This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have talked to Nehrams2020 and we both think that there should be another backlog elimination drive so I would like other editors' opinions as well. This time the drive will take about a month (the last one was 2 weeks) and I think if we have a longer duration we can take care of more GAC. I also need ideas on what awards to be handed out other than just GA medal of merit because I have taken a look at WP:BS and Commons, then realize there's no other awards that can be handed out for the backlog elimination. OhanaUnited Talk page 09:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Will someone knowledgeable about the GA process please clean up the situation at Talk:Raëlian Church ? There are continuing errors showing up in the error category for {{ ArticleHistory}}, which appear to be partly stemming from some terminology used by GA. {{ GAList}} uses the terminology GA review, although the template is used when evaluating a GA nominee (isn't GAN different than GAR?). The result is that GAR events are added to the articlehistory, with someone then deleting them because the article was never added. This is a mess; can someone please figure out what the correct terminology is, what processes have been in play at Raelian church (I don't understand how there can be three failed reviews if the article is still listed at GAC), and clean up the article's edit history and templates to match ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen PocklingtonDan as the GA Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 7th July 2007. PocklingtonDan is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were 1. PocklingtonDan 2. Vimalkalyan 3. CloudNine 4. Hersfold 5. Z1720. Epbr123 11:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful if reviewers would start using the section heading "Good Article Nomination review" on talk pages rather than "Good Article review", as this is easily confused with " Good Article Review". Thanks. Epbr123 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please fix this; it's confusing !! Wikipedia:Good article review is not WP:GAC, yet {{ GAReview}} is the name of the template for passing GA nominations. The template should be renamed, and instructions corrected. This causes all kinds of confusion, which usually has to be straightened out on articlehistory. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
nnnnn
with the id number of the reviewed version. This number may be found in the URL of the archived version.The id number can not be obtained until you archive it. How do you do this? I believe this text needs clarification. AshLin 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought Akebono Taro represented a good article, however there is one editor who disagrees, and I am trying to resolve the situation without resorting to an edit war. However, I think this means that Akebono Taro cannot represent a Good Article under these conditions at this time. Is there a proper procedure to delist or can I just erase it from this section. Thanks XinJeisan 07:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
User INFO-CENTER slapped the tag under my article nom ( Development history of The Elder Scrolls series; also Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume), but it appears he's since gone out to lunch. He hasn't edited in 4 days, and the last thing he did was create a cute little template with the words: "Wikipedia user Information Center (talk · contribs) is temporarily inactive," and add it to his user page. I left him a message on his talk page the day of, but he hasn't responded since. That's somewhat frustrating. Is there protocol for what to do in cases like this? Can the tag be removed and the article reviewed by another? Geuiwogbil 04:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
So how broad does a GA have to be on a small city. Any tips on Oregon, Illinois? I have done one city GA, Springfield, Illinois but I think it was probably beyond the minimum when I submitted it. Is the Oregon article broad enough? What would need to be included to make it so? Any words would be appreciated. Thanks. IvoShandor 15:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Awadewit as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 14th July 2007.
Awadewit is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Awadewit
2.
LaraLove
3.
The Rambling Man
4.
Nehrams2020
5.
LordHarris.
Epbr123 10:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ GAreview}} - I made this template to make informaing people that their GA has been or is being reviewed quick, easy and preset. Take a look GA reviewers, and tell me what you think. I appreciate all feedback. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 11:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 21st July 2007.
The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
The Rambling Man
2.
Meowist
3.
Awadewit
4.
Johnfos
5.
Mouse Nightshirt.
Epbr123 11:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there now a policy to dispense with putting GACs on hold? I can understand if the article in question is fundamentally flawed in many areas, but in the Bob Cousy article for instance, the article was failed in less than half a day when many aspects of the article (e.g. coverage, sources, image, stability) IMO at least, ensured that it was not far from a GA pass. Putting the nomination on hold would have encouraged a more interactive process, and the edit history shows that at least a trio of editors were on standby to address any loose ends. A pass can conceivably be expeditious, but an expedited fail (whatever the aim) is probably unncessary. I pass the preceding final comments without specific reference to the Cousy example, because I do not know if it is indeed near GA quality but am merely speaking from editing articles which made GA. Chensiyuan 14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there still necessarily a backlog on this page? Looking at the list, it looks like most of the articles in the list are on hold, with very few that have not been reviewed. Not sure if we need the backlog tag currently? Dr. Cash 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand that there is somewhat of a learning curve with this template, but among the well-known advantages of using this template, there is one very (in my opinion) overlooked aspect. The |gacat
field. Over half of the listed GAs are uncategorized. That's over 1,500 articles. I've just created
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Uncategorized Good articles task force to hopefully gain some support and assistance from others in removing the articles from
Category:Uncategorized good articles. If it is widely agreed that including ArticleHistory in the steps of the passing process, what about expanding the task force so that experienced editors interested in helping out scan the history of
WP:GA to see what articles have been listed and, for those which don't have it, place the template on the article talk page and categorize?
Lara
Love 02:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the categories in GAC are not consistent with those at GA? Lara Love 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The subject of the Institut Le Rosey article has very little public information available. The article recently failed a GA nomination primarily due to a lack of information (student life, academics, athletics). If the article's subject does not have enough information available, is it ineligible for GA status? Thanks, -- AJ24 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC).
I noticed because one of them nominated Solar power. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous editors may not review an article, per step #1 under, "How to review an article." But I don't see a problem with anons nominating them -- if the article satisfies the good article criteria, that's good enough for me. So what who nominates it. Dr. Cash 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Blnguyen as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 28th July 2007.
Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Blnguyen
2.
The Rambling Man
3.
Drewcifer3000
4.
Giggy
5.
VanTucky.
Epbr123 11:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a rule about passing articles that have been put on hold? User:Tarret has passed article Victoria Cross (Canada) that i had put on hold. Despite the Lead missing references, two images with WP:FURG Concerns, and when asked why he passed it he said : "in my opinion it was good enough for GA". - Flubeca Talk 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines regarding the use of the GAReview tag, which indicates that an article is currently undergoing, or has been partially reviewed, by a reviewer? It seems to me like this tag should be used if an editor is actively reviewing an article, but I've seen several of these tags added and left on the article for several days. One user also just tagged about 5 articles with this tag late last night, early morning, with no notes on the talk page indicating a partial review ( Blnguyen). It appears that he's "protecting" these articles from being reviewed by others, while not actually doing an active review. I personally don't think this is an acceptable use of the tag, as it somewhat discourages editors from reviewing certain articles. If you're actively reviewing an article, that's acceptable; but don't tag more than one article with this tag, and don't leave the tag up for several days. If you're leaving notes regarding the article's nomination, then use the GAOnHold tag. Perhaps we could add a task to the GA bot or something to automatically remove these tags if left for more than 24 hours? Dr. Cash 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's more than a week, just remove the tag, put a note on the other editor's talk page, and review the article. These are just intended to stop two people reviewing the article at the same time. Tim Vickers 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Well, the GAreview tag isn't bad in itself, but overuse can become a problem. When users add 4 or 5 of these tags to articles they're going to review in the near future (which is an awful lot), then that's pushing it a bit, just work on a couple at a time. Plus, the 3 day wait on it seems fine, if you don't read the whol thing in 3 days give someone else a shot (and if you do but aren't quite sure, that's what the on hold tag is for). Plus, if everyone could re-read WP:OWN, as it applies here. Wizardman 11:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, if we use it, it'll have to be moved out of my sand box, but take a look. What do you think? Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 17:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to your 'under review' tag. The whole point of the 'GAReview' tag is to let other editors on the GA candidates' page know that another editor is currently reviewing an article. It shouldn't be used to by a reviewer to "claim" an article to review several days later when s/he gets more time. Using an 'under review' tag on the article's talk page and not on the GA candidates' page completely bypasses the list, so other editors won't know that an article is being reviewed unless either (a) they go to the page in question or (b) the editor places BOTH the existing 'GAReview' tag at WP:GAC as well as your proposed 'under review' tag on the talk page, which seems a bit redundant.
