![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I'm not sure how helpful the "On hold" status is, nor whether "Second opinion" is used at all. It the interest of paring down the excessive amount of instructions at the top of this page, I wondering if both of these options could be removed? "Holds" could be done informally instead, and articles which need second opinions instead taken to GAR. Thoughts? -- jwanders Talk 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my reason for proposing this was not because on-hold and 2nd opinion aren't useful. It's simply that the instruction block at the top of the page has too much in it, and I believe it either intimidates potential new reviewers or leads them to skim over the instructions. I think something has to be dropped from there, and the two I suggested seemed like the easiest options. Is there something else we could take out instead? -- jwanders Talk 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
How about reformatting the process to be similar to that for FA? Discussion sections for each article and a Good Article Coordinator or Coordinators to help guide things along? -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the backlog elimination drive. I'm not as concerned about a bounceback or about rising GA noms and reviews as I am about people having to wait longer than a month for a review. If we can keep that from happening, that would be wonderful. Wrad ( talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the reasons I stopped reviewing at GA is the “hold”. Holds are optional and to be applied at the reviewer’s reasonable discretion. There seems to be, however, an opinion – especially amongst nominators – that holds are mandatory, which frequently results in bitching and moaning at GAR. Reviewers have to waste their time defending their decision and nominators waste time complaining instead of just fixing the article and re-nominating. I agree that holds are useful and have used them myself, but they would best be removed from the formal process and, perhaps, only retained as an unwritten courtesy. Second opinions are meaningless. I’ve seen them go over a month with no response. If you have a question, use common sense and ask it here on the talk page; it’s nonsense to have it formalized as a template and accompanying instructions. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Geometry guy hath not said that the concepts of "On Hold" or "second Opinion Desired" are to be dropped; he said the templates are a pain. I agree. First, the "On Hold" template .. and here I'm talking about only the templates, not the underlying concept.. serve no purpose other than to discourage other eyes from looking at an article being reviewed ... No, I see nothing wrong with the idea of an article being on Hold; the template is what is redundant. It adds complexity and implicitly discourages other reviewers from chipping in. I oppose both of those dynamics.. the dynamic of adding more and more templates when we should have been adding fewer and fewer, and the dynamic of "One pair of eyes only" on a GA review, which is by far the heaviest knock on GA, and deservedly so... instead of a "Second Opinion" template we should be using messages on this particular Tallk page (not the article's talk)... messages like "hey I'm having probs with a review; a little help?" etc. So much more community oriented.. and so much easier.. than a template! BUT... that prob.. plus the steep learning curve at GA.. would be helped by Newbie training. GA is the point of entry for new reviewers.. they need to learn about WP:WIAGA as well as MOS and WIAFA and... so on. BUT.. I say drop as many templates as possible STARTING with 'Under Review' (the worst of the lot, imvso) and including 'On Hold' and 'Second Opinion', replacing the latter with timely, relevant, reduced-effort and increased-community-building messages here on this talk page .... Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's focus on what the templates have to do in relation with GA's ultimate goal- to have a low-bureacratic way of vetting articles which meet certain qualities.
-- Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).
but {{User:David Fuchs/layout|onhold=yes}} gives you
Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).
: This article is currently on hold.
The grammar, wording are all random and could be reworded, but just to give you an idea of what could be done. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
{{User:David Fuchs/layout|status=}}
; the status can be changed to onhold
or 2nd opinion
to generate the proper messages.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (
talk)
17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've drafted a combined GAN talk page template at {{ GAN}}, and I think it is ready for road testing. I've made several other changes. First, I've copyedited the text in the various versions of the template. Some of this text was rather long before, and many editors don't like a lot of talk page template cruft. Second, I've eliminated mention of "pass" and "fail" in favour of "list or not" since I believe the pass/fail terminology generates misconceptions about the way GA works. Third, I've added a separate "on review" status. Finally, I've added a subtopic parameter.
Those who know me may be surprised by the last two changes, since they appear to add bureaucracy rather than remove it. Here are some explanations. At present there are four possible statuses for a GAN. I wish there were fewer, but there aren't, so we should be honest about it. The subtopic parameter is extra work for the nominator and provides a handy link for the reviewer to go directly to the correct section of WP:GAN, saving all that time scrolling around. Finally (and this, of course, is the real reason), providing both parameters means that all of the information about the article on WP:GAN is now stored in the template: this provides the possibility to generate WP:GAN automatically from the talk page information, so that it never needs to be edited again. Geometry guy 13:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Comics Guaranty LLC#Restoration and its reference #18. Is it acceptable in terms of GA? The source is a Comics Guaranty LLC forum, but the user quoted is the company president and head comics grader. So the question is 1: is the source acceptable in terms of GA quality, and if it is 2: is the reference formatted in a GA acceptable way? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose replace the following items on the GAN page:
{{backlog}}
The oldest unreviewed good article nominations are:
Infant school | start review) • Murali Vijay | start review) • Barry Sheene | start review) • Mafeje affair | start review) • September 1983 Laws | start review) |
The highest priority unreviewed good article nominations are:
Infant school • Barry Sheene • Mafeje affair • Rikishi • Paul George |
with the following template: {{User:David Fuchs/draft}} which looks like this:
{{
User:David Fuchs/draft}}
The advantage is it combines elements and also adds an optional parameter, backlog
, which if activated like {{User:David Fuchs/draft|backlog=yes}}
makes:
{{
User:David Fuchs/draft}}
It's minor, I know, but it helps consolidate the junk.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (
talk)
21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OK it's a bit hypocritical of me to write this, since I can't do squat to help (no time)...
I don't think GA needs more essays designed to train newbies; I think GA needs more mentors. At a bare minimum, they should be trained on:
.. so just make a list of those willing to act as mentors. You could even sort them by specialty(?)... The big question, of course, is "Who will mentor the mentors?". It's guaranteed that some who sign up to be mentors will actually need mentoring. I think all mentors shouuld monitor each other, very casually and collegially.. with the end-result that every person being trained would be paired with one mentor for a short while, but would be watched by one or more others, who could chip in.
Ling.Nut ( talk) 07:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a good idea from my trusty handsock, Ling, so I've set up a page at WP:Good article nominations/Mentors, with shortcut WP:GAN/M. Please add your name to the list with reviewing interests and/or areas of GA expertise. If enough people sign up, we can add a link to the GAN page, and probably also WP:Reviewing good articles. However, I do completely disagree with one thing: we should not be wasting time training editors how to use the article history! Article history is for bots and we should be discouraging human beings from using it. Use the GA templates instead: a bot can (and sometimes does) build article history from these templates. One day this will be fully automated. Geometry guy 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent). I think we no longer need the "2nd opinion" template. Can I get a 2nd opinion on that assertion, please? Ling.Nut ( talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Above is the extremely short, interesting history of discussion on IP noms (no discussion at the wikiproject). There is no consensus. Can we have a discussion about this?
Some of the arguments against are quite bad. For instance I have my last three Special Contributions pages bookmarked to check articles and talk pages. And that's when I don't have a GA review pending. And article talk pages don't move either.
Conversely, the arguments for are good. Consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia (FA most pertinently) is in contrast to this page as it stands. IP editing is a foundation issue. This, as one editor notes in one of the above links, goes against what the wiki is all about. We should not be creating a hierarchy of editors. Openness and accessibility is important. And so on and so forth. This is the project you signed up for.
86.44.6.14 (
talk)
09:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I have a problem with reviews by IPs. How do i know the reviewer isn't a major contributor? the same problem exists for socks, but pointing to one prob to justify another doesn't wash as an argument. the sock problem is merely more difficult to spot; that doesn't mean it justifies the IP reviewer problem. Ling.Nut ( talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What the considerations against come down to is ability to contact the nominator, questions over whether the nominator is gaming the system by anon. nomination (possible, albeit unlikely) and whether random IPs will nominate articles which clearly fail (prolly no worse a problem than new users who do likewise.) Either way, I'm neutral, I just think we should be clear on all possible issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there some mechanism in place to auto-fail a hold that's been around for more than 7 days, or is it up to the reviewer to close the nomination? (There seems to be a bot touching other portions of this page - that's why I ask). — Rob ( talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Just whipped up User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/A noob's guide to GA reviewing. Not sure if there are any relevant pages around that I could link to/have it linked from. Comments? dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) 07:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I review Abbey Mills Mosque for GA nomination? Of the article's 183 edits, 9 edits are mine (approx. 5% of the total edits), where 3 of the edits were on whether a category should be included.
Nevertheless, this makes me the third most frequent contributor to this article. Would be appropriate for me to review this article for GA (because I'd love to)? Bless sins ( talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that an article cannot be on PR and FAC simultaneously, or on FAC and GAN simultaneously. However, can an article be on PR and GAN simultaneously? If I nominate an article at GAN, given the current backlog, I would have to wait at least a month for it to be reviewed. The average peer review lasts about two weeks; by placing an article on PR and GAN simultaneously, it will take me less time to get articles to GA status. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I am extremely troubled by a recent review at Talk:Kenwyne_Jones#GA_Review. The reviewer declined to place the article on hold for the requested improvements, which was some relatively minor citation work and copyediting, because it "was not stable". Why was it not stable? 47 edits in four days! I have never understood, in practice or in the criteria, for stability to entail that no edits at all are made to an article. It's completely absurd; the spirit of stability is to ensure that a fair review can be conducted (we all know preserving quality after the review is a continuing battle). I'd like to hear from other reviewers if they too, fail articles because edits (of any kind) are being made to an article. Van Tucky 18:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I'm going to pass that as a GA. The stability thing is for a bomb going off outside the school that is the article subject, not for someone working to improve the article. Thus, I see no reason why it can't be passed.
dihydrogen monoxide (
H2O)
22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've renominated the article at the place it was before this fail. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
See thread here on rewording the criteria. Van Tucky 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Should someone review this recently passed article as it was passed by an apparent sock of a banned user? Aboutmovies ( talk) 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The article in its current form does not make mention of either Gavin Newsom's involvement in the Hillary Clinton presidential campgain, or of his own gubernatorial aspirations. However, inclusion of these topics would result in an unstable article not suitable for GAN (right?). What is to be done here? Is the article considered not "broad in coverage" if it omits these aspects? Is it not "stable" if it does so?
