAN page (The Canterbury Tales, Loch Ness Monster, Alhazen, and Hamline University). Should these be closed or will you do the work, in a timely manner, as requested by reviewers for them to meet GA criteria? maclean ( talk) 22:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, anything requested but citations I will try to complete. Loch Ness Monster has been failed, so that can close, anything else I will do my best to do. Oakley77 ( talk) 00:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
My only active nomination is The Canterbury Tales, and I have helped out the reviewer greatly with things he has asked. As soon as the other nomination's reviews start, I will help that reviewer out too. Oakley77 ( talk) 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
From my very limited knowledge of citations, I just can't be sure. It appears to have a suitable amount of citations, but my guess is just that, an educated guess. Oakley77 ( talk) 12:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for teaching those nuances of the GA nomination process, they were greatly appreciated. I really hope that everyone will realize I am dedicated to the GA cause, and am ready to become a nominator. This citation system, it is now alot clearer. Please gentlemen/women, allow me to be placed again as a GA nominator, with this new understanding now available to me. Oakley77 ( talk) 19:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I would to address some things mentioned above. First off, the only edits I have made to Wikipedia SINCE I have understood the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation have been constructive, or at least I had the mindset of being constructive. It is not therapy, it is dedication. Secondly, nominating articles for the GA process is my favorite thing to do on Wikipedia, and I enjoy seeing articles become GAs. There is lots else I can do and HAVE been doing, but the GAN process is my favorite. Oakley77 ( talk) 22:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Has this been enacted yet? He just tried to nominate Babe Ruth for GA status, even though it's far from meeting criteria. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I see that there have previously been issues with the review style of TeacherA ( talk · contribs) (See here and here for the archives). After a year away he is now back and undertaking a similar, rather unhelpful approach to the process on two articles (see Felix Leiter and Illinois election for further details of his activities. Is there not some way that this guy can be stopped from reviewing without having to have a mentor work with him, or just stopped? In the meantime, is it possible to have a more constructive review undertaken on these two articles? - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little tardy to this party, but I will say that after reading that review of my nomination (the Illinois election), I did think of coming here to ask for advice or a new reviewer. The review provided is very vague and confusing. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There are complaints that no template was used and articles are not being passed. The record shows that I pass nearly all articles and I do use templates. Editors who fail to get quick promotion to GA should not attack the reviewer. Of the two articles mentioned, one (Felix Leiter) is now a GA and the other one is not quite there yet. TeacherA ( talk) 03:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The Hayward, California article is a GA. All the template criteria are met. However, the history of the city since 1899 is covered in only 5 sentences, covering two ideas, one minor. The history from prehistoric times to 1899 has many paragraphs. This is certainly a major, major flaw yet the criteria for GA are met. See, this is why editorial consideration, what I also do, is important. As for the Hayward aritcle, I simply made suggestions and hope the editors fix it. TeacherA ( talk) 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous: if someone wants to undertake a sensible review of the Felix Leiter article to help it improve and iron out any wrinkles, I'll be happy for them to do so and be happy to follow their thoughts and suggestions. In the meantime if this editor could be stopped from reviewing artticles in future until they've grown up a little I'd be grateful. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 04:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1. TeacherA is barred from reviewing articles nominated for GA status indefinitely from the closure of this discussion.
2. After 12 months TeacherA may apply to this talk page for the restriction to be lifted, whereupon a discussion will take place to see if TeacherA understands and can apply the GA reviewing principles, and a decision will be reached on whether to extend, lift or modify the restriction.
Bottom line: TeacherA will co-review articles for GA and discuss it with another reviewer. That reviewer must consider TeacherA's suggestions in good faith but will have final authority on promotion. TeacherA's review work will make the co-reviewer's job quicker since he only needs to review the review. Faster work will help Wikipedia cut the backlog.
Therefore, we the undersigned support...
- Teacher A will work with others for the next 12 months to review GA and only co-review articles for GA. The co-reviewer can look over the review and approve it.
- Articles that Teacher A have reviewed will remain as GA except Hayward, California
- For Hayward, California, Teacher A will wait for an uninvolved user (not voting here or on this issue) to co-review it.
- When Teacher A co-reviews articles, the co-reviewer must act politely and consider all suggestions in good faith but the final decision for GA will rest with the co-reviewer. Nobody can be a co-reviewer if they have commented on this issue.
- This should be a non-confrontational solution, unlike the previous one, which includes a bar and is highly confrontational.
- Support for this proposal only constitutes support for the proposed solution (after the word "Therefore"), which is essentially a co-reviewer proposal.
- Teacher A may complete a GA review if a co-reviewer does not completion review of an article within 3 months of when the GA review is started but Teacher A will proactively seek co-reviewers if the 3 month period is coming to a close.
Putting a bar on someone is very confrontational. Nobody can say it is not. In Wikipedia, when there is disagreement, sometimes a compromise solution is used.