Maybe the best solution to this policy is to adopt some sort of a "courtesy policy", whereby reviewers should contact the reviewer on their talk page if they are interested in reviewing an article that's been tagged by another reviewer for greater than one day. If an article has been tagged for greater than either 3 or 5 days, then it may be removed without warning (I'm leaning to 3, but I can see that consensus might be currently pointing to 5). I also think that the multiple tagging of articles (tagging more than 3 articles at a time) should be strongly discouraged. Dr. Cash 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what the consensus is, relating to passing WP:WIAGA, on sourcing articles dealing with classical subjects where the sources used are mainly writers from the period. Often sources (such as Livy, Tacitus, Josephus etc) are the only real reference material for these eras - but due to their documented bias (eg Livy's pro-Roman POV) they do not IMO really meet WP:RS. I've asked this over on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome page, and opinion so far seems to be that, in areas where such sources are uncontested by modern scholarship, they are acceptable. I've noticed reviewers quick-failing well-sourced articles by citing this as the reason, which seems a little harsh to me. Perhaps one solution would be to add a caveat to such articles noting the uncritical use of such sources, although this could be unwieldy and inappropriate in places. Any advice? Regards EyeSerene TALK 10:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Awadewit, that does seem a very prescriptive approach, and one that is likely to see a lot of articles up at AfD that probably don't deserve to be there. If we take the view that any source that is not 'modern' is likely to be unreliable, then we will lose huge chunks of WP... and often there seems to be just as much of a problem with modern sources - historians writing from a different bias (such as revisionist, feminist, liberal or racial 21st century interpretations of ancient history). I honestly don't believe that excluding ancient aources adds to either the scholarship or credibility of an article, as long as any inherent bias in those sources is taken into account. EyeSerene TALK 08:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Thanks for the clarification - I'll bear that in mind in future GA reviews. I'm no historian (other than having a general interest in certain areas), so it has been helpful to thrash this out. I don't think the WP policy on primary, secondary and tertiary sources was written with the ancient period in mind, but I've got a better grasp of how standards can be applied in this area now. I appreciate the time you've taken on this one ;) Regards, EyeSerene TALK 00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I remember good articles used to have a little image - - in the top right, the same way featured articles have . What happened to that? -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Are GA reviewers allowed to use bots to review the articles? I was surprised and dismayed at this recent bot review that I received. I can run a bot if I want. Awadewit | talk 02:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
If that was the only action the reviewer did, that is unacceptable, however if they read the article and considered the points and added this as a way of making further suggestions, then it isn't quite so bad. I've dropped a note on the reviewer's talk page alerting them to this discussion. Tim Vickers 17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
(←)I agree that automated reviews are generally useless. They list issues that are generic and not necessarily relevant to the article being reviewed, which just causes confusion and unnecessarily wastes article custodians time. I've seen many automated reviews in the peer review process, which I think is a pain for everyone who requests one, but I must say this is the first instance that I've ever seen one used in the GA process. I have to agree with all of Awadewit's points. Lara ♥Love 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering what should be done in the case of an article such as Chris Benoit murder-suicide which is about a criminal investigation that is not yet over? I would think that this would fail good article criteria simply because as it says in the lead "The Fayette County, Georgia Sheriff's Department is currently investigating this case"? Surely this cannot be stable. Just thought I'd check here before a quick-fail. - Shudde talk 06:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to comment that since I stopped reviewing articles for GA status (because my comfort level doing so decreased--a lot--not because I didn't like to do them) this part of the encyclopedia has dramatically improved. Reviews are quickly completed, usually in not more than a few days, compare this with the period over one month I once waited for a review on Historic district. I would also note that the reviewers seem to understand the criteria and have a good grasp of the differences between GA and FA everytime I interact with WP:GA. Thanks a lot for all your quality work everybody. : ) IvoShandor 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 4th August 2007.
The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
The Rambling Man
2.
Drewcifer3000
3.
Awadewit
4.
LaraLove
5.
VanTucky.
Epbr123 00:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not assume that because I've been given this "pointless" award twice that I do not make my very best effort in reviewing GAs. I and many other editors are here for the right reasons, not for those you've outlined. In fact, if you have a problem with any GA reviews, you should take it to WP:GA/R, not just fire off at a group of people who are trying to do their best. The Rambling Man 10:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
We have articles dating back to 28 July...currently 62 not reviewed, as opposed to 16 on July 30. I've added the backlog notice back to the page :( Giggy Talk 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Many articles marked as Long Articles aren't when you you exclude tables, footnotes, images, infoboxes, etc... See Wikipedia:Article size. The size should only include "readable prose". I saw that the Kinston Indians article was tagged as a long article. The people who worked on this article made a special effort to keep the size under control according to the rules at Wikipedia:Article Size. 69.68.238.142 12:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Blnguyen as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 11th August 2007.
Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Blnguyen
2.
Awadewit
3.
LaraLove
4.
The Rambling Man
5.
EyeSerene.
Epbr123 12:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Just noticed that I'm in the top 5! Not sure how that happened (I think everyone else must be on holiday), but cool all the same :D EyeSerene TALK 10:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this please. On August 10, I turned down the GAC. It was the second in a week. The main author, Zalgt ( talk · contribs) appears to have self-passed his article. I usually do not go and revert some article that I have already judged, so I am reporting here. In my mind, the article is still at least totally unsourced. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have gone ahead and reorganized the candidates page to more closely match the actual GA list. Some categories were condensed to save space, but the two pages should mirror each other now. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) Thank you both! I may go in and trim the sub-categories a bit more. I particularly appreciate the addition of misc subcats in each cat. That will prove to be very useful. I've had a couple of instances where I've had an article that just didn't fit into any category listed at the time. In fact, Jayron, I think it was you that helped me list Jean Keene because I had no idea where to put her. I'm so impressed with the speed at which this project is being improved overall. So impressed. Lara ♥Love 04:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been renominated for GA status, apparently a third time. While at first glance, it appears to meet most of the GA criteria, I am still hesitant to pass this based on the fact that the 2007 football season hasn't even started yet, and the article is expected to undergo heavy editing during the next four to five months. I am not sure why the primary editor is so eager to get this to achieve GA status. Perhaps he's just a very devoted fan? What do others think? Dr. Cash 22:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I do think this is a GA of the best kind. It is about the team, not the season. It's broad, accurate, and stable. I'm listing this for a review.-- SidiLemine 14:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ruhrfisch's view. The article is going to change significantly from week to week because it's about a sports season that hasn't occurred yet. This is a clear case of WP:IAR, it's obviously going to have to be expanded significantly over the next year or so, and any arguments regarding the exact meaning of the stability issue are semantic. Should wait till the season is over then nominate. - Shudde talk 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Can an article be both a WP:FL and a WP:GA? In the near future Chicago Marathon will likely be nominated at WP:FLC. From my experience and the recent promotion of List of winners of the Boston Marathon, I think it has a good shot at promotion. Its text also has a modest shot at qualifying for WP:GA. Can an article be both a WP:GA and a WP:FL?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Derek.cashman as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 18th August 2007.
Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Derek.cashman
2.
Dinosaur puppy
3.
The Rambling Man
4.
Blnguyen
5.
Awadewit.
Epbr123 00:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, this is an EXCELLENT way to stimulate activity; all WikiProjects should adopt something similar. — Deckill er 01:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
For those of you passing GAs, remember that you want to set both the "oldid" and the "topic" parameter in the GA template that you add. (If you're adding an ArticleHistory bit, you just need the "topic" parameter.) Now that the GA and GAC topics are normalized, you can easily figure out what the topic parameter is, either from this short list or by setting it to the full name of the very top level category (NOT The subcategories!) Oldid can be get by looking at the url for the "permanent link" on the article page in the toolbox on the left side.
The main reason for this is that we've just gotten through classifying all the uncategorized GAs, and while the Category:Uncategorized good articles remains nearly empty, it does fill up at a interesting rate, I found 9 there today after cleaning it out 3 days ago. We don't want these to fill up as bad as they were before (like around 1000 when we started the task force drive). -- Masem 05:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to drop a line about User:OhanaUnited. He just pretty unilaterally removed 1-month old GA Red Auerbach, just citing minor shortcomings in 2 lines, and then failing the article after 4 days. He completely failed to inform the main editors ( User:Onomatopoeia, User:Chensiyuan and others), never listed the article on WP:GA/R for discussion, and never listed the article on WP:NBA for any discussion for our WikiProject, yet stating "he did everything he did to let everybody know", see Wikipedia:Editor review/OhanaUnited. Is this 99,9% unilateral, if-no-discussion-comes-I-just-retract-GA a new modus operandi I don't know about, or what is going on here? Thanks for reading. — Onomatopoeia 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) I did the quality review of this article and tagged it as not done with several other articles. Some were tagged as questionable. It was my recommendation to Ohana that he delist all articles tagged as not done and send all questionable articles to GA/R, so I'm the one you have beef with, not him. Lara ♥Love 05:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I'll consider thatyou are re-applying your previous arguments to me.... You talk about counter productivity. Is your goal to have as much articles as possible have a little plus? Or to have as much great articles as possible?-- SidiLemine 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone follow the "minimum of 2 days" part of the template? It seems like if an article is improved in less that amount of time, there's no reason to wait until two days have passed (though obviously it's a good idea to avoid having articles on hold for more than a week). 17Drew 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been something like 11 days since the backlog elimination drive ended, and there's already a huge backlog. I can only imagine things are going to get worse. Does anyone think a more long-term elimination drive type thing would be a good idea? Similar to the assessment drive of Wikiproject Bibliography maybe? Still the same x reviews you get a prize type thing, but maybe with higher requirements and without an end date? Might help over the long haul. Just a thought. Drewcifer3000 08:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have started a proposal for a fall 2007 review drive. You can review it here. Please feel free to make suggestions and/or revisions. Discussion can be done on it's talk page. The drive would start on September 1, which is one week away. So it would be good to get everything finalized in the next 3-5 days, if there is interest in pursuing this. Dr. Cash 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 25th August 2007.