-- Malachirality ( talk) 23:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I nominated Haifa for GA over a month ago. It was reviewed by a very inexperienced user (just over 50 edits in total to his name) and I dont feel the review is very useful in terms of the feedback he gives. He also requests some things which are not even standards for GA. If someone could take a look at this for me and advise me where to go from here, Id really appreciate it. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere ( talk) 13:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Can an article bearing the orphan template still be classified as " good"? 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Could I request that, if the article Shrewsbury ( Places section) is reviewed after this Sunday 23rd of March, and if it is put on 'Hold', that this can be extended to more than a week? As I will be on vacation for a while from that date, I may not be able to reply/fix any issues with the article within a week or so. If it isn't reviewed for say, another two weeks, then there should be no response problems. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. CAn anyone review this article, Nina Williams, and see what it delivers is right? I think it passes most of the criteria LOTRrules ( talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If article writers are using GA to hop to FA, should we request that they just skip GAC and go straight to FAC? The reasoning is that if you nom an article here, waiting times are three to four weeks. FAC offers a community discussion about issues with the article and it would be more helpful for them to fix them than wait for GAC. Sceptre ( talk) 12:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with giving this advice. Agree with Malleus (strongly, especially about the whinging), and also, sending a stack of extra articles to FAC will cause it to be massively backlogged. If they're sent because "GAN said so", it'll lower our rep even further. Bad idea. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 06:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had something called "GA Sweeps" to get rid of the hoge backlog. Did it get stopped or something? D.M.N. ( talk) 17:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If every member of the GA project reviewed just one article in the next week, the backlog would almost be cleared. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need any co-ordinated effort, just pick an article and review it. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's always said that if editors reviewd one article a week, the backlog would be cleared. But that never happens, because there are never enough editors. So I guess a drive would be in order sometime. And they have been rather successful. I see that last summer there was at one time only 40 articles nominated. But right now I think getting the page down to about 150 would be quite an achievement. Noble Story ( talk) 04:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe in mentioning the "nominate one, review one" idea, we should emphasise that if you don't contribute at least a little bit, then any articles you eventually take to GAC will take a long, long time to get reviewed because of the backlog. But if you review at least one a week or something like that, the backlog will be reduced, and any future GACs, including yours, will go through faster. So you might not see any rewards now, but you will in the long run. Noble Story ( talk) 14:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm just about to review this article, only to notice that it is semi-protected after a recent bout of IP vandalism. Also, several paragraphs in the San Fransico Giants section are unreferenced. Would this qualify for me to quick-fail it? D.M.N. ( talk) 13:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In case you didn't see the Signpost article,I'v copied this bit. Article flagging is being tested. An open beta of article validation is in progress, in English. Registered users can grant themselves one of two statuses: "Editor", which allows a user to flag a revision as being checked for vandalism and obvious nonsense, and "Reviewer", which allows a user to flag a revision as a "good" or "featured" article. When implemented, these statuses will likely be granted manually by administrators, but for the purposes of the test, any user can make themselves a "reviewer". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The GA Reviewer for Miguel Ángel Asturias has left - see Talk:Miguel Ángel Asturias#GA Reviewer. Anyone want to take over? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 13:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
DM is out a bit so I'll ask somebody to re-evaluate " Confessions Part II" he recently put on hold. Thank you. -- Efe ( talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently 24: The Game and Battle of Gettysburg, First Day were nominated (by the same editor, kaypoh). However, both are already A-class articles. When I inguired on the talk page of 24: The Game, I was told that an article could be a GA and A-class article at the same time. Is that true?
It doesn't seem too logical to me, as an A-class article is supposed to be judged with higher standards than a GA article. Noble Story ( talk) 15:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
For the other wikiprojects that I participate in, I usually treat A-class as sort of a GA+ rating. I think that all A-class articles should meet, at a minimum, the GA criteria, and then go above and beyond, providing additional details and fulfilling a more subject area based assessment. They should mostly be meeting the FA criteria as well, but obviously don't have to meet all of them. As such, I don't have a problem with articles being listed as GA and also assessed as A-class by one of their wikiprojects. But I do have a problem with A-class assessments on articles that do not meet the GA criteria and are not listed at WP:GA. Dr. Cash ( talk) 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Stub - Start - B - A | | GA- FA
Is it? It doesn't seem to of been reviewed properly to me. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, sorry about that review. I haven't done to many reviews yet, and I guess I need to re-read the criteria, because after a second look, I see that this article should not have passed the way I passed it. I apologize for this. iMat thew 20 08 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled across this situation and thought I would bring it up here for broader input (am also notifying the editor in question). Noble Story does GA reviews in User:Noble Story/sandbox, with just a link to the sandbox from the article talk page. When the GA review is done, the sandbox is cleared and used for the next review(s), so that someone looking for the GA review details would have to dig through the sandbox history. This defeats the purpose of having the GA review on the article talk page. Such reviews are helpful for future editors and for things like FAC.
Specific example: Stuart McCall is a GA, but on Talk:Stuart McCall there is a very minimal review and a link to the sandbox. This was blanked here diff to add the review for History of Bradford City A.F.C., which is also now gone.
I also wonder about the level of changes being asked for relative to GA criteria. While it is clear Noble Story is a careful, thorough and detailed reviewer, I think this practice of doing reviews in the sandbox has to stop. I also think the complete reviews have to be "dug up" and put in their article talk pages. Looks like there are 11 articles to date [ [9]].
I also think the directions need to be made more explicit as to reviews being done in the article talk page only. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The importance of making GA reviews easily available to future reviewers and editors has been pointed out above. However, the current GA practice of storing reviews on article talk pages is not ideal in this respect, because talk pages get archived. In particular, for high traffic articles, the talk page is often archived automatically on a timescale of 1 month or less. This causes numerous problems finding old GA reviews, as links are often broken and the review isn't a click away, because there are multiple archive pages.
It might be better to store GA reviews in a permanent place (e.g., a talk subpage such as [[Talk:Stuart McCall/GA2]] for the second GA review of Stuart McCall) so that they can easily be found at any later date. While the review is active, it can, of course be transcluded onto the talk page, just as peer reviews are listed on the peer review page. After the review, a link can be left, but it will be a permanent link. This approach might appeal to User:Noble Story as well. What do others think? Geometry guy 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, since I seem to be the center of this debate, I might as well explain myself. I originally used my sandbox for testing and/or previewing major edits. However, it eventually morphed into a place for my review of GANs. I wanted to use them that way because my reviews are often very long (like this one). As as I side note, I do keep a list of my reviews, and there I have a link to all my reviews. However, I see that it is best to put it the review the talk page. So, my apologies for those who were put out by my methods.
By the way, are you saying I should create a page like this, to keep reviews for future articles I review? Noble Story ( talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thinking it over, I was wondering if this could be viable. After reviewing the article (in this case failing it), I include a note at the end of the page to showing linking to the archived version of my review on my sandbox. That way the review will always be there, and the link will be on the talk page, easily accessible for anyone who wants to look over the review. Noble Story ( talk) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think creating a third talk space for GA is viable. Either use the regular talk page or have a completely separate space like FA. Creating a special GA review space is adding more bureaucracy to the system, not simplifying it. Also, using the talk page is extremely convenient for both reviewers and nominators. Hardly anyone goes way back in the history digging for GA reviews years or months old anyway. The problem with the reviews that started this discussion was that the review existed permanently nowhere except in the history of a user sandbox. So long as talk pages and archives stay permanent, and they always do, it's not a problem. Creating a new GA review space is using a cannon to kill a gnat. Van Tucky 03:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not big on this idea, but seemingly quite a few others are. How about making a subpage of GAN, just like FAC/PR do it? eg. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Wrought iron? (to take the article at the top of the backlog list now) Nominator creates it, and instead of using {{ la}} as we currently do on the main GAN page, we develop a special template for this page which links to the review subpage and has parameters for "on review" and "on hold" (replacing the current templates for that). I guess I just don't like talk page subpages because that's where archives go, and this could make it confusing for the prefixindex. Comments? dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just been checking the links on an article I have submitted for GA. Some of the links are coming up with the message "Cookie test detected. Killing loop". Does anyone know what this means? The links work fine, as does another that is marked unavailable. -- seahamlass 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for all the advice! -- seahamlass 06:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Any objections to renaming this section to "Video games", as per the WikiProject (which was once called "Computer and Video games" (IIRC) and renamed)? dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Homerun (film)'s GA nomination was placed on hold by AnmaFinotera, who appears to be an inexperienced reviewer. I disagree with some of his comments. Thus the review would benefit from input from others who are familiar with film articles, the GA criteria or both. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I just reviewed Battle of Iwo Jima and it is my first GA review. I am asking for any input that I need for reviewing, mistakes etc etc. Please respond on my talkpage or notify me of a reponse on my talkpage. Thanks, PG Pirate 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
a reviewer who has placed a bunch of articles on hold and isn't editing so can't check them? Malachirality has not edited for two weeks [10], and William Wilberforce and its anxious editors have been waiting on tenterhooks for a week longer than that, with other articles waiting even longer. [11]. Does somebody take these things up at some point? -- Slp1 ( talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have reviewed these two articles. William Wilberforce actually passed; it's quite good. Bertrand Russell isn't even close to WP:WIAGA -- too long, too disorganized, too many quotes. It's just above Start-class, really,... Dr. Cash ( talk) 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(Shortcut: User:DHMO/GAP - remember to subst! - {{subst:User:DHMO/GAP}})
I just made this, which I plan to use as a footer when passing GANs, to help encourage others to review. If there's anything you think is missing from it, feel free to say so here or add to it - and of course, feel free to use it yourself. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 00:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could also add something like this to the GAN page: "If you nominate an article, please review at least one article as well. This will help reduce the backlog, and will help your own nomination to be processed sooner..." Something like that. I think that might encourage nominators to participate in the the review process as well. You think so? Noble Story ( talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I've nominated a candidate and do feel a mutual obligation in return. But conducting a review would be rather daunting, not being familiar with the minutiae of the Manual of Style, for example. If the page suggested a way in which I could spend an appropriate amolunt of time assisting in the GA process, however, I would be pleased to help, and am sure others would too. MikeHobday ( talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The April issue of the WikiProject GA Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
"Add {{GAN|05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)|status=|subtopic=name of section where article is listed}} (five tildes) to the top of the nominated article's talk page."