- TeacherA understands that some people are unhappy. Therefore, for the next 12 months, TeacherA will ALWAYS consult with other users before a decision to promote or not is made and the other user's opinion will be the deciding opinion. Because there is a huge backlog, TeacherA will actively seek out consultants, such as seeking out other reviewers, if none visit the article.
SUPPORT - Very non-confrontational, everyone wins, Wikipedia wins. Wikipedia is not a vote but this makes perfect sense. TeacherA ( talk) 01:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Closing discussion as bar enacted.
Bencherlite
Talk
06:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Talk:A Song of Ice and Fire/GA1 has been open for seven weeks. The reviewer User:Sadads initially stated that the review might take a while due to the article length and his upcoming exams, which was okay since it allowed me some more time for copyediting and going on vacation. However, Sadads hasn't been on-wiki for over a month now, and he also hasn't replied to an e-mail I sent him four days ago. Due to the current uncertain situation, I ask an experienced GAN reviewer to close/fail/restart/whatever the current GAN (but leave it in the queue) so that it can be picked up for review by someone else. Thank you. – sgeureka t• c 08:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I've resubmitted Sudan women's national football team for GAN after a quickfail because it does not appear to have been quickfailed against the criteria. Nothing in the review actually referenced the article text. Kaypoh has a history of problems with GAN on their contributions list. Can their actions in relation to the process be reviewed? -- LauraHale ( talk) 07:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I remember, after I nominate many Singapore law articles for GAN, many people complain, but end up, Singapore WikiProject now has 14 more GAs, recognise hard work of Singapore Wikipedians and help counter systemic bias. Now I have new idea, to encourage faster reviews for GANs that counter systemic bias, so encourage Wikipedians to write and nominate GANs that counter systemic bias.
GANs from February that counter systemic bias, help to review faster:
GANs from March that counter systemic bias, help to review faster:
Of course, when encourage Wikipedians to write and nominate GANs that counter systemic bias, must be careful. I see a few GANs about women's football teams in Africa, but they all cannot be broad, do not even list the players, so I fail one. But overall, if more Wikipedians write GANs that counter systemic bias and we reward them by reviewing their GANs faster, is good for Wikipedia.
-- Kaypoh ( talk) 07:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we can as a project do much to counter systemic bias. People are generally going to review and nominate topics that interest them and there is nothing wrong with that. However there is nothing stopping editors trying to counter it at an individual level, although that is in itself a form of bias. Personally I would much rather focus on the so called WP:Vital articles. As for the football teams, I think broadness is a relevant concern, but it would be good for the reviewer to show that more information exists before failing those articles. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The backlog's getting terrible again. might be time to finally have one of these, Either 6/15 to 7/15 or through 7/31. Anyone willing to take the lead if I make the pages? I don't have the free time to take a major role. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, nowhere do I say that the majority of the backlog is due the wikicup. I've been reviewing continuously, apart from a recent break, at GAN for some three and half years so I'm quite familiar with the magnitude of backlog (for those that are not, it can be found here). I also review more than I nominate. Wikicup is possibly just a "bump" on the backlog, but more points are awarded for nominating than reviewing (at GA: 30 points for a pass and 2 for a review) and last year was (I believe) the first time that reviewing was considered at wikicup. Secondly, wikicup takes place over four rounds and no points are gained from GA unless the relevant articles are produced, nominated and passed within the time frame of each round. So wikicup must produce both short term peaks on the general trend; and pressure for short/quick reviews. Thirdly, in the April 2010 backlog elimination drive I did 58 reviews in one month and was second, but there were others who did 50, 40 and 30 (in round figures). I don't believe that many articles were "wrongly" passed or failed, however, some reviews were struck out as the reviews were clearly inadequate, but I do consider that overall effect might have been more quantity than quality. I've never organised a backlog elimination drive but I have participated in several and no drive has ever managed to spot check more than an insignificant fraction of the reviews. Finally, it can also be seem from the Backlog archive that drives only have a relatively short term effect. They bring in reviewers for the elimination drive, and they often appear at the next elimination drive, and so on, but does little in the way of continuity of reviewing. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
So, the veredict was? I have a proposal (that surely will ger rejected but i don't lose anything asking). Maybe, after the drive is done, a team of X users (preferably the drive's reviewers) will oversee 3 random reviews for each participant to verify the quality of the review. This can be done between July 16-20. I'm just proposing ideas. Regards. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, no problem. By now, only Wizardman and me are the reviewers. -- Hahc21 [ TALK][ CONTRIBS 06:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I volunteer to help out too. I took a long break but I've been back editing WP for months now. I'm ready to start helping out in maintenance/janitorial/etc. stuff again now too, so I just did a relatively easy one that's been listed since April.-- William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 23:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
If anyone would like to send messages to previous frequent reviewers or wikiprojects on the drive, that would help greatly. I'll hit up a few that are usually good for this kind of stuff. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I created Talk:Keri Hilson/GA1 a few days ago but did not begin the review until today. Is it eligible for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I've checked all reviews and removed those which doesn't meet the guidelines. I'll be doing this each 2 two or three days.