The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
The Rambling Man
2.
Awadewit
3.
David Fuchs
4.
Derek.cashman
5.
Dinosaur puppy.
Epbr123 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have started a discussion over at the GA criteria page about the requirement of in-line citations in GA articles. Hopefully this should clear up quite a bit of debate over at WP:GA/R and elsewhere. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The review of Harold Pinter seems to have turned sour. The first reviewer, the one listed as placing the hold on the candidates page, seems to have quit after getting into it with NYScholar over the style of referencing. Wrad is now discussing it at length with him, but no one seems to have officially taken up the review. I partly blame myself for this, as I originally took the review but wasted so much time doing outside research for accuracy that it just got silly and I reopened it for reviewing. Anyway, it seems to be at a standstill at the moment and I don't know what to do. From my perspective, NYScholar seems to be being unnecessarily combative and possibly having ownership issues. VanTucky (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing Joe Nathan and it is my first review. I think it is going well but i have two questions. 1) There are some remnants of passive voice, as the reviewer can i fix those and then pass the article? 2) If i cannot change them myself, can the article be passed if there are a small number of passive statements - i think the article is good overall. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Evidently some people at WT:FAC want to just axe GAC, period... David Fuchs ( talk) 15:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Johnfos as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 1st September 2007.
Johnfos is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Johnfos
2.
Phil Sandifer
3.
The Rambling Man
4.
Derek.cashman
5.
Alientraveller.
Epbr123 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the consensus on passing articles that are well-sourced, but those sources are in languages other than English? I'm currently involved with one that has sources mostly in French (which thankfully I can just about manage) with no English equivalents. My inclination is to pass the article, but the guidance on WP:SOURCE seems to imply the citations should be professionally translated... which seems overly-picky for GA (although understandable at FA). Comments? EyeSerene TALK 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Does a season fall under "Television show" or "television episode?" -- thedemonhog talk • edits 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we combine {{ GA2ndoptalk}} and {{ GAonhold}} into an extension of {{ GAnominee}}. Its a bit confusing the way it is currently and if this works there will be less templates to be used in this process. Tarret 20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The 2007 Rugby World Cup starts this weekend. Surely this is a highly inappropriate time to nominate an article which is guaranteed to be unstable for the next month and a half? Do other editors agree that the nomination should be rejected for this reason? -- Peter cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Something is wrong with the syntax of FGAN, the optional closing comments field is not working (at least in Firefox on OSX, not that it should make a difference). VanTucky (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created a new template, {{ GA2ndopinion}}, primarily intended to be used by newer or less experienced reviewers that have reviewed an article, but are sort of "sitting on the fence" regarding whether the article meets the GA criteria or not, but may not want to put the article on hold because it probably does meet the criteria. So this would allow them to tag an article on the WP:GAC page requesting that a more experienced reviewer come along and offer his/her second opinion on the matter. Or it could be used on some of the more controversial articles (the 2007 texas longhorn football season article issue might be an example of how this could have been used). It could also be used by experienced reviewers to request a 2nd opinion of a reviewer that might be more knowledgeable on the subject matter. I think this would also strengthen the overall GA program as a whole as well, as hopefully it's use would encourage reviews by more than one person (one of the major criticisms of the GA process) while still preserving the ability of one reviewer to pass some of the more straightforward candidates.
The template would like like this:
What do others think of this? Dr. Cash 06:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this would be excellent. It would assist people like myself who are just getting the hang of reviewing articles. Pursey 09:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how there's pretty much no opposition to this, I've updated the instructions to add usage of this template. I guess we'll try this out for a couple of days or weeks and see how it works. Of course, the template may not only be used by less experienced reviewers; others may use it in other circumstances, such as if they are not quite as familiar with the topic as they originally thought, and want an expert to review it, or if an article might be somewhat controversial. Cheers! Dr. Cash 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've only just seen this (busy RL recently); excellent work, Dr. Cash! I had thought that the request a couple of us made a while back had died a death, but this goes a long way to meeting the need... and without all the extra work entailed in some sort of "new reviewers' induction programme". Good job ;) EyeSerene TALK 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the above article has been on hold since 24th August, after a very perfunctory GA review; the situation really needs looking at by someone more experienced than me ;) EyeSerene TALK 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Invasive species GA passed on 02 August 2007 but it is not listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we add an agriculture section to the GAC page somewhere, I didn't see one and added my nom in the miscellaneous section. IvoShandor 07:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Johnfos as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 8th September 2007.
Johnfos is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Johnfos
2.
Pursey
3.
Derek.cashman
4.
EyeSerene
5.
The Rambling Man.
Epbr123 10:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Pursey at two? You mean the same editor that claimed to have reviewed three music GACs in a partial or full manner three days ago, but hasn't left anything at the talk pages? Before compiling this list Epbr123, actually check if the reviewer has actually reviewed the articles. Pursey doing that with the music articles has been a waste of time, and delayed their respective reviews. LuciferMorgan 13:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
At the beginning of the week, Pursey did a pretty poor review of Madrid, which resulted in me re-reviewing the article, delisting it, and placing it on hold. But rather than biting the newcomers, I made some helpful suggestions on his talk page instead, and I think the quality of some of his reviews has increased considerably this week. He's still a little too dependent on reviewing the references aspect of articles, than other, more subjective things like prose and content (other suggestions on articles would be helpful other than the traditional "article needs more references"). But overall, I see a huge improvement (nomination for 'most improved reviewer'?).
On another note, I was a bit surprised to see myself on the list this week, as I thought my activity at WP:GAC had dropped off a bit. I've been focusing more on re-reviewing articles in the sweeps this week. But maybe this is just evidence that we need more reviewers (so let's not all attack those that are new, let's focus on helping them become better reviewers so that they stay and help decrease the backlog). Dr. Cash 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sparking from the conversation above, which may have cost us a good GAC reviewer (I sure hope not, that would suck), I think we're going to have to break this down into a few questions:
Now I think #1 was the main source of conflict in the above discussion. To weigh in myself, I agree with LuciferMorgan that one article should be reviewed at a time. I was one of the nominators of those "three music GACs in a partial or full [review]" ( Billy Talent), and it kinda sucked wondering for a couple days what was going on. I would be constantly be chacking Pursey's GA Review list, becoming increasingly frustrated each time seeing it was still under review but not seeing any notes. Having those three articles under review took away their chance to be reviewed by other editors as well. Pursey, I am in no way questioning your ability to review articles, you're an awesome reviewer. I just believe it would be more effective to review one article at a time. I don't see how it inconveniences you any, you would just be reviewing them at a more steady rate.
#2 and #3 I will be neutral on, and let others debate. But I don't think articles tagged with {{ GAReview}} should be removed from the list. If it wasn't for seeing it for the short time it was up, and Pursey's GA Review list, I would have freaked out and wonder what the hell happened.
