![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
It looks like the GAnominee is not aware of the small option, per Wikipedia:Talk page templates. Could this be addressed? I didn't want to make the change in case I'm stepping on toes. Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Gicen the discussion above, I realized that what is really needed is a more extensive guide to reviewing Good Articles. I was WP:BOLD and started a Draft version as a subpage of my userpage. The draft can currently be found at: User:Jayron32/Guide to reviewing Good Articles. Please make any changes as you see fit, and leave any comments you have on the talk page. I propose a goal of having the draft finalized within 2 weeks from today (by April 13) and moved to the GA project by that date. Thank you all for your attention to this. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So, can disambiguation pages become good articles? I see no reason why not, but I'd like others opinions. This should be written into policy somewhere. Gutworth 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I see the "law and politics" was separated into the main section and a subsection called "politician biography". But this subsection includes bios of lawyers who are not politicians. Should it also add a subsection for "Lawyer and judge biography"? Wooyi 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone check out why the government agencies sub section is located where it is? Also, the location of the Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Services article is misplaced. Not sure the protocol for moving it. -- Daysleeper47 12:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything you all can do here to encourage reviewers promoting GAs to follow your instructions? Almost every FAC has to be prepped for GimmeBot conversion to {{ ArticleHistory}} by manually searching for and adding the oldid to the GA nom, since very few promoting GAs do that. It's time consuming, and it would really help if reviewers would add it at the time they promote GA. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
New/further discussion, here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This process is so random; will someone please deal with Ronald Reagan, who was passed by a brand new editor and then submitted to FAC within a day. Smells like socks. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The article has become a good article candidate now. May be it should removed from the list of good article nominees. The backlogs here are already huge. Aditya Kabir 14:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Really. Do we need to review an article the instant it is posted. There are a lot of old articles up here that need reviewed. IvoShandor 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sick of this process being run like a joke, and it's pathetic. Now, at Talk:Jihad (song), an administrator (yes an administrator, and no wonder that means nothing to me) writes the worst GA review I have ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes on. Everything he wrote was frankly rubbish, and he cannot review to save his goddamn life. But because the process is unbureacratic, I cannot do anything whatsoever about it can I?
But oh yes, someone will mention to me GAR? No, I've waited three weeks for this article to get reviewed, and I don't wish to wait another five for that process to run its course. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. LuciferMorgan 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As the article has not been failed, only commented upon, GAR is not appropriate. Please everybody, just calm down a bit. TimVickers 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. A week or two ago, I started a proposed reworking of the criteria; the changes are not major, but there are enough to influence the review template and other things. Only three users have commented so far, and I feel more people should be involved in the discussion before the changes are implemented. Thanks. — Deckill er 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The process seems thin on reviewers. Is there any reason why? LuciferMorgan 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've created a new backlog template which lists links to categories with the worst backlog (either the most articles, or articles that have been on the page for a long time). Hopefully, this will help direct reviewers to those categories first. Feel free to edit/modify this template as the backlog either goes away or changes. Dr. Cash 00:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
May I request that 'Sports' be made into its own section, rather than a part of the 'Everyday Life' section? Sports nominees are growing in number. Wrad 20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If an article fails GA, and then subsequently passes it at a later date, do you replace the GAfailed tag with the GA tag or do you have both the failed and the passed one kept on the talk page? SGGH 09:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
User:jackturner3 raised an issue as to why I failed Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) due to no in-line citations, when the criteria only says it is desired but not required. Wouldn't a lack of in-line cites immediately show it is could be factually inaccurate? Unless anyone objects, I will re-write the criteria to in-line cites being absolutely necessary. Alientraveller 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please leave the Inform nomination in place this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.91.25 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Is it OK if I plan to go through and delist everything on hold over 7 days? That's the limit the page gives, but I wondered if there was any existing etiquette. I plan to remove those listings, and place fail notices on the talk pages, with a reason of "no response to hold". If nobody objects I'll do that in the next day or so. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. After 2 and a half weeks of discussion, the revised GA criteria have been posted on WP:WIAGA. None of the changes are major; the criterion have been consolidated and "succinctified", and a lead has been added that explains GAs in a nutshell and the difference between WIAGA and WIAFA. — Deckill er 09:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A new suggested template has been proposed at WikiProject Cities. Since the main purpose of the template is to assist editors in bringing articles to GA and FA status, I thought I would mention it here to seek comments on it. Please leave comments on the WikiProject Cities Talk Page, not here. Dr. Cash 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Vandersluis has very kindly volunteered to write a bot for GAC to help track overdue noms and so on. I have created a set of draft specifications at User:Mike Christie/GACbot. If you are interested, please edit as you see fit and add notes to the talk page to discuss the specs. I have also posted a note to Daniel to join that conversation -- he asked me to give him some specific ideas as to what we would find useful. Mike Christie (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the GA on hold for Justification (theology). It seems that the nomination was put on hold by the nominator on April 9 (it is now well past the 7 day on hold) who posted a list of concerns. It appears that users on the talk page are unfamiliar with GA process. Would someone with a bit more experience around here please take a look at the talk page and chime in. Thanks in advance. IvoShandor 06:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
My count reveals something like 167 total nominations, of those 38 are currently on hold and one is "under review." Just FYI. IvoShandor 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a WikiProject award, the Good Article Badge. Though it is a project award it is meant to be handed out to anyone for great contributions to GAs or GAC or GAR etc. See the proposal at : Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#WikiProject_Good_articles, voice your opinion and discuss there. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Man, this place needs more reviewers. Do not many people seem interested to review these nominees? 165.91.48.33 07:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I keep the candidates page on my watchlist and then update the template to have the oldest articles that need to be reviewed. It will hopefully make it fairer to some of the editors who sometimes have to wait more than a month for their article to be reviewed. This is why we need more editors. Hopefully we can bring the waiting time down to a maximum period of two-three weeks. I will try to keep the template constantly updated so that this will continue to be fair. -- Nehrams2020 05:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Actually I used to be a programmer, and I've been wanting for a long long time to learn how to make bots. This one seems harmless enough; would only write to a specific report page... Please hold off on the request. I want to research the matter. OK? Ling.Nut 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) No go ahead. I was somehow deluded into believing that I have the time to climb the learning curve.... I'll look at the request and see if I can add any more info.. Ling.Nut 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
What's accepted practice regarding if/how a GA reviewer can improve the articles they are reviewing? If I'm reviewing an article and come across things that are trivial improvements, like capitalization, obvious wikilinks, can I just go ahead and fix them myself? If I'm putting the article on hold? If the fixes would allow a GA pass? - Merzbow 06:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The backlog template currently shows both categories with ten or more articles, and articles over a month. The "long categories" isn't really an issue, I think; after all, if a category gets ten nominations in a day, none of them are overdue. So I suggest that we change the template to list articles that are due for a review, rather than categories.