Maybe get a bot to do this.
-- Kaypoh ( talk) 05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor please take a look at what has gone on at Peak uranium and Talk:Peak uranium#GA review. An attempt at a GAN review has gone awry, and another review may be necessary. Johnfos ( talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please take the On hold tag off the article page. Johnfos ( talk) 03:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Since Epbr123 ( talk · contribs) hasn't been doing these for awhile, I thought I'd take a crack at looking at reviewers over the past two weeks:
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Noble Story ( talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 6 April 2008. Noble Story is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Lpangelrob ( talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 13 March 2008. Lpangelrob is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
Congratulations to our GAN Reviewers of the Week for the past two weeks! Dr. Cash ( talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I had volunteered to review the article at "13:32, 15 April 2008" and left the review note on WP:GAN page and ypdated the GAN tag on Talk:Greeks [12]. Today, i see the article passed at "15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)" by somebody else. Is the pass valid? -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Please let me know, if I need to review it now or not.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what GA criteria the article fails, but I failed it on moral grounds as i noticed two of its section were plagarized copies of their source website. I hope, this is accepted.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through GAN to find an article to review and was curious what people though of the nominations here: Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Law. The articles come with a note reading: "Note to reviewer: If you're unfamiliar with legal articles, please bear in mind that governments generally only find it necessary to legislate once at time on a particular topic, and appeal courts need only decide cases once. Therefor, multiple, independent sources for articles like this do not exist." I'm not familiar with the courts in the United Kingdom, but this struck me as an unusual statement. In the United States there are countless law reviews, journals and newspapers that cover the most significant cases. If these articles nonetheless satisfy the inclusion criteria, can they be considered Good? -- JayHenry ( talk) 22:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen GaryColemanFan ( talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 20 April 2008. GaryColemanFan is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
P.S. It was actually quite close this week -- the top three were almost tied ... almost, but not quite. Dr. Cash ( talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a short survey through April 30 that is now posted in every WP:GAN heading from "Social sciences and society" to "Miscellaneous". I was asked the reason for the question about wikiprojects and other groups. There are guidelines that apply just to specific areas or wikiprojects, for instance, WP:Scientific citation guidelines. And people tend to write like their friends, and for their friends. This question is for the education of the people who work on style guidelines, so that we can find out if there are writing trends we didn't know about, either inside or outside Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The article group maths seen here is a GA nominee but there is a merger debate going ahead. Should it be quick fired, there are definate stability concerns in my opinion. Advise appreciated. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
ok, will do unless anyone else objects. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well know one responded. Ill give it another hour. If i hear nothing ill quick fire. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, ill quicker fire, ive waited long enough for a reply, im sure ill get slack for this in approximately 8 minutes lol. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha, i just went back and all of a sudden they found a consensus not to merge. Lol, im not getting involved. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing Katie Sierra, and I have a question in evaluating for broad in coverage. As the article is titled now, it reflects that it will remain a biography. The subject is a young woman who was in national press at the ripe age of 15, for being suspended from high school. As she is no longer in high school, and probably won't be suspended from it again, I was wondering if the article should be renamed Katie Sierra controversy or Katie Sierra antiwar protest or similar. How likely would the article remain up to date on this young woman's life in a few years if she no longer makes news? -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. OhanaUnited Talk page 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I maintain that GA has outgrown this system, at least in its current form. This is esp. true given the Great Green Dot Controversy.
It's time for GA to shed its old skin and crawl out into a new day.
Yes, I know the lack of bureaucracy is both appealing (esp. to anti-bureaucracy cranks such as myself; see the mini-rant on my user page) and practical (see the backlog at WP:GAN).
I'm not proposing anything mandatory. Everything is voluntary. GA newbies can still pop in, file a review, and disappear into the murky waters of wherever. I am proposing a mentoring program. Umm, let's see if I can break it into steps:
So, the essence of this proposal is that as well as one person passing or failing an article, one person also passes or fails each reviewer in another voluntary process? Is that really addressing the concerns that critics express about a GA only having being assessed by a single reviewer? I don't think so. Is there any evidence that significant numbers of articles are being listed at GA that shouldn't be according to the criteria? Since when did the critera include a check for spaced mdashes anyway? The relatively lightweight nature of the GA process is its strength. If there is evidence that the present system of checks and balances is proving to be inadequate, then let's work on those checks and balances. I'm quite certain, for instance, that many new reviewers would welcome some mentoring with, or some feedback following, at least their first review. --
Malleus Fatuorum (
talk)
16:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think each candidate for GA should be assessed by two different reviewers. The second reviewer doesn't have to give their own assessment report, but should add any additional comments not made by the first reviewer. 86.29.138.220 ( talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)
I argue that the case for change has not been made. Your premise was that change is necessary. So provide the evidence. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above article has been kept on hold for a while now. All the suggestions have been appended and clarifications given on particular sections. It would be nice if some reviewer can let us know if there are any more concerns which need to be amended and if the article now satisfies GA criteria. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I was curious: is the backlog ever purged of articles? I ask simply because its quite possible that if an article was nominated 3 months ago before it finally gets reviewed, isn't it likely that the version of the article being reviewed is significantly different from the article that was originally nominated? Is there currently any systematic review where nominations that are older than, say 2 or 3 months, are automatically purged from the backlog? will381796 ( talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There was an article that i failed about a month ago as none of the corrections were made while on hold. Ive just noticed that its back on the nomination list. Would i still be allowed to review it again or is that a conflict of interest issue? Does it look bad? Cheers. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Exactly. If you disagree with a review, take it to WP:GAR rather than renominating. The instructions are quite clear, and make a lot of sense. You shouldn't be "fishing" for more sympathetic reviewers. And at GAR, the reviewer too can learn if he or she has been too harsh (or even too lenient). -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree with a /speedy/ review, renominate at GAN, noting that it was speedy failed and that you're renominating. GAR would preferably be use for disagreements in full reviews, as the likely GAR response for a speedy is simply "take back to GAN". dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it OK to do this? I nominated Wagner's Rhinemaidens a few weeks back, since when other editors have suggested a change of title, either to "Rhinemaidens (Wagner)" or just plain "Rhinemaidens". I am inclined to agree. If we do change, do I have to change the nomination page, or is that done automatically? Or would it be better to wait until after the GA review? Brianboulton ( talk) 19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
la|Wagner's Rhinemaidens}}
to {{
la|Rhinemaidens}}
(or {{
la|Rhinemaidens (Wagner)}}
) on the GAN page. No big deal.
dihydrogen monoxide (
H2O)
09:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)I recently reviewed MacPaint and placed the article on hold. The primary contributor stated, in a message on my talk page, that they are awaiting a book on the subject of the article, and that they will be able to address the concerns that I raised when it arrives, in one to two weeks. Should I allow the article to remain on hold for that long? My understanding is that generally holds are used for less than a week. There's nothing major wrong with the article; there's just a few points that I'd like clarified. Should I keep it on hold for the time the contributor requested or fail it and suggest that they resubmit once the changes have been made? will381796 ( talk) 00:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen ThinkBlue ( talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 20 April 2008. ThinkBlue is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were: Dr. Cash ( talk) 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How small, if at all, can an article be and still pass GA? As im really busy at the moments ive got in the habit of going for smaller articles. Sometimes there is a really good article but its small which makes me reluctant to pass it. I get a second opinion usually in these cases. Could i just have some clarity on this. How small is too small? Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 08:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that the nominator of Friends reviewed the article 21 minutes after listing it and passed the article. I'm not sure how to deal with this, but I am hoping that somebody can help. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How about we get in a second opinion? JayJ47 ( talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash ( talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How about shutting down for nominations during 3-7 days? the backlog could be cleared, nominators could have another couple of days to revise the articles and, even if we have an avalanche of nominations afterwards, there won't be any more month old nominations.-- Yamanbaiia( free hugs!) 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
New York State Route 8 appears to of just been passed, except one whole section is unsourced. I could be bold and emergency delist it, but I wanted to get other opinions on this. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson qualify for quick-fail? It was created almost a week ago and has three edits to it's name, and is not a very good article. iMat thew 20 08 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
At present, there are a couple of nominations without a nominator listed: Taxiride, Phil Hellmuth, River Oaks, Houston, Texas. Should these just be removed, or should we allow them to stay and be reviewed? Nikki 311
This article is on the nomination list. I read it, believe it has multiple breeches of MOS and problems with POV and OR. I wrote a preliminary review here, but when I went to post it and put it on hold at the talk page, I see that it has recently been reinstated as a GA. The article in its form right now is not GA. I'm new to reviewing so I don't know how to handle this yet. Please assist. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm requesting multiple reviewers to comment on the response to my recommendations. Many of my recommendatins are marked as "disputed" or "disregard", particularly those for OR and POV issues. I am fairly open-minded, though I have very high standards from going through multiple GA and FA process. If my standards are too high for GA, please overturn my suggestions. However, I believe my standards are right where they need to be. -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on this at my talk page. My first instinct is to send to GAR if there is objection to Moni's GA review from the article author.
Jack Bethune's comments are valid in the sense that he's allowed to disagree with certain requests, but I would say that suggesting they be ignored is probably taking it a bit too far, and can only cause confusion in the long run. I would suggest Jack sit it out until Moni's comments are dealt with, and then raise any other issues he has with the article on the article's talk page after the review.
I would suggest Moni wait until her comments have been dealt with, and pass the article as normal if there is no objection from anyone else afterwards.