Now I open this up to you guys, please state your standing on those 4 questions, and lets see if we can get consensus, and if any changes need to be made. -- Reaper X 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't review anymore but one way to solve this conflict is to work on the reviews on wiki, a user sub page, I used to do that sometimes when a review was going to take awhile. Unfortunately not all topics can be given a proper review in just one sitting, thus no time limits should be imposed and this project would be making a mistake if it were to impose more rules, the more rules there are the more likely it is that they will be ignored. IvoShandor 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
My answers, for what they're worth:
I think this is a storm in a teacup. The Rambling Man 15:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cloudnine's comments above. A message on the users talk page is the best way to deal with any queries regarding how long a review is taking. Any rules are just going to deter people from reviewing articles, especially if they fear they will breach some protocol. I also agree with Rambling Man that this is a storm in a tea cup and I would encourage some of those that have been getting upset about this to assume good faith. - Shudde talk 00:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is time article listed twice in Physics and Astronomy categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt the golden plates nominee will be quick-failed like I think it should, because no one wants a deluge of "Mormon hating!" and "POV!" thrown at them, and the sources that are present are impressive. Sometimes it isn't what is there, but what isn't. It frankly reads to me like a Mormon lesson on the history of the plates. Don't you think that an article about the golden plates that contains no mention of the idea that many find the idea of them totally implausible, if not outright ridiculous, is a violation of blatant POV? If the Bible article can contain significant criticism, why not the golden plates? VanTucky Talk 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to complete the long-overdue review of Lal Masjid siege today, but I am tempted to fail it based upon the fact that the cassus belli of the incident is disputed (most recent revert was today). The rest of the article is pretty good, but this is a core issue which I feel has disrupted the stability of the article. Thoughts? VanTucky Talk 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My wiki-time is drawing to a close for the day, and no one has chimed in, so I'll be enacting a fail per the above presently. VanTucky Talk 01:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd ask about the History section's backlog. There's many old requests for review in there. So if there's no objection, I'll be taking on three of these. I'm currently in the process of reviewing Expo 67 and I'd like to take on 2 more, since I've pretty much worked out that it doesn't matter whether I'm doing one or three, I complete them all at a reasonable pace. Pursey Talk | Contribs 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You know Lara, I think you could be breaching this policy. :) You've got to be one of the more amusing Wikipedians :D You know how to make me laugh. Pursey Talk | Contribs 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a problem with Mobutu Sese Seko. As part of the preliminary review of the article (I plan on placing it on hold for some minor improvements) I placed a few {{ fact}} tags for facts which I thought were likely to be challenged. Twice now, reversions of this action has taken place. I have been called names and had my actions, as well as the GA process in general, treated with incivility and disdain. I am at a loss, and it would seem some editors are having some serious WP:OWN issues. Contesting the requests of a review politely is one thing, but saying a request to directly cite uncited facts "ridiculous"? I would appreciate some support here. VanTucky Talk 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice everyone, it seems that for now the issue is resovled. Anyhow, I've placed my review on the talk and the nom on hold. VanTucky Talk 23:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering. 65th Infantry Regiment (United States) was listed as GAC on the 29th of August of 2007. On Septmber 8, User:Sumoeagle179 asked for some issues to be taken care of and they were, see: Talk:65th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Issues.
As of today. I haven't heard from User:Sumoeagle179 nor from any other member of the GA committee, so I was wondering what is going on. Thank you all Tony the Marine 02:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have quick-failed the article on Steve Fossett, due to criterion 5 (stability) of the GA criteria. The search for him continues, and he has not been confirmed either dead or alive. Once he is found, whether a live person or a corpse, editing on this article is sure to draw a significant volume of edits. Even looking at the article's current edit history, we can see a lot of recent edits in the past couple of days. So I think it's best to hold off on this, at least until his story gets off the main news media. Dr. Cash 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Derek.cashman as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 15th September 2007.
Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Derek.cashman
2.
Awadewit
3.
Dihydrogen Monoxide
4.
Peripitus
5.
Noeticsage.
Epbr123 11:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow! That's totally strange?!?! I seriously thought that I was lagging behind in reviews this past week, and thought that I did more reviews from back when I was at #3 or #5 on the list, or not even on the list at all! Though if you look at the **quality** of my reviews, I still think they're good, decent reviews, plus I have several articles still on hold, and I've been working through the old chemistry articles for the sweeps, so it's like I haven't been doing anything,... ;-)
Still, maybe we still need to get more reviewers involved in the system, particularly more reviewer interested in articles that fall under some of the less-reviewed categories, like the natural sciences? Plus, the backlog has slowly been creeping back up (currently at 173 not reviewed), which is quite high. If we could convince every participant of WikiProject Good Articles to just commit to reviewing the equivalent of one article per day, for the next two weeks, I bet we'd significantly reduce the backlog,... Any takers? Dr. Cash 04:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm burned out from the last drive, and I'm trying to get into sweeps, but this is something that has occurred to me. We should encourage the editors that list nomination after nomination to take some reviews if they don't already, which I don't think most if any of them do. From looking over WP:GAC/R, I've noticed that there are a couple editors that consistently list multiple articles. The way I see it, if the articles are of GA quality, the nominator obviously understands the criteria and can spot of GA, right? If not, they're nominating articles that don't meet the criteria and are just bogging GAC down. So either way, there's something there to be addressed, in my opinion. Lara Love 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a Wikiproject logic, shouldn't there be a Logic category for articles? (Whether logic belongs in Mathematics or in Philosophy is a standard religious issue, and makes it hard to know what category I should put a nomination... but nobody can argue with it going under Logic.) Disclaimer: I have no idea how new categories are handled, so I refrained from just trying to add one without checking here first. Nahaj 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that this would be a useful subsection of this list: I wanted to add a long distance footpath to the list of candidates and eventually parked it under "Recreation, Miscellaneous". It felt more like "Geography" but none of the subdivisions thereof. Is there a procedure for adding subdivisions of headings in the list? PamD 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 22nd September 2007.
Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Derek.cashman
2.
Pursey
3.
Noeticsage
4.
GreenJoe
5.
Canadian Paul.
Epbr123 11:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Right now there's currently a discussion here on whether or not there should be citations in the lead. I have no personal preference, although the policy as stated when I reviewed Dungeons & Dragons (album) stated that there should be and I pointed that out in the review. The article is currently on hold for a variety of reasons but, I think that those little things will be cleared up in less than a day, which will probably mean that within 24 hours the only one of my unaddressed points will be references in the lead. I personally don't care which way they do it, and the second-to-last thing I'd want to do is have to fail an otherwise good article because of something silly like this. The last thing that I'd want to do, however, is pass a good article that has a clear (in the eyes of more experienced GA reviewers anyhow) MoS violation. So, as a somewhat-neutral editor, although one who would very much like to pass the aforementioned article once my concerns have been addressed, can an article be passed without citations in the lead? Cheers, CP 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't require references in the lead, and it's not something that GAR requires. Quotes would be an exception, but isn't it stated somewhere in the MOS that you should avoid quotes in the lead? Anyway, this has been posted to the Village Pump (Proposals) also. Lara Love 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, quick responses, but it's good to know that it's GAR approved to not have references in the lead. I'm assuming, though, that there's nothing wrong if the articles DO happen to have citations in them already? Cheers, CP 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The discussion linked concerns both footnotes and citations (which are not the same thing: footnotes are just one way to cite a source, and they can be used for other parenthetical material). In the lead section, both are permissible, but neither is required, as long as the lead summarizes the article (as it should) and all material requiring citation in the article is cited. Geometry guy 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This review is not acceptable. LuckyLouie has been deeply involved in the article, and is biased regarding the subject, being a member of Wikiproject Rational Skepticism. I would ask that any reviewer of this controversial subject have impeccable credentials of neutrality, and that editors who feel strongly about the paranormal recuse themselves from reviewing. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Lucky reviewing the article is not kosher. VanTucky Talk 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, as long as there is some recourse. Just your opinion, are there editors who hang out around here who would take an interest and help resolve any disagreements which might arise? —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Once upon a time, in the days when WP:GAR was called Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes, this page was known as Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations. Then people decided that using subpages for important processes was a bad idea and the name of this page was changed. Yet almost everything related to this process refers to nominations and nominees, never to candidates. So why is this page now called "Good article candidates" and not Wikipedia:Good article nominations? Well, it nearly was: both options were presented here and after a very little discussion, "candidate" was chosen, apparently for coherence with WP:FAC, though internal consistency was not discussed at all.
I mention this because the inconsistency generates all sorts of errors which waste editors' time. For instance, in {{ ArticleHistory}}, the standard terminology for this process is GAN, and an article which fails it has status FGAN. Most of the templates related to this project use an "N" or "nominee/nomination" instead of a "C" or "candidate". It is very confusing; editors sometimes get it wrong; errors are made; time is wasted; people complain; more time is wasted; etc.
Both User:LaraLove and I think it would save time in the long run if the terminology was consistent. There are obviously two ways to do this: use "candidates" everywhere or "nominations" everywhere. I checked out what changes these choices would require and here they are.
I don't mind doing the work, but option 2 seems a lot easier for everyone. Any thoughts? Preferences?