I'd also suggest that the template links those article names to the GAC section holding those articles, so that potential reviewers can see if someone else has picked up those articles and put a GAReview tag on them. If the template links directly to the article, it would be easy for two people to review the same article without realizing it.
Any comments? If not, I'll edit the backlog per the above, and list the four or five oldest unreviewed articles. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There is written:Optionally inform the nominator about the decision.
Why there's written Optionally?-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think put a comment on the talk page of nominator has good effects. -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 09:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everyone know that I have added a comment to the top and bottom of the Nominations section so that the bot that is being created to report on GAC statistics will know what is (supposed to be) a nomination and what isn't (the comments are of the form <!-- NOMINATION CATEGORIES BEGIN/END HERE -->). By doing it this way, extra content can be added around the nominations section, and I don't have to hardcode what the bot should look for; rather, it just needs to examine everything between the comments. As such, please do not remove and/or change the comments, as it will cause the bot to not be able to parse the page properly. If you are interested, the bot is not yet functional, but just in the planning stage. A development document is available at User:Mike Christie/GACbot. — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A university professor has reviewed Islam article. [2] His review is very postive. Does it provide sufficient grounds for raising this article to GA status? -- Aminz 07:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know where to go with that, as GA/R does not seem appropriate, and I believe no other GA-related talk page would be more appropriate. On the 1st of May I reviewed the GA-nominated above article (nota bene - nominated as a result of being a WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the Week), and gave a rather lenghty account of my review on the talk page, listing some problems I have found, and concluding that I have to fail the article in view of them. Immediately afterwards, User:TonyTheTiger, who is, as I understand, the head of WikiProject Chicago, and nominates Chicago-related articles frequently, some changes to the article, following up on some of the issues I have mentioned. Until then it sounds just alrighty.
But then I was quite surprised to read in a message from Tony the he intends to renominate the article for GA immediately - and indeed he did so. While there were indeed quite a few edits done to the article in the short time span between my review and the renomination (and a few more after the renomination), I have seen they tackled on the rather more minor issues and not the major ones for which I have failed the nomination before. I indicated that in a message to Tony. A further message from Tony followed, where Tony basically explained he believed the article is CLOSER to WIAGA, and that it would take time (!) to make up for the other deficiencies of the article. I the proceeded to explain to Tony that I believe that GAN is for articles that are believed to really meet WIAGA, not for ones that "got closer", and that I believe making sure all the concerns raised by a reviewer should be dealt with until the article can be renominated. I have not got a reply yet.
I do believe it is improper to renominate article immediately after it being failed, without making sure all the things the article was failed for are corrected. I am not sure whether there is any procedure that would provide for automatic "denomination" in such cases, as I would not like to circumnavigate that by simply re-reviewing the article myself and failing it for the same issues as before, as we could go on like that forever, and I guess that's not what it is all about... What should I do then? PrinceGloria 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There's been some discussion of stability recently on WP:GA/R, in relation to the 2007 Longhorn football team (since that season hasn't started). I mentioned a comment made by Raul654, the FAC director, pointing out that the Virginia Tech Massacre was too unstable to include. LuciferMorgan pointed out that Raul654's comments do not govern GAC in any sense. I agree with Lucifer completely on this, but I think stability is an issue for both GAC and FAC, and some considerations are going to be the same for each.
Now an editor has nominated Virginia Tech massacre as a GA, commenting in the edit summary "hope it isn't too soon". There's still a lot of activity going on at the article, per the history page. I think this should be quick-failed for stability, but I hesitate to do so myself. I'd appreciate another opinion on this one, since at least one editor felt my arguments were flawed on the Longhorns article. Mike Christie (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Since we're already on the subject, what about any articles that are labeled with future or current event tags? We've failed articles in the past for being about films that won't come out for several months, yet have plenty of sources. Right now there are several articles that are on buildings that have yet to be built ( Joffrey Tower), or currently occurring events ( Republic Protests, although it was recently failed for stability issues). Do we say that all future articles of any types (space missions, buildings, films, books, etc.) not qualify to be nominated? Or do we be lenient in some cases? We've had this discussion before at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?/Archive 2#Future films, but I think we should clearly state how the criteria declares the stability of future/current event articles. What do you guys think? -- Nehrams2020 07:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please remove some of the excessive templates, its beginning to take a while to get to the actual list. Tarret 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Please review Inform, which was recently passed despite having no fair-use rationales. -- Masamage ♫ 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Vandersluis's bot, StatisticianBot, is now running in trial mode to update some GAC stats. Take a look at:
The functionality definition is (for now) at User:Mike Christie/GACbot and its talk page; that may move to a StatBot subpage at some point in the future; that'll be up to Daniel. Any comments, please post here to give Daniel some feedback (or just let him know you appreciate his work). Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
One thing the report provides that should be very useful is the list of holds over 7 days old. This can be reviewed periodically to see what needs to be failed for staying on hold too long. Mike Christie (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Is Chicago Landmark too much of a list to be analyzed or can we apply for WP:GA before pursuing WP:FC? TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a slight bias because I am involved in editing this document but for the good of the article reaching list or article GA (and then Featured)I comment as follows. I note that Homestarmy makes a valid point on name of article which does not indicate a list. Further whilst I understand that WP:MOS is not quite as stringent in the case of WP:GAC I am concerned how a list (or any article well over 100kbs already) can possibly meet Manual of Style policy. Can any article or list breach size rules to this extent? Does anyone have an example of a Featured list or article of a size over 100kbs?-- VS talk 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Imdanumber1 placed the article here. I marked the history section as needing references, and he reverted. Can someone take care of this? -- NE2 10:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Recently, two articles from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team were promoted to Good Articles based on review from members of the team who hadn't worked on either article. I think feedback from the community is important here, and would prefer to have no Conflict of Interest (or apearance of Conflict of Interest) issues. The articles in question are Scelidosaurus (passed February 22nd) and Lambeosaurus (passed today). Both articles were reviewed by good faith editors who did not feel there was any conflict of interest. Neither one had contributed to either article, but as our GA and FA passes are feathers in the WP:DINO team's cap, I think a review from a non-Project member might be important. Things such as clarity, etc, might be issues with someone who has never read or worked on a WP:Dinosaurs article. Is it possible for someone to take a second look at these two articles, and make sure they truly represent GA material? I think they do: I nominated both of them, but would prefer community feedback. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have quick failed several wrestling articles per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Please see the review before nominating a wrestling article. Quadzilla99 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There really are way too many tags at the top of this page. Each tag or message appears at least twice on the page; for instance, the notice about making sure to wikilink is repeated twice in tags (with only the icon and background colour changed), plus is in the main instructions. Is this really necessary? As far as I'm concerned, the only necessary one is the backlog notice, though I'm not even sure if its placement is ideal. — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 15:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Regards, LaraLove T/ C 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm the only contributor to 2004 Istanbul summit, which is listed as a GA candidate. Recently, I found some new interesting sources which could further improve the article. Am I allowed (as contributor) to put the article on HOLD until I added all relevant content to the article? If not, can I withdraw the nomination for a few weeks? Sijo Ripa 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Just link to this conversation on the talk page. Reviewers are generally experienced. jbolden1517 Talk 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