If Moni and Jack are unable to agree on issues to be resolved with the article after her review's issues have been dealt with, I would suggest they take it to GAR and have some wider community discussion on the GA merits of the article.
As a side note, I suggest the talk page be archived fully, and that Moni re-add her review (by copy pasting the original diff, perhaps), because at the moment it's pretty hard to read what's happening there.
My thoughts - hope they help.
dihydrogen monoxide (
H2O)
01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the Video games Project has recently been undertaking various efforts to provide resources to better educate our less experienced members. One such effort is to create a guide on "How to write a good video game article" (title not set in stone). Here is the current draft of the guide.
Seeing as the purpose of the guide is to assist an editor as they improve an article up the quality scale (hopefully to GA or FA status), we thought it would be best to get input from some of the people that are part of the process. We'd like your thoughts as to whether this will get the job done on the GA front. Any input is welcome and appreciated as we want this thing to actually be useful.
And for those curious, see the first and second VG talk page discussions for more details. ( Guyinblack25 talk 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
GAN reviewers may recall this post I made in January requesting help at GAR. I quote:
“ | GAR is important because it determines consensus on good article quality issues in borderline or disputed cases. As such, it interprets the good article criteria in the same way that courts interpret the law. Sometimes this also results in changes or clarifications to the criteria. It is therefore important that editors with frontline reviewing experience join in. | ” |
At the time there wasn't much of a backlog, but there was a shortage of participation. Now there is a backlog and although several editors have been contributing occasionally, at the moment there is a danger of GAR turning into Majoreditor-and-Geometry-guy-dot-com, which would not be a good thing, despite these two being such fine editors :-)
Many thanks to those who have been contributing, such as ElCobbola and EyeSerene. I would encourage more reviewers to watchlist User:VeblenBot/C/GAR (*) to keep track of new GARs, and visit the reassessment page to comment on some of the articles currently listed there. Thank you all! Geometry guy 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(*) P.S. You will also need to make sure your preferences are not set to hide bot edits.
Popped up in the error category so I reverted, left a message, have gotten no reply, can't figure it out. Talk:Battle of N'Djamena (2008). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I have not reviewed many articles here and hence didn't have a feel for minimum length - Buckeye (chicken) is nice and compact but measures only 4.7kb in length. Have folks had any minimum sizes in mind for GAs? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want an example of a short GA that passed, the shortest I know of is Robin Starveling. Wrad ( talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As a heads up, Cold fusion, which is tagged as a controversial article and has been the subject of many an ANI thread, has been nominated. I would suggest that this be taken by one of our better reviewers in the subject area ( Physics and astronomy) - thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I just came across the Laurence Olivier and wanted to offer it up to GA. Yikes! I have to go to three different pages, edit them, and cut and paste arcane wikitext between the windows? Are you kidding? Look, I know there's a backlog and everything, but the nomination process has to be improved! Surely someone can write a tool for this? Maury ( talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not the instructions, it's the actual actions. Maury ( talk) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here I am. Automation has not generally been opposed, but related suggestions to streamline process have been opposed by some reviewers. Those used to the complexity and bureaucracy that has grown around the GA process are reluctant to part with it, sadly. Unwillingness to compromise has led to a lack of will to take automation forward, and a lack of a committed bot-operator.
Concerning how to automate GAN, the proposed system is to operate the entire GAN process from the article talk page. I agree that there are disadvantages to this, but it is much much harder to automate the article talk pages.
The disadvantages are not quite the ones Hildanknight suggests. In particular, it is easy to keep track of "under review", "on hold" and "second opinion" on article talk, and categories can be used to provide this information on the GAN page. Also the GAN page could easily be updated every half an hour (or even every 10 minutes), as this approach is not at all server intensive. It is true that, without a change of process, nominators and reviewers would not be able to add comments to the GAN page. However, since the review process takes place on article talk, this is fairly minor. A more serious disadvantage is that the name of the nominator and the reviewer would not appear on the GAN page. Both these issues could be fixed by a change of process in which the GA review takes place on an article talk subpage. The review could be transcluded from this subpage into article talk, while names and comments of nominator and reviewer could be transcluded onto the GAN page. There are other reasons for storing the review on a dedicated page: it provides a permanant link to the GA review for ArticleHistory.
The main change, however, would be the dynamics of the GAN page. This is probably the hottest page on most editors' watchlists, with regular edit summaries appearing like "Nominated X", "Put X on hold", "Passed X". This would change dramatically into an update every half an hour with edit summary "Automatic update"! Accountability could still be covered by watchlisting the GA page, but I'm not sure that reviewers would like it. Comments and ideas are welcome, anyway. Geometry guy 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This then provides an opportunity to look at the way in which On Hold reviews are processed including the potential of notifying;
For nomination its requires one edit to be placed, a nomination template into the section on the article topic from there the bot can create the review page with all criteria listed. For the reviewer they need only do the review then add a template to GAN when finished. Gnan garra 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, my summary should have been "Passed 2007–present Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden". Sorry for the mistake. Bless sins ( talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time to start making a policy about drive-by noms. Kaypoh has a long habit of nomming random failed FACs and A-class MILHIST articles and nomming them for GA and rarely cleaning up the necessary things. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I removed the three B-movie nominations that had not been reviewed, and left a note for the primary editor of the articles. As far as I can tell the nominator has never edited the articles, and has not edited Wikipedia in three weeks. Gimmetrow 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
On another note, it's frustrating to take time to review an article, then having another reviewer pop by and "pass" the article with (apparently) nothing more than a skim. Gimmetrow 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have three problems with Kaypoh's nominations: (1) The quantity. At one point recently, Kaypoh had 19 articles nominated. (2) Kaypoh is completely unwilling to review any articles. (3) If any concerns are brought up in the GA review, Kaypoh will not work on any of them. The article will sit on hold for one week with none of the concerns addressed. This is most definitely a waste of the reviewer's time. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I should be concerned here or just being over- protective. Grand Theft Auto IV was nominated on 11th May and passed on 13th May. No problem there but as some of you are aware I am trying to learn about GAs by reading others review process, not necessarily to comment on just read and learn. So I go to Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV and not a 1st review, points raised, discussion or a "final report". Surely those are an integral part of a GA review. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 10:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The GA nomination for Grand Theft Auto (series) appears to have had the same problem, see Talk:Grand Theft Auto (series)#Successful good article nomination. Leithp 10:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
edit conflict: : I think Talk:Grand Theft Auto (series)#Successful good article nomination does two things: 1) shows that it might be good just to go for a GA sub page so that the history of a GA and previous GAs can be followed, and 2) gives those that think GAs are a waste of time and is a possible harmful to wikipedia another stick to beat us with. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
remove indent. see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Improvements_in_GA_process for the previous discussions. And we are now entering into this territory so maybe should move further discussions there if it continues. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi - just a heads up that I have listed this article, which is listed as a controversial article. Fritzpoll ( talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is tagged at Talk:Frank Tudor as a current GA nomination, but I can't see any listing at GAN. It probably failed but its history has not been updated.-- Grahame ( talk) 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
At FAC, the decision was recently taken to address the same problem by adding to the instructions Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Looks good to me, particularly with the fast edit count. Jimfbleak ( talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently read a review of a Good Article nomination (no personal involvement) where the article was criticised for having too many red links, and the question was whether articles would ever be written on the red linked subjects. Personally I believe red links should be encouraged, as red links are perhaps the best way of prompting new articles. To question whether there would ever be articles on the subject is besides the point, as a red link will promote an article. My guess there are many subjects that are covered today in detail that few ever thought there would be articles on. I think articles should not be criticised for having "too many" red links, as red links are more a comment on the completeness of Wikipedia, and do not reflect on the quality of the article itself. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 02:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you do with a procedural issue with a GA? I wasn't sure about Subcutaneous emphysema, which was passed by the same person who nominated it (they did it in complete good faith and took pains to be neutral & objective, but I still think it's a good idea to have more people look at it). Should I go to GAR on purely procedural grounds? Or delist and relist? I hate to add to either backlog. I would love it if an experienced reviewer could just look at the article and decide whether to delist or how to deal with it (not that that does anything for the backlog either). If anyone wants to rise to the challenge, there are also critiques of article here. Otherwise please advise on what to do. Thanks much, delldot on a public computer talk 02:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we force a restriction on the amount of articles a particular WikiProject may have at GAN. For instance WP:PW has 13 articles at GAN, and I think it is a tad too much. I think we should have a restriction to stop it becoming overloaded. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Those are my exact feelings, but other users seem to disagree. King iMat thew 20 08 23:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Participation in WikiProjects varies so widely, assigning a specific number would be way too arbitrary. If a project has lots of active members and a healthy spirit of collaboration, it stands to reason it would crank out lots of high quality articles, and have lots of people ready to work through holds. An arbitrary restriction would be unnecessary bureaucracy in a case like that. Furthermore, it's individuals, not projects, that nominate articles. It just ain't right to tell one editor they can't nominate, just because too many of their peers have nominated articles. - Pete ( talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
BUT if a certain project tends to nominate a lot of articles, it might be nice to make a friendly request that its members review some articles from other projects to help out with the backlog! - Pete ( talk) 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if at times, when there is a large number of articles from two projects, those two projects could agree to review each other's articles. It may be tough to find those knowledgable enough to review the other Project's articles, but it would help to quickly eliminate a large chunk of backlog, and both groups would get what they want with ease. The359 ( talk) 09:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What Pete and The359 said. If you want to backlog to do down, you can help by reviewing another article on which you are more of a "specialist". If you need help, ask here, or one of these guys. Easy! dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at some of the comments posted on both WT:GA and WT:GAN, I think we seem to have two separate streams of comments going on regarding GA overall. It might actually help if all comments regarding the GA process in general were on one page. That way, when discussing improvements to the GA process as a whole, we only have one place to go. So I would like to propose merging WT:GA into WT:GAN, and redirecting the page to this one. Any thoughts? Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I'm not sure how helpful the "On hold" status is, nor whether "Second opinion" is used at all. It the interest of paring down the excessive amount of instructions at the top of this page, I wondering if both of these options could be removed? "Holds" could be done informally instead, and articles which need second opinions instead taken to GAR. Thoughts? -- jwanders Talk 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my reason for proposing this was not because on-hold and 2nd opinion aren't useful. It's simply that the instruction block at the top of the page has too much in it, and I believe it either intimidates potential new reviewers or leads them to skim over the instructions. I think something has to be dropped from there, and the two I suggested seemed like the easiest options. Is there something else we could take out instead? -- jwanders Talk 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
How about reformatting the process to be similar to that for FA? Discussion sections for each article and a Good Article Coordinator or Coordinators to help guide things along? -- Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the backlog elimination drive. I'm not as concerned about a bounceback or about rising GA noms and reviews as I am about people having to wait longer than a month for a review. If we can keep that from happening, that would be wonderful. Wrad ( talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the reasons I stopped reviewing at GA is the “hold”. Holds are optional and to be applied at the reviewer’s reasonable discretion. There seems to be, however, an opinion – especially amongst nominators – that holds are mandatory, which frequently results in bitching and moaning at GAR. Reviewers have to waste their time defending their decision and nominators waste time complaining instead of just fixing the article and re-nominating. I agree that holds are useful and have used them myself, but they would best be removed from the formal process and, perhaps, only retained as an unwritten courtesy. Second opinions are meaningless. I’ve seen them go over a month with no response. If you have a question, use common sense and ask it here on the talk page; it’s nonsense to have it formalized as a template and accompanying instructions. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Geometry guy hath not said that the concepts of "On Hold" or "second Opinion Desired" are to be dropped; he said the templates are a pain. I agree. First, the "On Hold" template .. and here I'm talking about only the templates, not the underlying concept.. serve no purpose other than to discourage other eyes from looking at an article being reviewed ... No, I see nothing wrong with the idea of an article being on Hold; the template is what is redundant. It adds complexity and implicitly discourages other reviewers from chipping in. I oppose both of those dynamics.. the dynamic of adding more and more templates when we should have been adding fewer and fewer, and the dynamic of "One pair of eyes only" on a GA review, which is by far the heaviest knock on GA, and deservedly so... instead of a "Second Opinion" template we should be using messages on this particular Tallk page (not the article's talk)... messages like "hey I'm having probs with a review; a little help?" etc. So much more community oriented.. and so much easier.. than a template! BUT... that prob.. plus the steep learning curve at GA.. would be helped by Newbie training. GA is the point of entry for new reviewers.. they need to learn about WP:WIAGA as well as MOS and WIAFA and... so on. BUT.. I say drop as many templates as possible STARTING with 'Under Review' (the worst of the lot, imvso) and including 'On Hold' and 'Second Opinion', replacing the latter with timely, relevant, reduced-effort and increased-community-building messages here on this talk page .... Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's focus on what the templates have to do in relation with GA's ultimate goal- to have a low-bureacratic way of vetting articles which meet certain qualities.
-- Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).
but {{User:David Fuchs/layout|onhold=yes}} gives you
Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).
: This article is currently on hold.
The grammar, wording are all random and could be reworded, but just to give you an idea of what could be done. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
{{User:David Fuchs/layout|status=}}
; the status can be changed to onhold
or 2nd opinion
to generate the proper messages.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (
talk)
17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've drafted a combined GAN talk page template at {{ GAN}}, and I think it is ready for road testing. I've made several other changes. First, I've copyedited the text in the various versions of the template. Some of this text was rather long before, and many editors don't like a lot of talk page template cruft. Second, I've eliminated mention of "pass" and "fail" in favour of "list or not" since I believe the pass/fail terminology generates misconceptions about the way GA works. Third, I've added a separate "on review" status. Finally, I've added a subtopic parameter.
Those who know me may be surprised by the last two changes, since they appear to add bureaucracy rather than remove it. Here are some explanations. At present there are four possible statuses for a GAN. I wish there were fewer, but there aren't, so we should be honest about it. The subtopic parameter is extra work for the nominator and provides a handy link for the reviewer to go directly to the correct section of WP:GAN, saving all that time scrolling around. Finally (and this, of course, is the real reason), providing both parameters means that all of the information about the article on WP:GAN is now stored in the template: this provides the possibility to generate WP:GAN automatically from the talk page information, so that it never needs to be edited again. Geometry guy 13:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Comics Guaranty LLC#Restoration and its reference #18. Is it acceptable in terms of GA? The source is a Comics Guaranty LLC forum, but the user quoted is the company president and head comics grader. So the question is 1: is the source acceptable in terms of GA quality, and if it is 2: is the reference formatted in a GA acceptable way? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose replace the following items on the GAN page:
{{backlog}}
The oldest unreviewed good article nominations are:
Infant school | start review) • Murali Vijay | start review) • Barry Sheene | start review) • Mafeje affair | start review) • September 1983 Laws | start review) |
The highest priority unreviewed good article nominations are:
Infant school • Barry Sheene • Mafeje affair • Rikishi • Paul George |
with the following template: {{User:David Fuchs/draft}} which looks like this:
{{
User:David Fuchs/draft}}
The advantage is it combines elements and also adds an optional parameter, backlog
, which if activated like {{User:David Fuchs/draft|backlog=yes}}
makes:
{{
User:David Fuchs/draft}}
It's minor, I know, but it helps consolidate the junk.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (
talk)
21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
OK it's a bit hypocritical of me to write this, since I can't do squat to help (no time)...
I don't think GA needs more essays designed to train newbies; I think GA needs more mentors. At a bare minimum, they should be trained on:
.. so just make a list of those willing to act as mentors. You could even sort them by specialty(?)... The big question, of course, is "Who will mentor the mentors?". It's guaranteed that some who sign up to be mentors will actually need mentoring. I think all mentors shouuld monitor each other, very casually and collegially.. with the end-result that every person being trained would be paired with one mentor for a short while, but would be watched by one or more others, who could chip in.
Ling.Nut ( talk) 07:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a good idea from my trusty handsock, Ling, so I've set up a page at WP:Good article nominations/Mentors, with shortcut WP:GAN/M. Please add your name to the list with reviewing interests and/or areas of GA expertise. If enough people sign up, we can add a link to the GAN page, and probably also WP:Reviewing good articles. However, I do completely disagree with one thing: we should not be wasting time training editors how to use the article history! Article history is for bots and we should be discouraging human beings from using it. Use the GA templates instead: a bot can (and sometimes does) build article history from these templates. One day this will be fully automated. Geometry guy 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent). I think we no longer need the "2nd opinion" template. Can I get a 2nd opinion on that assertion, please? Ling.Nut ( talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Above is the extremely short, interesting history of discussion on IP noms (no discussion at the wikiproject). There is no consensus. Can we have a discussion about this?
Some of the arguments against are quite bad. For instance I have my last three Special Contributions pages bookmarked to check articles and talk pages. And that's when I don't have a GA review pending. And article talk pages don't move either.
Conversely, the arguments for are good. Consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia (FA most pertinently) is in contrast to this page as it stands. IP editing is a foundation issue. This, as one editor notes in one of the above links, goes against what the wiki is all about. We should not be creating a hierarchy of editors. Openness and accessibility is important. And so on and so forth. This is the project you signed up for.
86.44.6.14 (
talk)
09:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I have a problem with reviews by IPs. How do i know the reviewer isn't a major contributor? the same problem exists for socks, but pointing to one prob to justify another doesn't wash as an argument. the sock problem is merely more difficult to spot; that doesn't mean it justifies the IP reviewer problem. Ling.Nut ( talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
What the considerations against come down to is ability to contact the nominator, questions over whether the nominator is gaming the system by anon. nomination (possible, albeit unlikely) and whether random IPs will nominate articles which clearly fail (prolly no worse a problem than new users who do likewise.) Either way, I'm neutral, I just think we should be clear on all possible issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there some mechanism in place to auto-fail a hold that's been around for more than 7 days, or is it up to the reviewer to close the nomination? (There seems to be a bot touching other portions of this page - that's why I ask). — Rob ( talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Just whipped up User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/A noob's guide to GA reviewing. Not sure if there are any relevant pages around that I could link to/have it linked from. Comments? dihydrogen monoxide ( H20) 07:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I review Abbey Mills Mosque for GA nomination? Of the article's 183 edits, 9 edits are mine (approx. 5% of the total edits), where 3 of the edits were on whether a category should be included.
Nevertheless, this makes me the third most frequent contributor to this article. Would be appropriate for me to review this article for GA (because I'd love to)? Bless sins ( talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that an article cannot be on PR and FAC simultaneously, or on FAC and GAN simultaneously. However, can an article be on PR and GAN simultaneously? If I nominate an article at GAN, given the current backlog, I would have to wait at least a month for it to be reviewed. The average peer review lasts about two weeks; by placing an article on PR and GAN simultaneously, it will take me less time to get articles to GA status. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I am extremely troubled by a recent review at Talk:Kenwyne_Jones#GA_Review. The reviewer declined to place the article on hold for the requested improvements, which was some relatively minor citation work and copyediting, because it "was not stable". Why was it not stable? 47 edits in four days! I have never understood, in practice or in the criteria, for stability to entail that no edits at all are made to an article. It's completely absurd; the spirit of stability is to ensure that a fair review can be conducted (we all know preserving quality after the review is a continuing battle). I'd like to hear from other reviewers if they too, fail articles because edits (of any kind) are being made to an article. Van Tucky 18:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I'm going to pass that as a GA. The stability thing is for a bomb going off outside the school that is the article subject, not for someone working to improve the article. Thus, I see no reason why it can't be passed.
dihydrogen monoxide (
H2O)
22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I've renominated the article at the place it was before this fail. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
See thread here on rewording the criteria. Van Tucky 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Should someone review this recently passed article as it was passed by an apparent sock of a banned user? Aboutmovies ( talk) 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The article in its current form does not make mention of either Gavin Newsom's involvement in the Hillary Clinton presidential campgain, or of his own gubernatorial aspirations. However, inclusion of these topics would result in an unstable article not suitable for GAN (right?). What is to be done here? Is the article considered not "broad in coverage" if it omits these aspects? Is it not "stable" if it does so?