Geometry guy 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
(undent). Yes. -- Ling.Nut 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Option 2 really does make more sense in this case, but if you really want the best consistency, we should change FAC to featured article nominations as well. Good luck on that one! Ha! Ha! ;-) Then again, if it were WP:GAN instead, we'd actually be diverging AWAY from FAC, instead of becoming more like it, so I guess it could be a good thing,... Personally, I don't care what it's called - as long as the link for WP:GAC still gets you there, so people can still find the page. Dr. Cash 04:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The move of this page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations appears to be uncontroversial. However, it needs an admin to do it because the target page has had two minor edits since it was created as a redirect. I'm happy to follow up with the subpages and redirects. Geometry guy 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have talked to Nehrams2020 and we both think that there should be another backlog elimination drive so I would like other editors' opinions as well. This time the drive will take about a month (the last one was 2 weeks) and I think if we have a longer duration we can take care of more GAC. I also need ideas on what awards to be handed out other than just GA medal of merit because I have taken a look at WP:BS and Commons, then realize there's no other awards that can be handed out for the backlog elimination. OhanaUnited Talk page 09:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Will someone knowledgeable about the GA process please clean up the situation at Talk:Raëlian Church ? There are continuing errors showing up in the error category for {{ ArticleHistory}}, which appear to be partly stemming from some terminology used by GA. {{ GAList}} uses the terminology GA review, although the template is used when evaluating a GA nominee (isn't GAN different than GAR?). The result is that GAR events are added to the articlehistory, with someone then deleting them because the article was never added. This is a mess; can someone please figure out what the correct terminology is, what processes have been in play at Raelian church (I don't understand how there can be three failed reviews if the article is still listed at GAC), and clean up the article's edit history and templates to match ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen PocklingtonDan as the GA Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 7th July 2007. PocklingtonDan is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were 1. PocklingtonDan 2. Vimalkalyan 3. CloudNine 4. Hersfold 5. Z1720. Epbr123 11:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful if reviewers would start using the section heading "Good Article Nomination review" on talk pages rather than "Good Article review", as this is easily confused with " Good Article Review". Thanks. Epbr123 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please fix this; it's confusing !! Wikipedia:Good article review is not WP:GAC, yet {{ GAReview}} is the name of the template for passing GA nominations. The template should be renamed, and instructions corrected. This causes all kinds of confusion, which usually has to be straightened out on articlehistory. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
nnnnn
with the id number of the reviewed version. This number may be found in the URL of the archived version.The id number can not be obtained until you archive it. How do you do this? I believe this text needs clarification. AshLin 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought Akebono Taro represented a good article, however there is one editor who disagrees, and I am trying to resolve the situation without resorting to an edit war. However, I think this means that Akebono Taro cannot represent a Good Article under these conditions at this time. Is there a proper procedure to delist or can I just erase it from this section. Thanks XinJeisan 07:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
User INFO-CENTER slapped the tag under my article nom ( Development history of The Elder Scrolls series; also Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume), but it appears he's since gone out to lunch. He hasn't edited in 4 days, and the last thing he did was create a cute little template with the words: "Wikipedia user Information Center (talk · contribs) is temporarily inactive," and add it to his user page. I left him a message on his talk page the day of, but he hasn't responded since. That's somewhat frustrating. Is there protocol for what to do in cases like this? Can the tag be removed and the article reviewed by another? Geuiwogbil 04:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
So how broad does a GA have to be on a small city. Any tips on Oregon, Illinois? I have done one city GA, Springfield, Illinois but I think it was probably beyond the minimum when I submitted it. Is the Oregon article broad enough? What would need to be included to make it so? Any words would be appreciated. Thanks. IvoShandor 15:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Awadewit as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 14th July 2007.
Awadewit is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Awadewit
2.
LaraLove
3.
The Rambling Man
4.
Nehrams2020
5.
LordHarris.
Epbr123 10:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ GAreview}} - I made this template to make informaing people that their GA has been or is being reviewed quick, easy and preset. Take a look GA reviewers, and tell me what you think. I appreciate all feedback. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 11:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 21st July 2007.
The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
The Rambling Man
2.
Meowist
3.
Awadewit
4.
Johnfos
5.
Mouse Nightshirt.
Epbr123 11:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there now a policy to dispense with putting GACs on hold? I can understand if the article in question is fundamentally flawed in many areas, but in the Bob Cousy article for instance, the article was failed in less than half a day when many aspects of the article (e.g. coverage, sources, image, stability) IMO at least, ensured that it was not far from a GA pass. Putting the nomination on hold would have encouraged a more interactive process, and the edit history shows that at least a trio of editors were on standby to address any loose ends. A pass can conceivably be expeditious, but an expedited fail (whatever the aim) is probably unncessary. I pass the preceding final comments without specific reference to the Cousy example, because I do not know if it is indeed near GA quality but am merely speaking from editing articles which made GA. Chensiyuan 14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there still necessarily a backlog on this page? Looking at the list, it looks like most of the articles in the list are on hold, with very few that have not been reviewed. Not sure if we need the backlog tag currently? Dr. Cash 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand that there is somewhat of a learning curve with this template, but among the well-known advantages of using this template, there is one very (in my opinion) overlooked aspect. The |gacat
field. Over half of the listed GAs are uncategorized. That's over 1,500 articles. I've just created
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Uncategorized Good articles task force to hopefully gain some support and assistance from others in removing the articles from
Category:Uncategorized good articles. If it is widely agreed that including ArticleHistory in the steps of the passing process, what about expanding the task force so that experienced editors interested in helping out scan the history of
WP:GA to see what articles have been listed and, for those which don't have it, place the template on the article talk page and categorize?
Lara
Love 02:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why the categories in GAC are not consistent with those at GA? Lara Love 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The subject of the Institut Le Rosey article has very little public information available. The article recently failed a GA nomination primarily due to a lack of information (student life, academics, athletics). If the article's subject does not have enough information available, is it ineligible for GA status? Thanks, -- AJ24 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC).
I noticed because one of them nominated Solar power. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous editors may not review an article, per step #1 under, "How to review an article." But I don't see a problem with anons nominating them -- if the article satisfies the good article criteria, that's good enough for me. So what who nominates it. Dr. Cash 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Blnguyen as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 28th July 2007.
Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Blnguyen
2.
The Rambling Man
3.
Drewcifer3000
4.
Giggy
5.
VanTucky.
Epbr123 11:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a rule about passing articles that have been put on hold? User:Tarret has passed article Victoria Cross (Canada) that i had put on hold. Despite the Lead missing references, two images with WP:FURG Concerns, and when asked why he passed it he said : "in my opinion it was good enough for GA". - Flubeca Talk 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines regarding the use of the GAReview tag, which indicates that an article is currently undergoing, or has been partially reviewed, by a reviewer? It seems to me like this tag should be used if an editor is actively reviewing an article, but I've seen several of these tags added and left on the article for several days. One user also just tagged about 5 articles with this tag late last night, early morning, with no notes on the talk page indicating a partial review ( Blnguyen). It appears that he's "protecting" these articles from being reviewed by others, while not actually doing an active review. I personally don't think this is an acceptable use of the tag, as it somewhat discourages editors from reviewing certain articles. If you're actively reviewing an article, that's acceptable; but don't tag more than one article with this tag, and don't leave the tag up for several days. If you're leaving notes regarding the article's nomination, then use the GAOnHold tag. Perhaps we could add a task to the GA bot or something to automatically remove these tags if left for more than 24 hours? Dr. Cash 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's more than a week, just remove the tag, put a note on the other editor's talk page, and review the article. These are just intended to stop two people reviewing the article at the same time. Tim Vickers 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Well, the GAreview tag isn't bad in itself, but overuse can become a problem. When users add 4 or 5 of these tags to articles they're going to review in the near future (which is an awful lot), then that's pushing it a bit, just work on a couple at a time. Plus, the 3 day wait on it seems fine, if you don't read the whol thing in 3 days give someone else a shot (and if you do but aren't quite sure, that's what the on hold tag is for). Plus, if everyone could re-read WP:OWN, as it applies here. Wizardman 11:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, if we use it, it'll have to be moved out of my sand box, but take a look. What do you think? Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 17:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to your 'under review' tag. The whole point of the 'GAReview' tag is to let other editors on the GA candidates' page know that another editor is currently reviewing an article. It shouldn't be used to by a reviewer to "claim" an article to review several days later when s/he gets more time. Using an 'under review' tag on the article's talk page and not on the GA candidates' page completely bypasses the list, so other editors won't know that an article is being reviewed unless either (a) they go to the page in question or (b) the editor places BOTH the existing 'GAReview' tag at WP:GAC as well as your proposed 'under review' tag on the talk page, which seems a bit redundant.