This article has been nominated 3 times now and not one time have the editors (and I use the term loosely) addressed the concerns that have been raised in the past two reviews. Can someone tell these time wasters to stop abusing the GA process, fail their article given it's well below standard, and tell them to actually address the concerns already raised? There are enough articles that need reviewing, and by editors who work real hard, rather than these time wasters who have no respect for the process. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We also received an apology :-) Cardinal Wurzel 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah they did, and wonders never cease :). I still can't believe that the GAC process isn't giving inexperienced editors a taste of the ropes though... LuciferMorgan 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Octopus card under the General transportation section. But I'm not sure if that's where it belongs. It's basically a form of E-money that started out used in transportation in Hong Kong, but has been extended to many non-transportation uses. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I will be reviewing hopefully at least four articles a day over this week to help with the backlog, and I thought it would be best to organize some sort of drive to help coordinate efforts. I was thinking of leaving a form message to all WikiProject GA members (currently about 130) and Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers (if there are any differences between the two) asking them to review an article or two in the next two weeks to help remove the backlog. Does this sound reasonable to ask each member to do this? I'm sure it's unlikely that every single member will respond, and many are currently reviewing articles anyway, but it would help to drive more attention to eliminating the backlog. I could also leave a message at the Community Portal for the third time, even though I don't know how successful that has been so far. If there are no objections, then I'll start sending out the messages. I don't know how serious we would want to make this drive (possibly awarding barnstars or some other form of recognition for the amount of articles reviewed over the next few weeks). I think a reasonable goal would to help bring the backlog down to somewhere around 50 articles (compared to about 180 articles). Anyway, I'll wait for a few comments before I send the message out. -- Nehrams2020 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
All of the messages have been sent out, so let's see how the drive goes. -- Nehrams2020 01:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The template at the top is incorrect. The five oldest unreviewed articles are Cher, David Lewis (politician), 2004 Istanbul summit, Widnes, and Randall Flagg, in that order. Leatherface is sixth by a few minutes. I looked at the template but I don't know how to change the list. Sheep81 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there an obvious reason why some of the WikiProjects couldn't run their own GA review pages? As things stand...
"Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as you are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed."
So why not do a similar thing to Peer Reviews - list them both at the WikiProject and this central page. Hopefully the WikiProject members might get there quicker in some instances. Is it worth approaching some projects about it? - Alex valavanis 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have created a new template - its {{ PGAN}} (passed good article nomination); its similar to {{ FGAN}} however the new one is used for good article nominations which have succeeded. I've added a note about it on the appropriate area on the GA page, feel free to improve or comment. Regards -- The Sunshine Man 16:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
suppose i pass an article, then would that article become a good article? i mean, does it depends upon one person only wether an article should be passed or failed. kindly reply on my user talkpage. i have nominated Himachal Pradesh for GAC. can anyone review it. i have rewritten the whole page and for past few days i am editing the page significantly. Sushant gupta ( talk · contribs) 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I had to quick fail two more wrestling articles, Brian Adams (wrestler) and Nora Greenwald per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Wrestling editors should take note. Quadzilla99 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There has been a lot of reviews being completed over the last week, so good job to everyone that has helped to review. I left a request at the Award Center that anyone who reviews five or more articles between May 23 and June 13, 2007 will receive a Good Article Medal of Merit. If you have reviewed five or more then please include your name at the bottom of User:Nehrams2020/GA reviews. I also included a side note at the Award Center saying that I may raise the number of required reviews in case there are a whole bunch of users who have reviewed five or more. Please reply here if you think that five articles is too high/too low. The backlog is going down, although we are continually getting new nominations as well (which is still good). Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. -- Nehrams2020 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've placed several articles on hold review recently, but I haven't been able to figure out how to enter the date into the GA Hold template to place on the talk pages. I'm afraid that any Wikipedia template that requires any programming skills to operate is usually beyond my skill level. The articles are: Bubbles the Clown, Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 and 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. The dates I placed them on hold are included with my comments on the talk pages. CLA 06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
To facilitate throughput to GA and FA, I'm trialling this; I've listed Standing Lists of large articles with substantial content which may be within striking distance of GA with varying amounts of work WRT formatting and copyediting. Some are already being worked on but I'm seeing if this increases collaboration. So far I've done this on WP mammals talk page and WP Birds collab pages. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I generated a list of current GAC's that have {{ fact}} templates. As I'm fairly new around the GA project, I'm hesitant to summarily quick-fail 10 articles. However, I'm curious to see what a more seasoned member would do with this list:
Cheers. Haus Talk 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In a case where there literally are only 1 or 2 fact tags and the page is otherwise Good, the logical option would seem to me to be removing the uncited sentence(s), assuming they weren't anything important, and noting the removal in your review. -- tjstrf talk 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point of "quick failing" nominations. One reviewer is making the call regardless, and "quick failing" an article for one or two fact tags, or some other issue that can be handled in a matter of minutes, seems to trivialize the review process. I can easily see editors finding this offensive, especially when the "quick fail" provides no feedback on anything to correct. Gimmetrow 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Whenever I use the {{ GA}} it always present me a message {{ ArticleHistory}}. Should we replace the newer template on the instructions in the project page?
Currently, it appears that the magnifying glass icon image ( Image:Searchtool.svg) that accompanied articles under review has been deleted. Would Image:Gnome-searchtool.svg be able to be used to replace it? -- Nehrams2020 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed that I was meant to use Nominate Troilus as the subject when I nominated it. I'm sorry I didn't notice this. I had paged down to how to nominate an article
Should I put in a dummy nominate edit for the article? Or will that not help?