-- Malachirality ( talk) 23:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I nominated Haifa for GA over a month ago. It was reviewed by a very inexperienced user (just over 50 edits in total to his name) and I dont feel the review is very useful in terms of the feedback he gives. He also requests some things which are not even standards for GA. If someone could take a look at this for me and advise me where to go from here, Id really appreciate it. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere ( talk) 13:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Can an article bearing the orphan template still be classified as " good"? 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Could I request that, if the article Shrewsbury ( Places section) is reviewed after this Sunday 23rd of March, and if it is put on 'Hold', that this can be extended to more than a week? As I will be on vacation for a while from that date, I may not be able to reply/fix any issues with the article within a week or so. If it isn't reviewed for say, another two weeks, then there should be no response problems. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. CAn anyone review this article, Nina Williams, and see what it delivers is right? I think it passes most of the criteria LOTRrules ( talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If article writers are using GA to hop to FA, should we request that they just skip GAC and go straight to FAC? The reasoning is that if you nom an article here, waiting times are three to four weeks. FAC offers a community discussion about issues with the article and it would be more helpful for them to fix them than wait for GAC. Sceptre ( talk) 12:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with giving this advice. Agree with Malleus (strongly, especially about the whinging), and also, sending a stack of extra articles to FAC will cause it to be massively backlogged. If they're sent because "GAN said so", it'll lower our rep even further. Bad idea. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 06:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had something called "GA Sweeps" to get rid of the hoge backlog. Did it get stopped or something? D.M.N. ( talk) 17:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If every member of the GA project reviewed just one article in the next week, the backlog would almost be cleared. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need any co-ordinated effort, just pick an article and review it. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 01:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It's always said that if editors reviewd one article a week, the backlog would be cleared. But that never happens, because there are never enough editors. So I guess a drive would be in order sometime. And they have been rather successful. I see that last summer there was at one time only 40 articles nominated. But right now I think getting the page down to about 150 would be quite an achievement. Noble Story ( talk) 04:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe in mentioning the "nominate one, review one" idea, we should emphasise that if you don't contribute at least a little bit, then any articles you eventually take to GAC will take a long, long time to get reviewed because of the backlog. But if you review at least one a week or something like that, the backlog will be reduced, and any future GACs, including yours, will go through faster. So you might not see any rewards now, but you will in the long run. Noble Story ( talk) 14:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm just about to review this article, only to notice that it is semi-protected after a recent bout of IP vandalism. Also, several paragraphs in the San Fransico Giants section are unreferenced. Would this qualify for me to quick-fail it? D.M.N. ( talk) 13:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
In case you didn't see the Signpost article,I'v copied this bit. Article flagging is being tested. An open beta of article validation is in progress, in English. Registered users can grant themselves one of two statuses: "Editor", which allows a user to flag a revision as being checked for vandalism and obvious nonsense, and "Reviewer", which allows a user to flag a revision as a "good" or "featured" article. When implemented, these statuses will likely be granted manually by administrators, but for the purposes of the test, any user can make themselves a "reviewer". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The GA Reviewer for Miguel Ángel Asturias has left - see Talk:Miguel Ángel Asturias#GA Reviewer. Anyone want to take over? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 13:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
DM is out a bit so I'll ask somebody to re-evaluate " Confessions Part II" he recently put on hold. Thank you. -- Efe ( talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently 24: The Game and Battle of Gettysburg, First Day were nominated (by the same editor, kaypoh). However, both are already A-class articles. When I inguired on the talk page of 24: The Game, I was told that an article could be a GA and A-class article at the same time. Is that true?
It doesn't seem too logical to me, as an A-class article is supposed to be judged with higher standards than a GA article. Noble Story ( talk) 15:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
For the other wikiprojects that I participate in, I usually treat A-class as sort of a GA+ rating. I think that all A-class articles should meet, at a minimum, the GA criteria, and then go above and beyond, providing additional details and fulfilling a more subject area based assessment. They should mostly be meeting the FA criteria as well, but obviously don't have to meet all of them. As such, I don't have a problem with articles being listed as GA and also assessed as A-class by one of their wikiprojects. But I do have a problem with A-class assessments on articles that do not meet the GA criteria and are not listed at WP:GA. Dr. Cash ( talk) 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Stub - Start - B - A | | GA- FA
Is it? It doesn't seem to of been reviewed properly to me. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, sorry about that review. I haven't done to many reviews yet, and I guess I need to re-read the criteria, because after a second look, I see that this article should not have passed the way I passed it. I apologize for this. iMat thew 20 08 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled across this situation and thought I would bring it up here for broader input (am also notifying the editor in question). Noble Story does GA reviews in User:Noble Story/sandbox, with just a link to the sandbox from the article talk page. When the GA review is done, the sandbox is cleared and used for the next review(s), so that someone looking for the GA review details would have to dig through the sandbox history. This defeats the purpose of having the GA review on the article talk page. Such reviews are helpful for future editors and for things like FAC.
Specific example: Stuart McCall is a GA, but on Talk:Stuart McCall there is a very minimal review and a link to the sandbox. This was blanked here diff to add the review for History of Bradford City A.F.C., which is also now gone.
I also wonder about the level of changes being asked for relative to GA criteria. While it is clear Noble Story is a careful, thorough and detailed reviewer, I think this practice of doing reviews in the sandbox has to stop. I also think the complete reviews have to be "dug up" and put in their article talk pages. Looks like there are 11 articles to date [ [9]].
I also think the directions need to be made more explicit as to reviews being done in the article talk page only. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The importance of making GA reviews easily available to future reviewers and editors has been pointed out above. However, the current GA practice of storing reviews on article talk pages is not ideal in this respect, because talk pages get archived. In particular, for high traffic articles, the talk page is often archived automatically on a timescale of 1 month or less. This causes numerous problems finding old GA reviews, as links are often broken and the review isn't a click away, because there are multiple archive pages.
It might be better to store GA reviews in a permanent place (e.g., a talk subpage such as [[Talk:Stuart McCall/GA2]] for the second GA review of Stuart McCall) so that they can easily be found at any later date. While the review is active, it can, of course be transcluded onto the talk page, just as peer reviews are listed on the peer review page. After the review, a link can be left, but it will be a permanent link. This approach might appeal to User:Noble Story as well. What do others think? Geometry guy 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, since I seem to be the center of this debate, I might as well explain myself. I originally used my sandbox for testing and/or previewing major edits. However, it eventually morphed into a place for my review of GANs. I wanted to use them that way because my reviews are often very long (like this one). As as I side note, I do keep a list of my reviews, and there I have a link to all my reviews. However, I see that it is best to put it the review the talk page. So, my apologies for those who were put out by my methods.
By the way, are you saying I should create a page like this, to keep reviews for future articles I review? Noble Story ( talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thinking it over, I was wondering if this could be viable. After reviewing the article (in this case failing it), I include a note at the end of the page to showing linking to the archived version of my review on my sandbox. That way the review will always be there, and the link will be on the talk page, easily accessible for anyone who wants to look over the review. Noble Story ( talk) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think creating a third talk space for GA is viable. Either use the regular talk page or have a completely separate space like FA. Creating a special GA review space is adding more bureaucracy to the system, not simplifying it. Also, using the talk page is extremely convenient for both reviewers and nominators. Hardly anyone goes way back in the history digging for GA reviews years or months old anyway. The problem with the reviews that started this discussion was that the review existed permanently nowhere except in the history of a user sandbox. So long as talk pages and archives stay permanent, and they always do, it's not a problem. Creating a new GA review space is using a cannon to kill a gnat. Van Tucky 03:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not big on this idea, but seemingly quite a few others are. How about making a subpage of GAN, just like FAC/PR do it? eg. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Wrought iron? (to take the article at the top of the backlog list now) Nominator creates it, and instead of using {{ la}} as we currently do on the main GAN page, we develop a special template for this page which links to the review subpage and has parameters for "on review" and "on hold" (replacing the current templates for that). I guess I just don't like talk page subpages because that's where archives go, and this could make it confusing for the prefixindex. Comments? dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just been checking the links on an article I have submitted for GA. Some of the links are coming up with the message "Cookie test detected. Killing loop". Does anyone know what this means? The links work fine, as does another that is marked unavailable. -- seahamlass 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for all the advice! -- seahamlass 06:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Any objections to renaming this section to "Video games", as per the WikiProject (which was once called "Computer and Video games" (IIRC) and renamed)? dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Homerun (film)'s GA nomination was placed on hold by AnmaFinotera, who appears to be an inexperienced reviewer. I disagree with some of his comments. Thus the review would benefit from input from others who are familiar with film articles, the GA criteria or both. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I just reviewed Battle of Iwo Jima and it is my first GA review. I am asking for any input that I need for reviewing, mistakes etc etc. Please respond on my talkpage or notify me of a reponse on my talkpage. Thanks, PG Pirate 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
a reviewer who has placed a bunch of articles on hold and isn't editing so can't check them? Malachirality has not edited for two weeks [10], and William Wilberforce and its anxious editors have been waiting on tenterhooks for a week longer than that, with other articles waiting even longer. [11]. Does somebody take these things up at some point? -- Slp1 ( talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have reviewed these two articles. William Wilberforce actually passed; it's quite good. Bertrand Russell isn't even close to WP:WIAGA -- too long, too disorganized, too many quotes. It's just above Start-class, really,... Dr. Cash ( talk) 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(Shortcut: User:DHMO/GAP - remember to subst! - {{subst:User:DHMO/GAP}})
I just made this, which I plan to use as a footer when passing GANs, to help encourage others to review. If there's anything you think is missing from it, feel free to say so here or add to it - and of course, feel free to use it yourself. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 00:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could also add something like this to the GAN page: "If you nominate an article, please review at least one article as well. This will help reduce the backlog, and will help your own nomination to be processed sooner..." Something like that. I think that might encourage nominators to participate in the the review process as well. You think so? Noble Story ( talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. I've nominated a candidate and do feel a mutual obligation in return. But conducting a review would be rather daunting, not being familiar with the minutiae of the Manual of Style, for example. If the page suggested a way in which I could spend an appropriate amolunt of time assisting in the GA process, however, I would be pleased to help, and am sure others would too. MikeHobday ( talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The April issue of the WikiProject GA Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
"Add {{GAN|05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)|status=|subtopic=name of section where article is listed}} (five tildes) to the top of the nominated article's talk page."