Maybe the best solution to this policy is to adopt some sort of a "courtesy policy", whereby reviewers should contact the reviewer on their talk page if they are interested in reviewing an article that's been tagged by another reviewer for greater than one day. If an article has been tagged for greater than either 3 or 5 days, then it may be removed without warning (I'm leaning to 3, but I can see that consensus might be currently pointing to 5). I also think that the multiple tagging of articles (tagging more than 3 articles at a time) should be strongly discouraged. Dr. Cash 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what the consensus is, relating to passing WP:WIAGA, on sourcing articles dealing with classical subjects where the sources used are mainly writers from the period. Often sources (such as Livy, Tacitus, Josephus etc) are the only real reference material for these eras - but due to their documented bias (eg Livy's pro-Roman POV) they do not IMO really meet WP:RS. I've asked this over on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome page, and opinion so far seems to be that, in areas where such sources are uncontested by modern scholarship, they are acceptable. I've noticed reviewers quick-failing well-sourced articles by citing this as the reason, which seems a little harsh to me. Perhaps one solution would be to add a caveat to such articles noting the uncritical use of such sources, although this could be unwieldy and inappropriate in places. Any advice? Regards EyeSerene TALK 10:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Awadewit, that does seem a very prescriptive approach, and one that is likely to see a lot of articles up at AfD that probably don't deserve to be there. If we take the view that any source that is not 'modern' is likely to be unreliable, then we will lose huge chunks of WP... and often there seems to be just as much of a problem with modern sources - historians writing from a different bias (such as revisionist, feminist, liberal or racial 21st century interpretations of ancient history). I honestly don't believe that excluding ancient aources adds to either the scholarship or credibility of an article, as long as any inherent bias in those sources is taken into account. EyeSerene TALK 08:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) Thanks for the clarification - I'll bear that in mind in future GA reviews. I'm no historian (other than having a general interest in certain areas), so it has been helpful to thrash this out. I don't think the WP policy on primary, secondary and tertiary sources was written with the ancient period in mind, but I've got a better grasp of how standards can be applied in this area now. I appreciate the time you've taken on this one ;) Regards, EyeSerene TALK 00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I remember good articles used to have a little image - - in the top right, the same way featured articles have . What happened to that? -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Are GA reviewers allowed to use bots to review the articles? I was surprised and dismayed at this recent bot review that I received. I can run a bot if I want. Awadewit | talk 02:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
If that was the only action the reviewer did, that is unacceptable, however if they read the article and considered the points and added this as a way of making further suggestions, then it isn't quite so bad. I've dropped a note on the reviewer's talk page alerting them to this discussion. Tim Vickers 17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
(←)I agree that automated reviews are generally useless. They list issues that are generic and not necessarily relevant to the article being reviewed, which just causes confusion and unnecessarily wastes article custodians time. I've seen many automated reviews in the peer review process, which I think is a pain for everyone who requests one, but I must say this is the first instance that I've ever seen one used in the GA process. I have to agree with all of Awadewit's points. Lara ♥Love 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering what should be done in the case of an article such as Chris Benoit murder-suicide which is about a criminal investigation that is not yet over? I would think that this would fail good article criteria simply because as it says in the lead "The Fayette County, Georgia Sheriff's Department is currently investigating this case"? Surely this cannot be stable. Just thought I'd check here before a quick-fail. - Shudde talk 06:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to comment that since I stopped reviewing articles for GA status (because my comfort level doing so decreased--a lot--not because I didn't like to do them) this part of the encyclopedia has dramatically improved. Reviews are quickly completed, usually in not more than a few days, compare this with the period over one month I once waited for a review on Historic district. I would also note that the reviewers seem to understand the criteria and have a good grasp of the differences between GA and FA everytime I interact with WP:GA. Thanks a lot for all your quality work everybody. : ) IvoShandor 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 4th August 2007.
The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
The Rambling Man
2.
Drewcifer3000
3.
Awadewit
4.
LaraLove
5.
VanTucky.
Epbr123 00:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do not assume that because I've been given this "pointless" award twice that I do not make my very best effort in reviewing GAs. I and many other editors are here for the right reasons, not for those you've outlined. In fact, if you have a problem with any GA reviews, you should take it to WP:GA/R, not just fire off at a group of people who are trying to do their best. The Rambling Man 10:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
We have articles dating back to 28 July...currently 62 not reviewed, as opposed to 16 on July 30. I've added the backlog notice back to the page :( Giggy Talk 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Many articles marked as Long Articles aren't when you you exclude tables, footnotes, images, infoboxes, etc... See Wikipedia:Article size. The size should only include "readable prose". I saw that the Kinston Indians article was tagged as a long article. The people who worked on this article made a special effort to keep the size under control according to the rules at Wikipedia:Article Size. 69.68.238.142 12:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Blnguyen as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 11th August 2007.
Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Blnguyen
2.
Awadewit
3.
LaraLove
4.
The Rambling Man
5.
EyeSerene.
Epbr123 12:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Just noticed that I'm in the top 5! Not sure how that happened (I think everyone else must be on holiday), but cool all the same :D EyeSerene TALK 10:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at this please. On August 10, I turned down the GAC. It was the second in a week. The main author, Zalgt ( talk · contribs) appears to have self-passed his article. I usually do not go and revert some article that I have already judged, so I am reporting here. In my mind, the article is still at least totally unsourced. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have gone ahead and reorganized the candidates page to more closely match the actual GA list. Some categories were condensed to save space, but the two pages should mirror each other now. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) Thank you both! I may go in and trim the sub-categories a bit more. I particularly appreciate the addition of misc subcats in each cat. That will prove to be very useful. I've had a couple of instances where I've had an article that just didn't fit into any category listed at the time. In fact, Jayron, I think it was you that helped me list Jean Keene because I had no idea where to put her. I'm so impressed with the speed at which this project is being improved overall. So impressed. Lara ♥Love 04:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been renominated for GA status, apparently a third time. While at first glance, it appears to meet most of the GA criteria, I am still hesitant to pass this based on the fact that the 2007 football season hasn't even started yet, and the article is expected to undergo heavy editing during the next four to five months. I am not sure why the primary editor is so eager to get this to achieve GA status. Perhaps he's just a very devoted fan? What do others think? Dr. Cash 22:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I do think this is a GA of the best kind. It is about the team, not the season. It's broad, accurate, and stable. I'm listing this for a review.-- SidiLemine 14:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ruhrfisch's view. The article is going to change significantly from week to week because it's about a sports season that hasn't occurred yet. This is a clear case of WP:IAR, it's obviously going to have to be expanded significantly over the next year or so, and any arguments regarding the exact meaning of the stability issue are semantic. Should wait till the season is over then nominate. - Shudde talk 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Can an article be both a WP:FL and a WP:GA? In the near future Chicago Marathon will likely be nominated at WP:FLC. From my experience and the recent promotion of List of winners of the Boston Marathon, I think it has a good shot at promotion. Its text also has a modest shot at qualifying for WP:GA. Can an article be both a WP:GA and a WP:FL?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Derek.cashman as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 18th August 2007.
Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Derek.cashman
2.
Dinosaur puppy
3.
The Rambling Man
4.
Blnguyen
5.
Awadewit.
Epbr123 00:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, this is an EXCELLENT way to stimulate activity; all WikiProjects should adopt something similar. — Deckill er 01:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
For those of you passing GAs, remember that you want to set both the "oldid" and the "topic" parameter in the GA template that you add. (If you're adding an ArticleHistory bit, you just need the "topic" parameter.) Now that the GA and GAC topics are normalized, you can easily figure out what the topic parameter is, either from this short list or by setting it to the full name of the very top level category (NOT The subcategories!) Oldid can be get by looking at the url for the "permanent link" on the article page in the toolbox on the left side.
The main reason for this is that we've just gotten through classifying all the uncategorized GAs, and while the Category:Uncategorized good articles remains nearly empty, it does fill up at a interesting rate, I found 9 there today after cleaning it out 3 days ago. We don't want these to fill up as bad as they were before (like around 1000 when we started the task force drive). -- Masem 05:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I just wanted to drop a line about User:OhanaUnited. He just pretty unilaterally removed 1-month old GA Red Auerbach, just citing minor shortcomings in 2 lines, and then failing the article after 4 days. He completely failed to inform the main editors ( User:Onomatopoeia, User:Chensiyuan and others), never listed the article on WP:GA/R for discussion, and never listed the article on WP:NBA for any discussion for our WikiProject, yet stating "he did everything he did to let everybody know", see Wikipedia:Editor review/OhanaUnited. Is this 99,9% unilateral, if-no-discussion-comes-I-just-retract-GA a new modus operandi I don't know about, or what is going on here? Thanks for reading. — Onomatopoeia 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(←) I did the quality review of this article and tagged it as not done with several other articles. Some were tagged as questionable. It was my recommendation to Ohana that he delist all articles tagged as not done and send all questionable articles to GA/R, so I'm the one you have beef with, not him. Lara ♥Love 05:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I'll consider thatyou are re-applying your previous arguments to me.... You talk about counter productivity. Is your goal to have as much articles as possible have a little plus? Or to have as much great articles as possible?-- SidiLemine 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone follow the "minimum of 2 days" part of the template? It seems like if an article is improved in less that amount of time, there's no reason to wait until two days have passed (though obviously it's a good idea to avoid having articles on hold for more than a week). 17Drew 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's been something like 11 days since the backlog elimination drive ended, and there's already a huge backlog. I can only imagine things are going to get worse. Does anyone think a more long-term elimination drive type thing would be a good idea? Similar to the assessment drive of Wikiproject Bibliography maybe? Still the same x reviews you get a prize type thing, but maybe with higher requirements and without an end date? Might help over the long haul. Just a thought. Drewcifer3000 08:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have started a proposal for a fall 2007 review drive. You can review it here. Please feel free to make suggestions and/or revisions. Discussion can be done on it's talk page. The drive would start on September 1, which is one week away. So it would be good to get everything finalized in the next 3-5 days, if there is interest in pursuing this. Dr. Cash 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 25th August 2007.