Can I also suggest for consideration whether the recommended title for the edit should be included in how to nominate? -- Peter cohen 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's say I find an article that I have not edited at all, yet believes passes all the criterion for a good article quite easily. Would I be allowed to make it a good article myself without sending it here, should I submit it here for someone else anyway, or should i promote it and send it to GAR for second opinions?-- Wizardman 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
An article I nominated for GA has been failed [3] for three reasons - the third reason given was "no images", and that's one I can't fix. I have addressed the other two reasons given. Am I right in is there in fact no GA requirement for an article to have an image? One other editor agrees with my understanding, anyway: [4]. If the view is that articles need images, then please let me know and I'll withdraw my request to the reviewer for a second look. Thanks, Bencherlite 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been reviewing theobromine where the problems I saw were largely to do with language, particularly jargon. I therefore decided to be bold (as suggested on the project page here) and help get rid of the jargon myself. The nominator now thinks I might have played too much of a role in the development to pass it. Could I have an opinion on this, please? The discussion on the assessment has been spread between the article talk page, user:messedrocker's talk page and my own. -- Peter cohen 08:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
When i reviewed the article, What Kind of Day Has It Been, i found that the entire article was probably no more than 4/5 paras. well written to a large extent. can it be given a GA? Is there any length requirements for GA articles? Please let me know. -- Kalyan 18:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I was getting ready to add an on hold to this article and found it has been on hold since mid May. Can I go ahead and just fail it? Aboutmovies 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The backlog drive will go for two more days to be completed at the end of the 13th (Pacific Time or UTC-8). If you have reviewed five or more articles between May 23 and the end of tomorrow, please include your name at with the list of your reviews (there are currently 12 users who have done so). I will be awarding the Good Article of Merit to everyone listed there. Good job to everyone that helped, we were able to bring the backlog down from around 180 to about 105 current candidates. Once the drive has been completed, feel free to keep reviewing, and I thank all of those who have been reviewing before the drive even started. Hopefully we can keep bringing it down, and if it explodes again, maybe a better organized drive can be started. -- Nehrams2020 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The drive is now over, and I will be awarding the medals later today. Good job to everybody that helped to contribute, a large chunk of the backlog was removed thanks to everybody that pitched in. Keep up the good work! -- Nehrams2020 08:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What about these changes: [5] and [6]. Does this change have consensus? Does appear a little contradictory, because this makes things rather rigid or confusing than easy for reviewers.. I mean, we have the GA-review if a GA nominator feels misjudged — and if the GA reviewer needs a second opinion to pass or fail the article, he/she can simply add a note manually to the GA candidates list.. so why add it to the template? -- Johnnyw talk 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't hesitate to revert me again if I am mistaken.. maybe a clarification in the instructions are necessary to avoid this in the future? -- Johnnyw talk 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Paste #:{{ GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry to avoid multiple reviews on the same article or to get a second opinion on the article.
Looking at Motorcycle's history, I notice that in March there was a bit of an edit war - how far back in time constitutes "recent" for stability assessment? Can someone also confirm for me that the constant vandalism is not a stability issue that could cause a GA fail? Thanks! -- Fritzpoll 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Consider that the list is growing rapidly again (at about 3 per day) would anyone agree with me that we need to have another drive? Tarret 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a reminder to check for image tags and valid fair use rationales when passing GAs. A couple of months ago I had a look at some Computer-related GAs and almost all had violating images that could be deleted if not fixed. This is important as GAs set examples of what articles should look like, even if they are not brilliant enough to be FAs, so this should not be ignored.-- Konstable 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
To keep the backlog down, would it be possible to create a page which listed users by number of reviews done? Epbr123 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
From next week, I've decided to try out awarding a GA Medal of Merit each week to the best reviewer based on the number of reviews performed and the depth of each review. I'll announce the winner on this page each week so that reviewers are aware of there is an award to be won. I've come up with a points system where reviewers are awarded between 1 and 3 points for each review, with 1 point for a quick fail/pass etc. The top five reviewers for the week ending Saturday 23th June were 1. Vimalkalyan 2. Teemu08 3. Nehrams2020 4. Alientraveller 5. G1ggy. Epbr123 17:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Recently, there's been some debate on and off-wiki about editors from a project reviewing articles related to said project. Some believe that it is forbidden while others state that no such restriction exists. Which party is correct? AFAIK, the only restriction is that editors cannot review articles that they themselves have significantly worked on. For what it's worth, I do not perform reviews, so I am a neutral party in this issue. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In the "PASS" instructions, it says to list the topic but it doesn't tell you what the available topics are or where to find them. We need to know this. Rlevse 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi folks,
since I have become more and more involved with GA reviews I got a little frustrated over some things, that probably could be avoided. There are some articles (often self nominated) for GA that are clearly lacking broadness/depth. Specifically, most articles I reviewed/have worked on relate to music. I still gave the article an in-depth review, mostly focusing on the lack of content, etc., and have at times not even received a response to the review. (I know, most authors are very grateful and kind people.) The article just remains as-is, far from GA status. I know that I can't generalize this phenomenon, but sadly, I do think this mainly relates to semi-experienced users, who contribute, but are not yet familiar with the processes like GA/peer review. Some possible proposals to tackle this issue:
Add a quick fail criteria regarding obvious lack-of-content and..
Hope you agree that addressing this issue could help lower the load of the GA process a bit? Any comments regarding this? Of course I would offer to do the necessary adaptations/creation of the template/whatever is necessary. Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 17:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to suggest (or even force) GAC nominators to run an automated peer review before nominating an article? That way they can make corrections themselves or abstain from nominating. This might help reduce the volume of nominations as well as the current backlog. -- Victor12 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Even so, I think several features of this script are quite useful for GA nominations. For example, it points out whether an article is overlinked, underlinked, needs a rearrangement of sections, needs to unify the English used (British or American), needs to link dates, needs to unlink years or months, among other stuff. Perhaps a new version could be devised which specifically caters to the needs of GAC by deleting all unuseful features. -- Victor12 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought here. Could the nominations for each general category (Arts, Everyday Life, etc.) be on separate pages, linked to the main page? We all know there're a LOT of candidates, and this would make the page load faster. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think part of the problem with this page is people are not updating it properly. Many people review the articles, but do not give any indication on this page that they have. Should we also include in the caution tag that reviewers need to indicate that they have reviewed the article? Z1720 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Does this project have any mechanism to allow experienced GA reviewers to mentor editors who would like to get more involved? It might help those of us who are keen to contribute, but lack experience and knowledge of the criteria (I know they are listed, but...). I suspect that having the backup and advice of someone who knows what they are doing might encourage other editors to chip in - even if only to eg confirm suggestions before sticking them on the nominated article's talk page. Related to this, I've seen a few comments whilst wikisurfing along the lines of "How did this ever get to be a GA?" - is there a QA process for checking GA passes? Cheers! EyeSerene TALK 20:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to provide a different view on how to reduce the GA overflow... in fact, this view is counter intuitive. Right now, I have little to no respect for the GA process. All it takes is one person to approve an article to pass/fail it. This means that a lot of junk gets passed and occassionally good articles get failed. Being a GA is meaningless---this may sound surprising because I am an active voice in the GA/R process. I would love to see GA's go through a more rigorous examination---not quite the same intensity as an FA, but more than one person's opinion. For example, make it take 2 or more people to pass or fail an article. If 2 people agree that it meets/doesn't meet GA standards it is passed/failed. Why do I think this will improve the situation? Because it would help bring credibility to the process---and people might start paying attention to it. Balloonman 15:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Another option is to ask people who post to review one or two articles themselves... while not a requirement, we can dangle the bait that people who review another persons article are more likely to have somebody review their own. (With the caveat, that we can't have cross reviews. "I'll review yours, if you review mine.") I would not make this into an absolute rule, but a request. Balloonman 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Nehrams2020 as the GA Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 30th June 2007. Nehrams2020 is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were 1. Nehrams2020 2. Vimalkalyan 3. Serpent's Choice 4. David Fuchs 5. Ruslik0. Epbr123 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