Maybe get a bot to do this.
-- Kaypoh ( talk) 05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor please take a look at what has gone on at Peak uranium and Talk:Peak uranium#GA review. An attempt at a GAN review has gone awry, and another review may be necessary. Johnfos ( talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please take the On hold tag off the article page. Johnfos ( talk) 03:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Since Epbr123 ( talk · contribs) hasn't been doing these for awhile, I thought I'd take a crack at looking at reviewers over the past two weeks:
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Noble Story ( talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 6 April 2008. Noble Story is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Lpangelrob ( talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 13 March 2008. Lpangelrob is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
Congratulations to our GAN Reviewers of the Week for the past two weeks! Dr. Cash ( talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I had volunteered to review the article at "13:32, 15 April 2008" and left the review note on WP:GAN page and ypdated the GAN tag on Talk:Greeks [12]. Today, i see the article passed at "15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)" by somebody else. Is the pass valid? -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Please let me know, if I need to review it now or not.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what GA criteria the article fails, but I failed it on moral grounds as i noticed two of its section were plagarized copies of their source website. I hope, this is accepted.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I was looking through GAN to find an article to review and was curious what people though of the nominations here: Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Law. The articles come with a note reading: "Note to reviewer: If you're unfamiliar with legal articles, please bear in mind that governments generally only find it necessary to legislate once at time on a particular topic, and appeal courts need only decide cases once. Therefor, multiple, independent sources for articles like this do not exist." I'm not familiar with the courts in the United Kingdom, but this struck me as an unusual statement. In the United States there are countless law reviews, journals and newspapers that cover the most significant cases. If these articles nonetheless satisfy the inclusion criteria, can they be considered Good? -- JayHenry ( talk) 22:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen GaryColemanFan ( talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 20 April 2008. GaryColemanFan is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
P.S. It was actually quite close this week -- the top three were almost tied ... almost, but not quite. Dr. Cash ( talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a short survey through April 30 that is now posted in every WP:GAN heading from "Social sciences and society" to "Miscellaneous". I was asked the reason for the question about wikiprojects and other groups. There are guidelines that apply just to specific areas or wikiprojects, for instance, WP:Scientific citation guidelines. And people tend to write like their friends, and for their friends. This question is for the education of the people who work on style guidelines, so that we can find out if there are writing trends we didn't know about, either inside or outside Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The article group maths seen here is a GA nominee but there is a merger debate going ahead. Should it be quick fired, there are definate stability concerns in my opinion. Advise appreciated. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
ok, will do unless anyone else objects. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well know one responded. Ill give it another hour. If i hear nothing ill quick fire. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, ill quicker fire, ive waited long enough for a reply, im sure ill get slack for this in approximately 8 minutes lol. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha, i just went back and all of a sudden they found a consensus not to merge. Lol, im not getting involved. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing Katie Sierra, and I have a question in evaluating for broad in coverage. As the article is titled now, it reflects that it will remain a biography. The subject is a young woman who was in national press at the ripe age of 15, for being suspended from high school. As she is no longer in high school, and probably won't be suspended from it again, I was wondering if the article should be renamed Katie Sierra controversy or Katie Sierra antiwar protest or similar. How likely would the article remain up to date on this young woman's life in a few years if she no longer makes news? -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. OhanaUnited Talk page 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I maintain that GA has outgrown this system, at least in its current form. This is esp. true given the Great Green Dot Controversy.
It's time for GA to shed its old skin and crawl out into a new day.
Yes, I know the lack of bureaucracy is both appealing (esp. to anti-bureaucracy cranks such as myself; see the mini-rant on my user page) and practical (see the backlog at WP:GAN).
I'm not proposing anything mandatory. Everything is voluntary. GA newbies can still pop in, file a review, and disappear into the murky waters of wherever. I am proposing a mentoring program. Umm, let's see if I can break it into steps:
So, the essence of this proposal is that as well as one person passing or failing an article, one person also passes or fails each reviewer in another voluntary process? Is that really addressing the concerns that critics express about a GA only having being assessed by a single reviewer? I don't think so. Is there any evidence that significant numbers of articles are being listed at GA that shouldn't be according to the criteria? Since when did the critera include a check for spaced mdashes anyway? The relatively lightweight nature of the GA process is its strength. If there is evidence that the present system of checks and balances is proving to be inadequate, then let's work on those checks and balances. I'm quite certain, for instance, that many new reviewers would welcome some mentoring with, or some feedback following, at least their first review. --
Malleus Fatuorum (
talk)
16:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think each candidate for GA should be assessed by two different reviewers. The second reviewer doesn't have to give their own assessment report, but should add any additional comments not made by the first reviewer. 86.29.138.220 ( talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
(undent)
I argue that the case for change has not been made. Your premise was that change is necessary. So provide the evidence. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The above article has been kept on hold for a while now. All the suggestions have been appended and clarifications given on particular sections. It would be nice if some reviewer can let us know if there are any more concerns which need to be amended and if the article now satisfies GA criteria. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I was curious: is the backlog ever purged of articles? I ask simply because its quite possible that if an article was nominated 3 months ago before it finally gets reviewed, isn't it likely that the version of the article being reviewed is significantly different from the article that was originally nominated? Is there currently any systematic review where nominations that are older than, say 2 or 3 months, are automatically purged from the backlog? will381796 ( talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There was an article that i failed about a month ago as none of the corrections were made while on hold. Ive just noticed that its back on the nomination list. Would i still be allowed to review it again or is that a conflict of interest issue? Does it look bad? Cheers. Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Exactly. If you disagree with a review, take it to WP:GAR rather than renominating. The instructions are quite clear, and make a lot of sense. You shouldn't be "fishing" for more sympathetic reviewers. And at GAR, the reviewer too can learn if he or she has been too harsh (or even too lenient). -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree with a /speedy/ review, renominate at GAN, noting that it was speedy failed and that you're renominating. GAR would preferably be use for disagreements in full reviews, as the likely GAR response for a speedy is simply "take back to GAN". dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it OK to do this? I nominated Wagner's Rhinemaidens a few weeks back, since when other editors have suggested a change of title, either to "Rhinemaidens (Wagner)" or just plain "Rhinemaidens". I am inclined to agree. If we do change, do I have to change the nomination page, or is that done automatically? Or would it be better to wait until after the GA review? Brianboulton ( talk) 19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
la|Wagner's Rhinemaidens}}
to {{
la|Rhinemaidens}}
(or {{
la|Rhinemaidens (Wagner)}}
) on the GAN page. No big deal.
dihydrogen monoxide (
H2O)
09:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)I recently reviewed MacPaint and placed the article on hold. The primary contributor stated, in a message on my talk page, that they are awaiting a book on the subject of the article, and that they will be able to address the concerns that I raised when it arrives, in one to two weeks. Should I allow the article to remain on hold for that long? My understanding is that generally holds are used for less than a week. There's nothing major wrong with the article; there's just a few points that I'd like clarified. Should I keep it on hold for the time the contributor requested or fail it and suggest that they resubmit once the changes have been made? will381796 ( talk) 00:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen ThinkBlue ( talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 20 April 2008. ThinkBlue is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were: Dr. Cash ( talk) 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How small, if at all, can an article be and still pass GA? As im really busy at the moments ive got in the habit of going for smaller articles. Sometimes there is a really good article but its small which makes me reluctant to pass it. I get a second opinion usually in these cases. Could i just have some clarity on this. How small is too small? Realist2 ( 'Come Speak To Me') 08:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned that the nominator of Friends reviewed the article 21 minutes after listing it and passed the article. I'm not sure how to deal with this, but I am hoping that somebody can help. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How about we get in a second opinion? JayJ47 ( talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash ( talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How about shutting down for nominations during 3-7 days? the backlog could be cleared, nominators could have another couple of days to revise the articles and, even if we have an avalanche of nominations afterwards, there won't be any more month old nominations.-- Yamanbaiia( free hugs!) 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
New York State Route 8 appears to of just been passed, except one whole section is unsourced. I could be bold and emergency delist it, but I wanted to get other opinions on this. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Does Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson qualify for quick-fail? It was created almost a week ago and has three edits to it's name, and is not a very good article. iMat thew 20 08 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
At present, there are a couple of nominations without a nominator listed: Taxiride, Phil Hellmuth, River Oaks, Houston, Texas. Should these just be removed, or should we allow them to stay and be reviewed? Nikki 311
This article is on the nomination list. I read it, believe it has multiple breeches of MOS and problems with POV and OR. I wrote a preliminary review here, but when I went to post it and put it on hold at the talk page, I see that it has recently been reinstated as a GA. The article in its form right now is not GA. I'm new to reviewing so I don't know how to handle this yet. Please assist. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm requesting multiple reviewers to comment on the response to my recommendations. Many of my recommendatins are marked as "disputed" or "disregard", particularly those for OR and POV issues. I am fairly open-minded, though I have very high standards from going through multiple GA and FA process. If my standards are too high for GA, please overturn my suggestions. However, I believe my standards are right where they need to be. -- Moni3 ( talk) 16:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on this at my talk page. My first instinct is to send to GAR if there is objection to Moni's GA review from the article author.
Jack Bethune's comments are valid in the sense that he's allowed to disagree with certain requests, but I would say that suggesting they be ignored is probably taking it a bit too far, and can only cause confusion in the long run. I would suggest Jack sit it out until Moni's comments are dealt with, and then raise any other issues he has with the article on the article's talk page after the review.