The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
The Rambling Man
2.
Awadewit
3.
David Fuchs
4.
Derek.cashman
5.
Dinosaur puppy.
Epbr123 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have started a discussion over at the GA criteria page about the requirement of in-line citations in GA articles. Hopefully this should clear up quite a bit of debate over at WP:GA/R and elsewhere. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The review of Harold Pinter seems to have turned sour. The first reviewer, the one listed as placing the hold on the candidates page, seems to have quit after getting into it with NYScholar over the style of referencing. Wrad is now discussing it at length with him, but no one seems to have officially taken up the review. I partly blame myself for this, as I originally took the review but wasted so much time doing outside research for accuracy that it just got silly and I reopened it for reviewing. Anyway, it seems to be at a standstill at the moment and I don't know what to do. From my perspective, NYScholar seems to be being unnecessarily combative and possibly having ownership issues. VanTucky (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am currently reviewing Joe Nathan and it is my first review. I think it is going well but i have two questions. 1) There are some remnants of passive voice, as the reviewer can i fix those and then pass the article? 2) If i cannot change them myself, can the article be passed if there are a small number of passive statements - i think the article is good overall. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Evidently some people at WT:FAC want to just axe GAC, period... David Fuchs ( talk) 15:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Johnfos as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 1st September 2007.
Johnfos is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Johnfos
2.
Phil Sandifer
3.
The Rambling Man
4.
Derek.cashman
5.
Alientraveller.
Epbr123 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the consensus on passing articles that are well-sourced, but those sources are in languages other than English? I'm currently involved with one that has sources mostly in French (which thankfully I can just about manage) with no English equivalents. My inclination is to pass the article, but the guidance on WP:SOURCE seems to imply the citations should be professionally translated... which seems overly-picky for GA (although understandable at FA). Comments? EyeSerene TALK 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Does a season fall under "Television show" or "television episode?" -- thedemonhog talk • edits 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we combine {{ GA2ndoptalk}} and {{ GAonhold}} into an extension of {{ GAnominee}}. Its a bit confusing the way it is currently and if this works there will be less templates to be used in this process. Tarret 20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The 2007 Rugby World Cup starts this weekend. Surely this is a highly inappropriate time to nominate an article which is guaranteed to be unstable for the next month and a half? Do other editors agree that the nomination should be rejected for this reason? -- Peter cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen ( talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Something is wrong with the syntax of FGAN, the optional closing comments field is not working (at least in Firefox on OSX, not that it should make a difference). VanTucky (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created a new template, {{ GA2ndopinion}}, primarily intended to be used by newer or less experienced reviewers that have reviewed an article, but are sort of "sitting on the fence" regarding whether the article meets the GA criteria or not, but may not want to put the article on hold because it probably does meet the criteria. So this would allow them to tag an article on the WP:GAC page requesting that a more experienced reviewer come along and offer his/her second opinion on the matter. Or it could be used on some of the more controversial articles (the 2007 texas longhorn football season article issue might be an example of how this could have been used). It could also be used by experienced reviewers to request a 2nd opinion of a reviewer that might be more knowledgeable on the subject matter. I think this would also strengthen the overall GA program as a whole as well, as hopefully it's use would encourage reviews by more than one person (one of the major criticisms of the GA process) while still preserving the ability of one reviewer to pass some of the more straightforward candidates.
The template would like like this:
What do others think of this? Dr. Cash 06:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this would be excellent. It would assist people like myself who are just getting the hang of reviewing articles. Pursey 09:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how there's pretty much no opposition to this, I've updated the instructions to add usage of this template. I guess we'll try this out for a couple of days or weeks and see how it works. Of course, the template may not only be used by less experienced reviewers; others may use it in other circumstances, such as if they are not quite as familiar with the topic as they originally thought, and want an expert to review it, or if an article might be somewhat controversial. Cheers! Dr. Cash 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've only just seen this (busy RL recently); excellent work, Dr. Cash! I had thought that the request a couple of us made a while back had died a death, but this goes a long way to meeting the need... and without all the extra work entailed in some sort of "new reviewers' induction programme". Good job ;) EyeSerene TALK 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the above article has been on hold since 24th August, after a very perfunctory GA review; the situation really needs looking at by someone more experienced than me ;) EyeSerene TALK 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Invasive species GA passed on 02 August 2007 but it is not listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we add an agriculture section to the GAC page somewhere, I didn't see one and added my nom in the miscellaneous section. IvoShandor 07:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Johnfos as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 8th September 2007.
Johnfos is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Johnfos
2.
Pursey
3.
Derek.cashman
4.
EyeSerene
5.
The Rambling Man.
Epbr123 10:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Pursey at two? You mean the same editor that claimed to have reviewed three music GACs in a partial or full manner three days ago, but hasn't left anything at the talk pages? Before compiling this list Epbr123, actually check if the reviewer has actually reviewed the articles. Pursey doing that with the music articles has been a waste of time, and delayed their respective reviews. LuciferMorgan 13:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
At the beginning of the week, Pursey did a pretty poor review of Madrid, which resulted in me re-reviewing the article, delisting it, and placing it on hold. But rather than biting the newcomers, I made some helpful suggestions on his talk page instead, and I think the quality of some of his reviews has increased considerably this week. He's still a little too dependent on reviewing the references aspect of articles, than other, more subjective things like prose and content (other suggestions on articles would be helpful other than the traditional "article needs more references"). But overall, I see a huge improvement (nomination for 'most improved reviewer'?).
On another note, I was a bit surprised to see myself on the list this week, as I thought my activity at WP:GAC had dropped off a bit. I've been focusing more on re-reviewing articles in the sweeps this week. But maybe this is just evidence that we need more reviewers (so let's not all attack those that are new, let's focus on helping them become better reviewers so that they stay and help decrease the backlog). Dr. Cash 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sparking from the conversation above, which may have cost us a good GAC reviewer (I sure hope not, that would suck), I think we're going to have to break this down into a few questions:
Now I think #1 was the main source of conflict in the above discussion. To weigh in myself, I agree with LuciferMorgan that one article should be reviewed at a time. I was one of the nominators of those "three music GACs in a partial or full [review]" ( Billy Talent), and it kinda sucked wondering for a couple days what was going on. I would be constantly be chacking Pursey's GA Review list, becoming increasingly frustrated each time seeing it was still under review but not seeing any notes. Having those three articles under review took away their chance to be reviewed by other editors as well. Pursey, I am in no way questioning your ability to review articles, you're an awesome reviewer. I just believe it would be more effective to review one article at a time. I don't see how it inconveniences you any, you would just be reviewing them at a more steady rate.
#2 and #3 I will be neutral on, and let others debate. But I don't think articles tagged with {{ GAReview}} should be removed from the list. If it wasn't for seeing it for the short time it was up, and Pursey's GA Review list, I would have freaked out and wonder what the hell happened.