It looks like the GAnominee is not aware of the small option, per Wikipedia:Talk page templates. Could this be addressed? I didn't want to make the change in case I'm stepping on toes. Thank you. — RJH ( talk) 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Gicen the discussion above, I realized that what is really needed is a more extensive guide to reviewing Good Articles. I was WP:BOLD and started a Draft version as a subpage of my userpage. The draft can currently be found at: User:Jayron32/Guide to reviewing Good Articles. Please make any changes as you see fit, and leave any comments you have on the talk page. I propose a goal of having the draft finalized within 2 weeks from today (by April 13) and moved to the GA project by that date. Thank you all for your attention to this. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
So, can disambiguation pages become good articles? I see no reason why not, but I'd like others opinions. This should be written into policy somewhere. Gutworth 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I see the "law and politics" was separated into the main section and a subsection called "politician biography". But this subsection includes bios of lawyers who are not politicians. Should it also add a subsection for "Lawyer and judge biography"? Wooyi 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone check out why the government agencies sub section is located where it is? Also, the location of the Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Services article is misplaced. Not sure the protocol for moving it. -- Daysleeper47 12:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything you all can do here to encourage reviewers promoting GAs to follow your instructions? Almost every FAC has to be prepped for GimmeBot conversion to {{ ArticleHistory}} by manually searching for and adding the oldid to the GA nom, since very few promoting GAs do that. It's time consuming, and it would really help if reviewers would add it at the time they promote GA. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
New/further discussion, here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This process is so random; will someone please deal with Ronald Reagan, who was passed by a brand new editor and then submitted to FAC within a day. Smells like socks. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The article has become a good article candidate now. May be it should removed from the list of good article nominees. The backlogs here are already huge. Aditya Kabir 14:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Really. Do we need to review an article the instant it is posted. There are a lot of old articles up here that need reviewed. IvoShandor 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sick of this process being run like a joke, and it's pathetic. Now, at Talk:Jihad (song), an administrator (yes an administrator, and no wonder that means nothing to me) writes the worst GA review I have ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes on. Everything he wrote was frankly rubbish, and he cannot review to save his goddamn life. But because the process is unbureacratic, I cannot do anything whatsoever about it can I?
But oh yes, someone will mention to me GAR? No, I've waited three weeks for this article to get reviewed, and I don't wish to wait another five for that process to run its course. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. LuciferMorgan 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As the article has not been failed, only commented upon, GAR is not appropriate. Please everybody, just calm down a bit. TimVickers 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. A week or two ago, I started a proposed reworking of the criteria; the changes are not major, but there are enough to influence the review template and other things. Only three users have commented so far, and I feel more people should be involved in the discussion before the changes are implemented. Thanks. — Deckill er 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The process seems thin on reviewers. Is there any reason why? LuciferMorgan 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've created a new backlog template which lists links to categories with the worst backlog (either the most articles, or articles that have been on the page for a long time). Hopefully, this will help direct reviewers to those categories first. Feel free to edit/modify this template as the backlog either goes away or changes. Dr. Cash 00:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
May I request that 'Sports' be made into its own section, rather than a part of the 'Everyday Life' section? Sports nominees are growing in number. Wrad 20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If an article fails GA, and then subsequently passes it at a later date, do you replace the GAfailed tag with the GA tag or do you have both the failed and the passed one kept on the talk page? SGGH 09:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
User:jackturner3 raised an issue as to why I failed Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) due to no in-line citations, when the criteria only says it is desired but not required. Wouldn't a lack of in-line cites immediately show it is could be factually inaccurate? Unless anyone objects, I will re-write the criteria to in-line cites being absolutely necessary. Alientraveller 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please leave the Inform nomination in place this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.91.25 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Is it OK if I plan to go through and delist everything on hold over 7 days? That's the limit the page gives, but I wondered if there was any existing etiquette. I plan to remove those listings, and place fail notices on the talk pages, with a reason of "no response to hold". If nobody objects I'll do that in the next day or so. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. After 2 and a half weeks of discussion, the revised GA criteria have been posted on WP:WIAGA. None of the changes are major; the criterion have been consolidated and "succinctified", and a lead has been added that explains GAs in a nutshell and the difference between WIAGA and WIAFA. — Deckill er 09:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A new suggested template has been proposed at WikiProject Cities. Since the main purpose of the template is to assist editors in bringing articles to GA and FA status, I thought I would mention it here to seek comments on it. Please leave comments on the WikiProject Cities Talk Page, not here. Dr. Cash 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Vandersluis has very kindly volunteered to write a bot for GAC to help track overdue noms and so on. I have created a set of draft specifications at User:Mike Christie/GACbot. If you are interested, please edit as you see fit and add notes to the talk page to discuss the specs. I have also posted a note to Daniel to join that conversation -- he asked me to give him some specific ideas as to what we would find useful. Mike Christie (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the GA on hold for Justification (theology). It seems that the nomination was put on hold by the nominator on April 9 (it is now well past the 7 day on hold) who posted a list of concerns. It appears that users on the talk page are unfamiliar with GA process. Would someone with a bit more experience around here please take a look at the talk page and chime in. Thanks in advance. IvoShandor 06:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
My count reveals something like 167 total nominations, of those 38 are currently on hold and one is "under review." Just FYI. IvoShandor 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed a WikiProject award, the Good Article Badge. Though it is a project award it is meant to be handed out to anyone for great contributions to GAs or GAC or GAR etc. See the proposal at : Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#WikiProject_Good_articles, voice your opinion and discuss there. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Man, this place needs more reviewers. Do not many people seem interested to review these nominees? 165.91.48.33 07:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I keep the candidates page on my watchlist and then update the template to have the oldest articles that need to be reviewed. It will hopefully make it fairer to some of the editors who sometimes have to wait more than a month for their article to be reviewed. This is why we need more editors. Hopefully we can bring the waiting time down to a maximum period of two-three weeks. I will try to keep the template constantly updated so that this will continue to be fair. -- Nehrams2020 05:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Actually I used to be a programmer, and I've been wanting for a long long time to learn how to make bots. This one seems harmless enough; would only write to a specific report page... Please hold off on the request. I want to research the matter. OK? Ling.Nut 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
(undent) No go ahead. I was somehow deluded into believing that I have the time to climb the learning curve.... I'll look at the request and see if I can add any more info.. Ling.Nut 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
What's accepted practice regarding if/how a GA reviewer can improve the articles they are reviewing? If I'm reviewing an article and come across things that are trivial improvements, like capitalization, obvious wikilinks, can I just go ahead and fix them myself? If I'm putting the article on hold? If the fixes would allow a GA pass? - Merzbow 06:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The backlog template currently shows both categories with ten or more articles, and articles over a month. The "long categories" isn't really an issue, I think; after all, if a category gets ten nominations in a day, none of them are overdue. So I suggest that we change the template to list articles that are due for a review, rather than categories.