I would suggest Moni wait until her comments have been dealt with, and pass the article as normal if there is no objection from anyone else afterwards.
If Moni and Jack are unable to agree on issues to be resolved with the article after her review's issues have been dealt with, I would suggest they take it to GAR and have some wider community discussion on the GA merits of the article.
As a side note, I suggest the talk page be archived fully, and that Moni re-add her review (by copy pasting the original diff, perhaps), because at the moment it's pretty hard to read what's happening there.
My thoughts - hope they help.
dihydrogen monoxide (
H2O)
01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the Video games Project has recently been undertaking various efforts to provide resources to better educate our less experienced members. One such effort is to create a guide on "How to write a good video game article" (title not set in stone). Here is the current draft of the guide.
Seeing as the purpose of the guide is to assist an editor as they improve an article up the quality scale (hopefully to GA or FA status), we thought it would be best to get input from some of the people that are part of the process. We'd like your thoughts as to whether this will get the job done on the GA front. Any input is welcome and appreciated as we want this thing to actually be useful.
And for those curious, see the first and second VG talk page discussions for more details. ( Guyinblack25 talk 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC))
GAN reviewers may recall this post I made in January requesting help at GAR. I quote:
“ | GAR is important because it determines consensus on good article quality issues in borderline or disputed cases. As such, it interprets the good article criteria in the same way that courts interpret the law. Sometimes this also results in changes or clarifications to the criteria. It is therefore important that editors with frontline reviewing experience join in. | ” |
At the time there wasn't much of a backlog, but there was a shortage of participation. Now there is a backlog and although several editors have been contributing occasionally, at the moment there is a danger of GAR turning into Majoreditor-and-Geometry-guy-dot-com, which would not be a good thing, despite these two being such fine editors :-)
Many thanks to those who have been contributing, such as ElCobbola and EyeSerene. I would encourage more reviewers to watchlist User:VeblenBot/C/GAR (*) to keep track of new GARs, and visit the reassessment page to comment on some of the articles currently listed there. Thank you all! Geometry guy 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(*) P.S. You will also need to make sure your preferences are not set to hide bot edits.
Popped up in the error category so I reverted, left a message, have gotten no reply, can't figure it out. Talk:Battle of N'Djamena (2008). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I have not reviewed many articles here and hence didn't have a feel for minimum length - Buckeye (chicken) is nice and compact but measures only 4.7kb in length. Have folks had any minimum sizes in mind for GAs? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 06:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want an example of a short GA that passed, the shortest I know of is Robin Starveling. Wrad ( talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As a heads up, Cold fusion, which is tagged as a controversial article and has been the subject of many an ANI thread, has been nominated. I would suggest that this be taken by one of our better reviewers in the subject area ( Physics and astronomy) - thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I just came across the Laurence Olivier and wanted to offer it up to GA. Yikes! I have to go to three different pages, edit them, and cut and paste arcane wikitext between the windows? Are you kidding? Look, I know there's a backlog and everything, but the nomination process has to be improved! Surely someone can write a tool for this? Maury ( talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not the instructions, it's the actual actions. Maury ( talk) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here I am. Automation has not generally been opposed, but related suggestions to streamline process have been opposed by some reviewers. Those used to the complexity and bureaucracy that has grown around the GA process are reluctant to part with it, sadly. Unwillingness to compromise has led to a lack of will to take automation forward, and a lack of a committed bot-operator.
Concerning how to automate GAN, the proposed system is to operate the entire GAN process from the article talk page. I agree that there are disadvantages to this, but it is much much harder to automate the article talk pages.
The disadvantages are not quite the ones Hildanknight suggests. In particular, it is easy to keep track of "under review", "on hold" and "second opinion" on article talk, and categories can be used to provide this information on the GAN page. Also the GAN page could easily be updated every half an hour (or even every 10 minutes), as this approach is not at all server intensive. It is true that, without a change of process, nominators and reviewers would not be able to add comments to the GAN page. However, since the review process takes place on article talk, this is fairly minor. A more serious disadvantage is that the name of the nominator and the reviewer would not appear on the GAN page. Both these issues could be fixed by a change of process in which the GA review takes place on an article talk subpage. The review could be transcluded from this subpage into article talk, while names and comments of nominator and reviewer could be transcluded onto the GAN page. There are other reasons for storing the review on a dedicated page: it provides a permanant link to the GA review for ArticleHistory.
The main change, however, would be the dynamics of the GAN page. This is probably the hottest page on most editors' watchlists, with regular edit summaries appearing like "Nominated X", "Put X on hold", "Passed X". This would change dramatically into an update every half an hour with edit summary "Automatic update"! Accountability could still be covered by watchlisting the GA page, but I'm not sure that reviewers would like it. Comments and ideas are welcome, anyway. Geometry guy 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This then provides an opportunity to look at the way in which On Hold reviews are processed including the potential of notifying;
For nomination its requires one edit to be placed, a nomination template into the section on the article topic from there the bot can create the review page with all criteria listed. For the reviewer they need only do the review then add a template to GAN when finished. Gnan garra 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, my summary should have been "Passed 2007–present Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden". Sorry for the mistake. Bless sins ( talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time to start making a policy about drive-by noms. Kaypoh has a long habit of nomming random failed FACs and A-class MILHIST articles and nomming them for GA and rarely cleaning up the necessary things. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I removed the three B-movie nominations that had not been reviewed, and left a note for the primary editor of the articles. As far as I can tell the nominator has never edited the articles, and has not edited Wikipedia in three weeks. Gimmetrow 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
On another note, it's frustrating to take time to review an article, then having another reviewer pop by and "pass" the article with (apparently) nothing more than a skim. Gimmetrow 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have three problems with Kaypoh's nominations: (1) The quantity. At one point recently, Kaypoh had 19 articles nominated. (2) Kaypoh is completely unwilling to review any articles. (3) If any concerns are brought up in the GA review, Kaypoh will not work on any of them. The article will sit on hold for one week with none of the concerns addressed. This is most definitely a waste of the reviewer's time. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I should be concerned here or just being over- protective. Grand Theft Auto IV was nominated on 11th May and passed on 13th May. No problem there but as some of you are aware I am trying to learn about GAs by reading others review process, not necessarily to comment on just read and learn. So I go to Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV and not a 1st review, points raised, discussion or a "final report". Surely those are an integral part of a GA review. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 10:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The GA nomination for Grand Theft Auto (series) appears to have had the same problem, see Talk:Grand Theft Auto (series)#Successful good article nomination. Leithp 10:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
edit conflict: : I think Talk:Grand Theft Auto (series)#Successful good article nomination does two things: 1) shows that it might be good just to go for a GA sub page so that the history of a GA and previous GAs can be followed, and 2) gives those that think GAs are a waste of time and is a possible harmful to wikipedia another stick to beat us with. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 11:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
remove indent. see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Improvements_in_GA_process for the previous discussions. And we are now entering into this territory so maybe should move further discussions there if it continues. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi - just a heads up that I have listed this article, which is listed as a controversial article. Fritzpoll ( talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
This is tagged at Talk:Frank Tudor as a current GA nomination, but I can't see any listing at GAN. It probably failed but its history has not been updated.-- Grahame ( talk) 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
At FAC, the decision was recently taken to address the same problem by adding to the instructions Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Looks good to me, particularly with the fast edit count. Jimfbleak ( talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I recently read a review of a Good Article nomination (no personal involvement) where the article was criticised for having too many red links, and the question was whether articles would ever be written on the red linked subjects. Personally I believe red links should be encouraged, as red links are perhaps the best way of prompting new articles. To question whether there would ever be articles on the subject is besides the point, as a red link will promote an article. My guess there are many subjects that are covered today in detail that few ever thought there would be articles on. I think articles should not be criticised for having "too many" red links, as red links are more a comment on the completeness of Wikipedia, and do not reflect on the quality of the article itself. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 02:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you do with a procedural issue with a GA? I wasn't sure about Subcutaneous emphysema, which was passed by the same person who nominated it (they did it in complete good faith and took pains to be neutral & objective, but I still think it's a good idea to have more people look at it). Should I go to GAR on purely procedural grounds? Or delist and relist? I hate to add to either backlog. I would love it if an experienced reviewer could just look at the article and decide whether to delist or how to deal with it (not that that does anything for the backlog either). If anyone wants to rise to the challenge, there are also critiques of article here. Otherwise please advise on what to do. Thanks much, delldot on a public computer talk 02:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we force a restriction on the amount of articles a particular WikiProject may have at GAN. For instance WP:PW has 13 articles at GAN, and I think it is a tad too much. I think we should have a restriction to stop it becoming overloaded. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Those are my exact feelings, but other users seem to disagree. King iMat thew 20 08 23:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Participation in WikiProjects varies so widely, assigning a specific number would be way too arbitrary. If a project has lots of active members and a healthy spirit of collaboration, it stands to reason it would crank out lots of high quality articles, and have lots of people ready to work through holds. An arbitrary restriction would be unnecessary bureaucracy in a case like that. Furthermore, it's individuals, not projects, that nominate articles. It just ain't right to tell one editor they can't nominate, just because too many of their peers have nominated articles. - Pete ( talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
BUT if a certain project tends to nominate a lot of articles, it might be nice to make a friendly request that its members review some articles from other projects to help out with the backlog! - Pete ( talk) 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if at times, when there is a large number of articles from two projects, those two projects could agree to review each other's articles. It may be tough to find those knowledgable enough to review the other Project's articles, but it would help to quickly eliminate a large chunk of backlog, and both groups would get what they want with ease. The359 ( talk) 09:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
What Pete and The359 said. If you want to backlog to do down, you can help by reviewing another article on which you are more of a "specialist". If you need help, ask here, or one of these guys. Easy! dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at some of the comments posted on both WT:GA and WT:GAN, I think we seem to have two separate streams of comments going on regarding GA overall. It might actually help if all comments regarding the GA process in general were on one page. That way, when discussing improvements to the GA process as a whole, we only have one place to go. So I would like to propose merging WT:GA into WT:GAN, and redirecting the page to this one. Any thoughts? Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)