Now I open this up to you guys, please state your standing on those 4 questions, and lets see if we can get consensus, and if any changes need to be made. -- Reaper X 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't review anymore but one way to solve this conflict is to work on the reviews on wiki, a user sub page, I used to do that sometimes when a review was going to take awhile. Unfortunately not all topics can be given a proper review in just one sitting, thus no time limits should be imposed and this project would be making a mistake if it were to impose more rules, the more rules there are the more likely it is that they will be ignored. IvoShandor 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
My answers, for what they're worth:
I think this is a storm in a teacup. The Rambling Man 15:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cloudnine's comments above. A message on the users talk page is the best way to deal with any queries regarding how long a review is taking. Any rules are just going to deter people from reviewing articles, especially if they fear they will breach some protocol. I also agree with Rambling Man that this is a storm in a tea cup and I would encourage some of those that have been getting upset about this to assume good faith. - Shudde talk 00:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is time article listed twice in Physics and Astronomy categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt the golden plates nominee will be quick-failed like I think it should, because no one wants a deluge of "Mormon hating!" and "POV!" thrown at them, and the sources that are present are impressive. Sometimes it isn't what is there, but what isn't. It frankly reads to me like a Mormon lesson on the history of the plates. Don't you think that an article about the golden plates that contains no mention of the idea that many find the idea of them totally implausible, if not outright ridiculous, is a violation of blatant POV? If the Bible article can contain significant criticism, why not the golden plates? VanTucky Talk 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to complete the long-overdue review of Lal Masjid siege today, but I am tempted to fail it based upon the fact that the cassus belli of the incident is disputed (most recent revert was today). The rest of the article is pretty good, but this is a core issue which I feel has disrupted the stability of the article. Thoughts? VanTucky Talk 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My wiki-time is drawing to a close for the day, and no one has chimed in, so I'll be enacting a fail per the above presently. VanTucky Talk 01:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd ask about the History section's backlog. There's many old requests for review in there. So if there's no objection, I'll be taking on three of these. I'm currently in the process of reviewing Expo 67 and I'd like to take on 2 more, since I've pretty much worked out that it doesn't matter whether I'm doing one or three, I complete them all at a reasonable pace. Pursey Talk | Contribs 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You know Lara, I think you could be breaching this policy. :) You've got to be one of the more amusing Wikipedians :D You know how to make me laugh. Pursey Talk | Contribs 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a problem with Mobutu Sese Seko. As part of the preliminary review of the article (I plan on placing it on hold for some minor improvements) I placed a few {{ fact}} tags for facts which I thought were likely to be challenged. Twice now, reversions of this action has taken place. I have been called names and had my actions, as well as the GA process in general, treated with incivility and disdain. I am at a loss, and it would seem some editors are having some serious WP:OWN issues. Contesting the requests of a review politely is one thing, but saying a request to directly cite uncited facts "ridiculous"? I would appreciate some support here. VanTucky Talk 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice everyone, it seems that for now the issue is resovled. Anyhow, I've placed my review on the talk and the nom on hold. VanTucky Talk 23:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering. 65th Infantry Regiment (United States) was listed as GAC on the 29th of August of 2007. On Septmber 8, User:Sumoeagle179 asked for some issues to be taken care of and they were, see: Talk:65th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Issues.
As of today. I haven't heard from User:Sumoeagle179 nor from any other member of the GA committee, so I was wondering what is going on. Thank you all Tony the Marine 02:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I have quick-failed the article on Steve Fossett, due to criterion 5 (stability) of the GA criteria. The search for him continues, and he has not been confirmed either dead or alive. Once he is found, whether a live person or a corpse, editing on this article is sure to draw a significant volume of edits. Even looking at the article's current edit history, we can see a lot of recent edits in the past couple of days. So I think it's best to hold off on this, at least until his story gets off the main news media. Dr. Cash 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Derek.cashman as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 15th September 2007.
Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Derek.cashman
2.
Awadewit
3.
Dihydrogen Monoxide
4.
Peripitus
5.
Noeticsage.
Epbr123 11:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow! That's totally strange?!?! I seriously thought that I was lagging behind in reviews this past week, and thought that I did more reviews from back when I was at #3 or #5 on the list, or not even on the list at all! Though if you look at the **quality** of my reviews, I still think they're good, decent reviews, plus I have several articles still on hold, and I've been working through the old chemistry articles for the sweeps, so it's like I haven't been doing anything,... ;-)
Still, maybe we still need to get more reviewers involved in the system, particularly more reviewer interested in articles that fall under some of the less-reviewed categories, like the natural sciences? Plus, the backlog has slowly been creeping back up (currently at 173 not reviewed), which is quite high. If we could convince every participant of WikiProject Good Articles to just commit to reviewing the equivalent of one article per day, for the next two weeks, I bet we'd significantly reduce the backlog,... Any takers? Dr. Cash 04:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm burned out from the last drive, and I'm trying to get into sweeps, but this is something that has occurred to me. We should encourage the editors that list nomination after nomination to take some reviews if they don't already, which I don't think most if any of them do. From looking over WP:GAC/R, I've noticed that there are a couple editors that consistently list multiple articles. The way I see it, if the articles are of GA quality, the nominator obviously understands the criteria and can spot of GA, right? If not, they're nominating articles that don't meet the criteria and are just bogging GAC down. So either way, there's something there to be addressed, in my opinion. Lara Love 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a Wikiproject logic, shouldn't there be a Logic category for articles? (Whether logic belongs in Mathematics or in Philosophy is a standard religious issue, and makes it hard to know what category I should put a nomination... but nobody can argue with it going under Logic.) Disclaimer: I have no idea how new categories are handled, so I refrained from just trying to add one without checking here first. Nahaj 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that this would be a useful subsection of this list: I wanted to add a long distance footpath to the list of candidates and eventually parked it under "Recreation, Miscellaneous". It felt more like "Geography" but none of the subdivisions thereof. Is there a procedure for adding subdivisions of headings in the list? PamD 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen
Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 22nd September 2007.
Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1.
Derek.cashman
2.
Pursey
3.
Noeticsage
4.
GreenJoe
5.
Canadian Paul.
Epbr123 11:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Right now there's currently a discussion here on whether or not there should be citations in the lead. I have no personal preference, although the policy as stated when I reviewed Dungeons & Dragons (album) stated that there should be and I pointed that out in the review. The article is currently on hold for a variety of reasons but, I think that those little things will be cleared up in less than a day, which will probably mean that within 24 hours the only one of my unaddressed points will be references in the lead. I personally don't care which way they do it, and the second-to-last thing I'd want to do is have to fail an otherwise good article because of something silly like this. The last thing that I'd want to do, however, is pass a good article that has a clear (in the eyes of more experienced GA reviewers anyhow) MoS violation. So, as a somewhat-neutral editor, although one who would very much like to pass the aforementioned article once my concerns have been addressed, can an article be passed without citations in the lead? Cheers, CP 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't require references in the lead, and it's not something that GAR requires. Quotes would be an exception, but isn't it stated somewhere in the MOS that you should avoid quotes in the lead? Anyway, this has been posted to the Village Pump (Proposals) also. Lara Love 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, quick responses, but it's good to know that it's GAR approved to not have references in the lead. I'm assuming, though, that there's nothing wrong if the articles DO happen to have citations in them already? Cheers, CP 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The discussion linked concerns both footnotes and citations (which are not the same thing: footnotes are just one way to cite a source, and they can be used for other parenthetical material). In the lead section, both are permissible, but neither is required, as long as the lead summarizes the article (as it should) and all material requiring citation in the article is cited. Geometry guy 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This review is not acceptable. LuckyLouie has been deeply involved in the article, and is biased regarding the subject, being a member of Wikiproject Rational Skepticism. I would ask that any reviewer of this controversial subject have impeccable credentials of neutrality, and that editors who feel strongly about the paranormal recuse themselves from reviewing. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Lucky reviewing the article is not kosher. VanTucky Talk 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, as long as there is some recourse. Just your opinion, are there editors who hang out around here who would take an interest and help resolve any disagreements which might arise? —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Once upon a time, in the days when WP:GAR was called Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes, this page was known as Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations. Then people decided that using subpages for important processes was a bad idea and the name of this page was changed. Yet almost everything related to this process refers to nominations and nominees, never to candidates. So why is this page now called "Good article candidates" and not Wikipedia:Good article nominations? Well, it nearly was: both options were presented here and after a very little discussion, "candidate" was chosen, apparently for coherence with WP:FAC, though internal consistency was not discussed at all.
I mention this because the inconsistency generates all sorts of errors which waste editors' time. For instance, in {{ ArticleHistory}}, the standard terminology for this process is GAN, and an article which fails it has status FGAN. Most of the templates related to this project use an "N" or "nominee/nomination" instead of a "C" or "candidate". It is very confusing; editors sometimes get it wrong; errors are made; time is wasted; people complain; more time is wasted; etc.
Both User:LaraLove and I think it would save time in the long run if the terminology was consistent. There are obviously two ways to do this: use "candidates" everywhere or "nominations" everywhere. I checked out what changes these choices would require and here they are.
I don't mind doing the work, but option 2 seems a lot easier for everyone. Any thoughts? Preferences?
Geometry guy 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
(undent). Yes. -- Ling.Nut 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Option 2 really does make more sense in this case, but if you really want the best consistency, we should change FAC to featured article nominations as well. Good luck on that one! Ha! Ha! ;-) Then again, if it were WP:GAN instead, we'd actually be diverging AWAY from FAC, instead of becoming more like it, so I guess it could be a good thing,... Personally, I don't care what it's called - as long as the link for WP:GAC still gets you there, so people can still find the page. Dr. Cash 04:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The move of this page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations appears to be uncontroversial. However, it needs an admin to do it because the target page has had two minor edits since it was created as a redirect. I'm happy to follow up with the subpages and redirects. Geometry guy 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)