I'd also suggest that the template links those article names to the GAC section holding those articles, so that potential reviewers can see if someone else has picked up those articles and put a GAReview tag on them. If the template links directly to the article, it would be easy for two people to review the same article without realizing it.
Any comments? If not, I'll edit the backlog per the above, and list the four or five oldest unreviewed articles. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There is written:Optionally inform the nominator about the decision.
Why there's written Optionally?-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think put a comment on the talk page of nominator has good effects. -- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 09:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everyone know that I have added a comment to the top and bottom of the Nominations section so that the bot that is being created to report on GAC statistics will know what is (supposed to be) a nomination and what isn't (the comments are of the form <!-- NOMINATION CATEGORIES BEGIN/END HERE -->). By doing it this way, extra content can be added around the nominations section, and I don't have to hardcode what the bot should look for; rather, it just needs to examine everything between the comments. As such, please do not remove and/or change the comments, as it will cause the bot to not be able to parse the page properly. If you are interested, the bot is not yet functional, but just in the planning stage. A development document is available at User:Mike Christie/GACbot. — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A university professor has reviewed Islam article. [2] His review is very postive. Does it provide sufficient grounds for raising this article to GA status? -- Aminz 07:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know where to go with that, as GA/R does not seem appropriate, and I believe no other GA-related talk page would be more appropriate. On the 1st of May I reviewed the GA-nominated above article (nota bene - nominated as a result of being a WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the Week), and gave a rather lenghty account of my review on the talk page, listing some problems I have found, and concluding that I have to fail the article in view of them. Immediately afterwards, User:TonyTheTiger, who is, as I understand, the head of WikiProject Chicago, and nominates Chicago-related articles frequently, some changes to the article, following up on some of the issues I have mentioned. Until then it sounds just alrighty.
But then I was quite surprised to read in a message from Tony the he intends to renominate the article for GA immediately - and indeed he did so. While there were indeed quite a few edits done to the article in the short time span between my review and the renomination (and a few more after the renomination), I have seen they tackled on the rather more minor issues and not the major ones for which I have failed the nomination before. I indicated that in a message to Tony. A further message from Tony followed, where Tony basically explained he believed the article is CLOSER to WIAGA, and that it would take time (!) to make up for the other deficiencies of the article. I the proceeded to explain to Tony that I believe that GAN is for articles that are believed to really meet WIAGA, not for ones that "got closer", and that I believe making sure all the concerns raised by a reviewer should be dealt with until the article can be renominated. I have not got a reply yet.
I do believe it is improper to renominate article immediately after it being failed, without making sure all the things the article was failed for are corrected. I am not sure whether there is any procedure that would provide for automatic "denomination" in such cases, as I would not like to circumnavigate that by simply re-reviewing the article myself and failing it for the same issues as before, as we could go on like that forever, and I guess that's not what it is all about... What should I do then? PrinceGloria 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
There's been some discussion of stability recently on WP:GA/R, in relation to the 2007 Longhorn football team (since that season hasn't started). I mentioned a comment made by Raul654, the FAC director, pointing out that the Virginia Tech Massacre was too unstable to include. LuciferMorgan pointed out that Raul654's comments do not govern GAC in any sense. I agree with Lucifer completely on this, but I think stability is an issue for both GAC and FAC, and some considerations are going to be the same for each.
Now an editor has nominated Virginia Tech massacre as a GA, commenting in the edit summary "hope it isn't too soon". There's still a lot of activity going on at the article, per the history page. I think this should be quick-failed for stability, but I hesitate to do so myself. I'd appreciate another opinion on this one, since at least one editor felt my arguments were flawed on the Longhorns article. Mike Christie (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Since we're already on the subject, what about any articles that are labeled with future or current event tags? We've failed articles in the past for being about films that won't come out for several months, yet have plenty of sources. Right now there are several articles that are on buildings that have yet to be built ( Joffrey Tower), or currently occurring events ( Republic Protests, although it was recently failed for stability issues). Do we say that all future articles of any types (space missions, buildings, films, books, etc.) not qualify to be nominated? Or do we be lenient in some cases? We've had this discussion before at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?/Archive 2#Future films, but I think we should clearly state how the criteria declares the stability of future/current event articles. What do you guys think? -- Nehrams2020 07:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please remove some of the excessive templates, its beginning to take a while to get to the actual list. Tarret 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Please review Inform, which was recently passed despite having no fair-use rationales. -- Masamage ♫ 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Daniel Vandersluis's bot, StatisticianBot, is now running in trial mode to update some GAC stats. Take a look at:
The functionality definition is (for now) at User:Mike Christie/GACbot and its talk page; that may move to a StatBot subpage at some point in the future; that'll be up to Daniel. Any comments, please post here to give Daniel some feedback (or just let him know you appreciate his work). Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
One thing the report provides that should be very useful is the list of holds over 7 days old. This can be reviewed periodically to see what needs to be failed for staying on hold too long. Mike Christie (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Is Chicago Landmark too much of a list to be analyzed or can we apply for WP:GA before pursuing WP:FC? TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a slight bias because I am involved in editing this document but for the good of the article reaching list or article GA (and then Featured)I comment as follows. I note that Homestarmy makes a valid point on name of article which does not indicate a list. Further whilst I understand that WP:MOS is not quite as stringent in the case of WP:GAC I am concerned how a list (or any article well over 100kbs already) can possibly meet Manual of Style policy. Can any article or list breach size rules to this extent? Does anyone have an example of a Featured list or article of a size over 100kbs?-- VS talk 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Imdanumber1 placed the article here. I marked the history section as needing references, and he reverted. Can someone take care of this? -- NE2 10:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Recently, two articles from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team were promoted to Good Articles based on review from members of the team who hadn't worked on either article. I think feedback from the community is important here, and would prefer to have no Conflict of Interest (or apearance of Conflict of Interest) issues. The articles in question are Scelidosaurus (passed February 22nd) and Lambeosaurus (passed today). Both articles were reviewed by good faith editors who did not feel there was any conflict of interest. Neither one had contributed to either article, but as our GA and FA passes are feathers in the WP:DINO team's cap, I think a review from a non-Project member might be important. Things such as clarity, etc, might be issues with someone who has never read or worked on a WP:Dinosaurs article. Is it possible for someone to take a second look at these two articles, and make sure they truly represent GA material? I think they do: I nominated both of them, but would prefer community feedback. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have quick failed several wrestling articles per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Please see the review before nominating a wrestling article. Quadzilla99 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
There really are way too many tags at the top of this page. Each tag or message appears at least twice on the page; for instance, the notice about making sure to wikilink is repeated twice in tags (with only the icon and background colour changed), plus is in the main instructions. Is this really necessary? As far as I'm concerned, the only necessary one is the backlog notice, though I'm not even sure if its placement is ideal. — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 15:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Regards, LaraLove T/ C 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm the only contributor to 2004 Istanbul summit, which is listed as a GA candidate. Recently, I found some new interesting sources which could further improve the article. Am I allowed (as contributor) to put the article on HOLD until I added all relevant content to the article? If not, can I withdraw the nomination for a few weeks? Sijo Ripa 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Just link to this conversation on the talk page. Reviewers are generally experienced. jbolden1517 Talk 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
This article has been nominated 3 times now and not one time have the editors (and I use the term loosely) addressed the concerns that have been raised in the past two reviews. Can someone tell these time wasters to stop abusing the GA process, fail their article given it's well below standard, and tell them to actually address the concerns already raised? There are enough articles that need reviewing, and by editors who work real hard, rather than these time wasters who have no respect for the process. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We also received an apology :-) Cardinal Wurzel 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah they did, and wonders never cease :). I still can't believe that the GAC process isn't giving inexperienced editors a taste of the ropes though... LuciferMorgan 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Octopus card under the General transportation section. But I'm not sure if that's where it belongs. It's basically a form of E-money that started out used in transportation in Hong Kong, but has been extended to many non-transportation uses. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I will be reviewing hopefully at least four articles a day over this week to help with the backlog, and I thought it would be best to organize some sort of drive to help coordinate efforts. I was thinking of leaving a form message to all WikiProject GA members (currently about 130) and Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers (if there are any differences between the two) asking them to review an article or two in the next two weeks to help remove the backlog. Does this sound reasonable to ask each member to do this? I'm sure it's unlikely that every single member will respond, and many are currently reviewing articles anyway, but it would help to drive more attention to eliminating the backlog. I could also leave a message at the Community Portal for the third time, even though I don't know how successful that has been so far. If there are no objections, then I'll start sending out the messages. I don't know how serious we would want to make this drive (possibly awarding barnstars or some other form of recognition for the amount of articles reviewed over the next few weeks). I think a reasonable goal would to help bring the backlog down to somewhere around 50 articles (compared to about 180 articles). Anyway, I'll wait for a few comments before I send the message out. -- Nehrams2020 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
All of the messages have been sent out, so let's see how the drive goes. -- Nehrams2020 01:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The template at the top is incorrect. The five oldest unreviewed articles are Cher, David Lewis (politician), 2004 Istanbul summit, Widnes, and Randall Flagg, in that order. Leatherface is sixth by a few minutes. I looked at the template but I don't know how to change the list. Sheep81 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there an obvious reason why some of the WikiProjects couldn't run their own GA review pages? As things stand...
"Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as you are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed."
So why not do a similar thing to Peer Reviews - list them both at the WikiProject and this central page. Hopefully the WikiProject members might get there quicker in some instances. Is it worth approaching some projects about it? - Alex valavanis 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have created a new template - its {{ PGAN}} (passed good article nomination); its similar to {{ FGAN}} however the new one is used for good article nominations which have succeeded. I've added a note about it on the appropriate area on the GA page, feel free to improve or comment. Regards -- The Sunshine Man 16:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
suppose i pass an article, then would that article become a good article? i mean, does it depends upon one person only wether an article should be passed or failed. kindly reply on my user talkpage. i have nominated Himachal Pradesh for GAC. can anyone review it. i have rewritten the whole page and for past few days i am editing the page significantly. Sushant gupta ( talk · contribs) 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I had to quick fail two more wrestling articles, Brian Adams (wrestler) and Nora Greenwald per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Wrestling editors should take note. Quadzilla99 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There has been a lot of reviews being completed over the last week, so good job to everyone that has helped to review. I left a request at the Award Center that anyone who reviews five or more articles between May 23 and June 13, 2007 will receive a Good Article Medal of Merit. If you have reviewed five or more then please include your name at the bottom of User:Nehrams2020/GA reviews. I also included a side note at the Award Center saying that I may raise the number of required reviews in case there are a whole bunch of users who have reviewed five or more. Please reply here if you think that five articles is too high/too low. The backlog is going down, although we are continually getting new nominations as well (which is still good). Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. -- Nehrams2020 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've placed several articles on hold review recently, but I haven't been able to figure out how to enter the date into the GA Hold template to place on the talk pages. I'm afraid that any Wikipedia template that requires any programming skills to operate is usually beyond my skill level. The articles are: Bubbles the Clown, Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 and 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. The dates I placed them on hold are included with my comments on the talk pages. CLA 06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
To facilitate throughput to GA and FA, I'm trialling this; I've listed Standing Lists of large articles with substantial content which may be within striking distance of GA with varying amounts of work WRT formatting and copyediting. Some are already being worked on but I'm seeing if this increases collaboration. So far I've done this on WP mammals talk page and WP Birds collab pages. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I generated a list of current GAC's that have {{ fact}} templates. As I'm fairly new around the GA project, I'm hesitant to summarily quick-fail 10 articles. However, I'm curious to see what a more seasoned member would do with this list:
Cheers. Haus Talk 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In a case where there literally are only 1 or 2 fact tags and the page is otherwise Good, the logical option would seem to me to be removing the uncited sentence(s), assuming they weren't anything important, and noting the removal in your review. -- tjstrf talk 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the point of "quick failing" nominations. One reviewer is making the call regardless, and "quick failing" an article for one or two fact tags, or some other issue that can be handled in a matter of minutes, seems to trivialize the review process. I can easily see editors finding this offensive, especially when the "quick fail" provides no feedback on anything to correct. Gimmetrow 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Whenever I use the {{ GA}} it always present me a message {{ ArticleHistory}}. Should we replace the newer template on the instructions in the project page?
Currently, it appears that the magnifying glass icon image ( Image:Searchtool.svg) that accompanied articles under review has been deleted. Would Image:Gnome-searchtool.svg be able to be used to replace it? -- Nehrams2020 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed that I was meant to use Nominate Troilus as the subject when I nominated it. I'm sorry I didn't notice this. I had paged down to how to nominate an article
Should I put in a dummy nominate edit for the article? Or will that not help?
Can I also suggest for consideration whether the recommended title for the edit should be included in how to nominate? -- Peter cohen 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's say I find an article that I have not edited at all, yet believes passes all the criterion for a good article quite easily. Would I be allowed to make it a good article myself without sending it here, should I submit it here for someone else anyway, or should i promote it and send it to GAR for second opinions?-- Wizardman 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
An article I nominated for GA has been failed [3] for three reasons - the third reason given was "no images", and that's one I can't fix. I have addressed the other two reasons given. Am I right in is there in fact no GA requirement for an article to have an image? One other editor agrees with my understanding, anyway: [4]. If the view is that articles need images, then please let me know and I'll withdraw my request to the reviewer for a second look. Thanks, Bencherlite 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been reviewing theobromine where the problems I saw were largely to do with language, particularly jargon. I therefore decided to be bold (as suggested on the project page here) and help get rid of the jargon myself. The nominator now thinks I might have played too much of a role in the development to pass it. Could I have an opinion on this, please? The discussion on the assessment has been spread between the article talk page, user:messedrocker's talk page and my own. -- Peter cohen 08:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
When i reviewed the article, What Kind of Day Has It Been, i found that the entire article was probably no more than 4/5 paras. well written to a large extent. can it be given a GA? Is there any length requirements for GA articles? Please let me know. -- Kalyan 18:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I was getting ready to add an on hold to this article and found it has been on hold since mid May. Can I go ahead and just fail it? Aboutmovies 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The backlog drive will go for two more days to be completed at the end of the 13th (Pacific Time or UTC-8). If you have reviewed five or more articles between May 23 and the end of tomorrow, please include your name at with the list of your reviews (there are currently 12 users who have done so). I will be awarding the Good Article of Merit to everyone listed there. Good job to everyone that helped, we were able to bring the backlog down from around 180 to about 105 current candidates. Once the drive has been completed, feel free to keep reviewing, and I thank all of those who have been reviewing before the drive even started. Hopefully we can keep bringing it down, and if it explodes again, maybe a better organized drive can be started. -- Nehrams2020 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The drive is now over, and I will be awarding the medals later today. Good job to everybody that helped to contribute, a large chunk of the backlog was removed thanks to everybody that pitched in. Keep up the good work! -- Nehrams2020 08:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
What about these changes: [5] and [6]. Does this change have consensus? Does appear a little contradictory, because this makes things rather rigid or confusing than easy for reviewers.. I mean, we have the GA-review if a GA nominator feels misjudged — and if the GA reviewer needs a second opinion to pass or fail the article, he/she can simply add a note manually to the GA candidates list.. so why add it to the template? -- Johnnyw talk 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't hesitate to revert me again if I am mistaken.. maybe a clarification in the instructions are necessary to avoid this in the future? -- Johnnyw talk 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Paste #:{{ GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry to avoid multiple reviews on the same article or to get a second opinion on the article.
Looking at Motorcycle's history, I notice that in March there was a bit of an edit war - how far back in time constitutes "recent" for stability assessment? Can someone also confirm for me that the constant vandalism is not a stability issue that could cause a GA fail? Thanks! -- Fritzpoll 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Consider that the list is growing rapidly again (at about 3 per day) would anyone agree with me that we need to have another drive? Tarret 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a reminder to check for image tags and valid fair use rationales when passing GAs. A couple of months ago I had a look at some Computer-related GAs and almost all had violating images that could be deleted if not fixed. This is important as GAs set examples of what articles should look like, even if they are not brilliant enough to be FAs, so this should not be ignored.-- Konstable 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
To keep the backlog down, would it be possible to create a page which listed users by number of reviews done? Epbr123 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
From next week, I've decided to try out awarding a GA Medal of Merit each week to the best reviewer based on the number of reviews performed and the depth of each review. I'll announce the winner on this page each week so that reviewers are aware of there is an award to be won. I've come up with a points system where reviewers are awarded between 1 and 3 points for each review, with 1 point for a quick fail/pass etc. The top five reviewers for the week ending Saturday 23th June were 1. Vimalkalyan 2. Teemu08 3. Nehrams2020 4. Alientraveller 5. G1ggy. Epbr123 17:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Recently, there's been some debate on and off-wiki about editors from a project reviewing articles related to said project. Some believe that it is forbidden while others state that no such restriction exists. Which party is correct? AFAIK, the only restriction is that editors cannot review articles that they themselves have significantly worked on. For what it's worth, I do not perform reviews, so I am a neutral party in this issue. -- TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
In the "PASS" instructions, it says to list the topic but it doesn't tell you what the available topics are or where to find them. We need to know this. Rlevse 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi folks,
since I have become more and more involved with GA reviews I got a little frustrated over some things, that probably could be avoided. There are some articles (often self nominated) for GA that are clearly lacking broadness/depth. Specifically, most articles I reviewed/have worked on relate to music. I still gave the article an in-depth review, mostly focusing on the lack of content, etc., and have at times not even received a response to the review. (I know, most authors are very grateful and kind people.) The article just remains as-is, far from GA status. I know that I can't generalize this phenomenon, but sadly, I do think this mainly relates to semi-experienced users, who contribute, but are not yet familiar with the processes like GA/peer review. Some possible proposals to tackle this issue:
Add a quick fail criteria regarding obvious lack-of-content and..
Hope you agree that addressing this issue could help lower the load of the GA process a bit? Any comments regarding this? Of course I would offer to do the necessary adaptations/creation of the template/whatever is necessary. Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 17:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to suggest (or even force) GAC nominators to run an automated peer review before nominating an article? That way they can make corrections themselves or abstain from nominating. This might help reduce the volume of nominations as well as the current backlog. -- Victor12 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Even so, I think several features of this script are quite useful for GA nominations. For example, it points out whether an article is overlinked, underlinked, needs a rearrangement of sections, needs to unify the English used (British or American), needs to link dates, needs to unlink years or months, among other stuff. Perhaps a new version could be devised which specifically caters to the needs of GAC by deleting all unuseful features. -- Victor12 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a thought here. Could the nominations for each general category (Arts, Everyday Life, etc.) be on separate pages, linked to the main page? We all know there're a LOT of candidates, and this would make the page load faster. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think part of the problem with this page is people are not updating it properly. Many people review the articles, but do not give any indication on this page that they have. Should we also include in the caution tag that reviewers need to indicate that they have reviewed the article? Z1720 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Does this project have any mechanism to allow experienced GA reviewers to mentor editors who would like to get more involved? It might help those of us who are keen to contribute, but lack experience and knowledge of the criteria (I know they are listed, but...). I suspect that having the backup and advice of someone who knows what they are doing might encourage other editors to chip in - even if only to eg confirm suggestions before sticking them on the nominated article's talk page. Related to this, I've seen a few comments whilst wikisurfing along the lines of "How did this ever get to be a GA?" - is there a QA process for checking GA passes? Cheers! EyeSerene TALK 20:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to provide a different view on how to reduce the GA overflow... in fact, this view is counter intuitive. Right now, I have little to no respect for the GA process. All it takes is one person to approve an article to pass/fail it. This means that a lot of junk gets passed and occassionally good articles get failed. Being a GA is meaningless---this may sound surprising because I am an active voice in the GA/R process. I would love to see GA's go through a more rigorous examination---not quite the same intensity as an FA, but more than one person's opinion. For example, make it take 2 or more people to pass or fail an article. If 2 people agree that it meets/doesn't meet GA standards it is passed/failed. Why do I think this will improve the situation? Because it would help bring credibility to the process---and people might start paying attention to it. Balloonman 15:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Another option is to ask people who post to review one or two articles themselves... while not a requirement, we can dangle the bait that people who review another persons article are more likely to have somebody review their own. (With the caveat, that we can't have cross reviews. "I'll review yours, if you review mine.") I would not make this into an absolute rule, but a request. Balloonman 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Nehrams2020 as the GA Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 30th June 2007. Nehrams2020 is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were 1. Nehrams2020 2. Vimalkalyan 3. Serpent's Choice 4. David Fuchs 5. Ruslik0. Epbr123 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)