Hi,
See Talk:Ayrton Senna/GA1. The article was quick failed because the "author of the article has [not] been asked about this. Quick Fail." Is this a valid reason? I don't see a requirement that the nominator must ask the permission of the "author of the article" before nominating.
I think this should be reversed. (Or else the nomination directions changed to made this clearly a requirement.)
Thanks!
MathewTownsend ( talk) 12:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
After helping someone correct their article for GA status I realized it is something I would like to get involved with. Helping people write things better seems to be a gift of mine. I would like to formally request a place in the GA review team <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and blocked Oakley77 ( talk · contribs) for violating his ban [23] from GAN. Talk:Missouri Fox Trotter/GA1 is an example of where he took over a GAN from another nominator without warning. Oakley77 is specifically banned from commenting on any GAN, which would definitely include this obnoxious behavior. -- Rs chen 7754 04:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Beyond the article shown, he violated the ban here and here. Also like here. -- LauraHale ( talk) 05:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Could someone have a look at the recent GA review of The Lokpal Bill, 2011 (see Talk:The Lokpal Bill, 2011/GA1). I have concerns over the fact that it was reviewed by a new editor ( User:India maniac) who registered an account less than ten minutes before passing the article. France3470 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I floated this idea in March (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 16#Help Desk), but it didn't attract any attention. I bring it up again as we currently have the largest backlog I have ever seen here and one way to get sustainable reduction is to get more editors, which this may help encourage. Also we have recently had trouble with editors that do not understand the process and, while this may not have been much use in the above cases, this could be an easy way to improve the quality of reviews. However, for this to work it needs people willing to watch and respond to it. An idea of how it would look is here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless anyone specifically objects I am going to inact this in a week or so. I hope that most of you watching here will at least watch this page. I admit to being a little worried about how well this will work when a proposal for a trophy cabinet gets immediate response while this is largely ignored. However, if it does fail it should be easy enough to remove. AIRcorn (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Am I counting reviews that I shouldn't? It seems I am the only person failing articles.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I finally re-did the numbers in the FAQ to present 2011's average. We're basically holding steady: one more nom on the list each day compared to 2010, and one fewer waiting for a reviewer each day. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
hello,
is there a list of users with the most GAs? If not, how can it be created? Can a bot count all that? It would be interesting to know who are the first. Regards.-- GoP T C N 18:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have developed a draft here: User:Hahc21/List of Wikipedians by Good Articles. Also, i've created the template {{ User:Hahc21/GA Userlist Entry}} to be used when adding data to the table. — Hahc 21 21:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Until i find a workaround, I deleted the first parameter from the table and added the sortable element. Think now it works. If you have no idea, you can leave it blank or write and the template will write {{
n/a}}. I do have my list handily ordered, but you can calmly do the search. You can make the task easy of you search for GAn on your contributions and select that only the Talk namespace to be shown. Then, count the N's —
Hahc
21
22:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It's been indicated that as a part of the current review drive that there are some editors overseeing the reviews that are being done. Are any of them verifying that any passed articles are being listed on WP:GA? I've had to manually list two of my "promoted" nominations myself. In short, an article can't be considered "listed" as a GA until, well, it's listed as a GA.
There seems to be some confusion over what the bot does in the process. In short, it adds new nominations to the section of the queue based on the parameters on the talk page of the article. It also updates the status of nominations, including removing closed nominations (whether passed or failed). It also will add the to the article itself if needed. It does not list the article because the {{
GA}} or {{
ArticleHistory}} templates do not contain the exact subsection of the overall list. That last crucial step is part of the "paperwork" that every reviewer needs to do, and if it isn't done because people thing the bot is doing it, then our list will be out of sync with the supposed status of our articles.
Imzadi 1979
→
00:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Listing the article is the second of three steps, but recently almost all of the articles passed by GAN drive participants from the Transport section have been listed on WP:GA, by their nominators not their reviewers after successful completions of the reviews. Frankly, that's unacceptable. Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)1. Replace {{ GA nominee}} on the article's talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}.[1] The "page=" parameter should be a number only - no letters. Please include "GA" in your edit summary.
2. List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section.[2] Encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves.
3. Add {{ Good article}} to the article (It dosn't matter where this is placed as it will automatically present itself at the top of the page).
Hi everyone - It would be appreciated if anyone who has a few minutes could poke their heads into Illegal immigration. A new user has just removed a significant amount of info (70,000 kb and 100 references) and then nominated the article at GAN. A couple of us have already expressed our opinion of this on the talk page, but I need to go offline now, so more eyes on the situation would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer ( talk) 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
2012 Core Contest | |
Let it be known that the third incarnation of the Wikipedia Core Contest will take place from August 1 to 31 2012 CE/AD..... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |