![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
These statistics are flawed, are they not? I'm no statistician, but I'm pretty sure the numbers on either sides of the dividing line must be comparable. Lists are surely included in the 2,4 million articles, so why are not the 750 Featured Lists included with GAs and FAs? That would bring the ratio closer to 340 than 380 to one. Lampman Talk to me! 02:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What section should a humanitarian go under? I just passed Teresa Hsu Chih but have no idea where to put it. Nikki 311 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A bit ago I split the sports persons section into individual sports because the section had over 200 articles and it was getting difficult to browse. I know this is a slippery slope, so I think any new section needs to have at least 5 entries. For that reason I am going to put the chess section back into miscellaneous. Other groups are developing, too: there are four poker articles, four track/field articles, and three pool/billiards articles, for instance. Gimmetrow 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
An editor has made some good suggestions at Wikipedia talk:The perfect article#Rewrititionization?; discussion is welcome. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Some articles apparently passed but not listed here:
Someone want to deal with these? Gimmetrow 03:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Revanta is listed in DEities section.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears nobody is interested in maintaining this page. Gimmetrow 03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, this list, in its current form, is completely unusable. Too many entries (page is nearly 200kb), all squished together. To see how it would look, I took the sports and games section and modified it into several three-column charts in my sandbox. Personally, I think that this looks much better (despite the fact that the layout in my sandbox isn't all that great either), and is much easier to find topics. Especially since the table of contents goes deeper than the top level "Sports and recreation" heading.
With this in mind, I propose that we finally consider breaking this list into subpages, and reorganize each new subpage into defined columns. Perhaps, the subpages could cover the following:
The biggest problem with the tables in my sandbox, at pesent, is that the articles would have to be manually moved around to ensure each of the three columns in each section remains balanced. That could probably be done by a bot. Thoughts? Reso lute 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you not just make all the sections auto-hide so you scroll through a list of headings, then only unhide the one whose contents you wish to read? This would make the page much less visually cluttered, but of course it would not reduce the page size/loading times – a good temporary solution? Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I liked the concept of having a separate talk page specifically for GA-assessment discussion. I don't have any expertise in creating bots, but have a suggestion. Is it possible to transclude only the section-headings of the assessed article to the assessment-talk page? See an example. That would make it convenient so that all the issues could be discussed under relevant section headings. If a section in the article is merged/removed (which is possible, but will be infrequent), then the corresponding comments on the talk page would stay, but unlinked to the original section of the article. This will make the discussions much smoother and convenient. And, those who are short of time can post all their comments in a section named on the lines of "Article in general"/"General discussion". There can be separate sections for images used, too. But, I repeat, I just don't possess any expertise to create such a bot/template.
—KetanPanchal taLK 15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My article for the Howmet TX recently passed GA, however I believe the reviewer has run into a bit of a problem regarding where the article should go on the list. The article is about a racing car, so it theoretically falls under both "Everyday life" (for being part of a sport) and "Transport" (for being a vehicle). However, it doesn't really seem to fit any of the subcategories within these two sections. It's not a game, a sport, a sports person, sports event, sports mascot, sports team, or a sports stadium, and while it is road transport, I would think this ignores the primarily sporting element of the vehicle.
So, where does it go? The359 ( talk) 00:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Not only are spaced en dashes non-standard for separating items in a list, but they take too much space (both on-screen and in the edit window); personally, I find them rather unsightly, not to mention the displacement at the end of lines. I propose replacing them with spaced en dashes, breaking only at the space following them (using
Template:Ndash, as in Item 1{{–}} Item 2
). What do the honourable colleagues think?
Waltham,
The Duke of
03:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Using {{–}} adds 14 characters per line to the post-expand include size. Not an issue with the post-expand limit at 2Mb, but it seems to double or more the time needed to serve the page (<4s to 7-13 seconds). Going back to form without templates. Gimmetrow 20:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
–
... If this is considered too cumbersome, there is the option of not using hard spaces at all (maintaining the status quo in this aspect), but I believe that dashes should stick with their preceding links, or a link might appear to continue into the next line without that being true. In any case, my basic proposal is to replace the em dashes with en dashes, and there are no technical complications involved here.
Waltham,
The Duke of
08:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)The subpage system for GA reviews appears to have bedded down quite well now. After a month in action, the templates now generate an error when there is no subpage, and very few errors have been generated. The change seems to have had a positive effect on review quality and overall activity.
An issue that was raised several times during the discussion of GAN review subpages (see here, here and here) is that individual delisting/reassessment activities need to be as accountable as GAN reviews. Following further discussion, I've provided reassessment templates that support high quality reassessment and delisting of articles by individual editors. As with GAN reviews, these reassessments are stored permanently on a dedicated /GAn subpage of article talk, so that reassessments are just as transparent as GAN reviews. The process works much like WP:GAR, by substituting a template ({{ subst:GAR}}) at the top of the article talk page, only now this provides a choice between "individual reassessment" and "community reassessment".
Something like this is essential for the transparency of the reassessment/delisting process. I encourage editors to try it out. Once feedback on the process has been received, the plan is to update the guidelines at WP:GAR to provide better and clearer support both for individual and community reassessments. Geometry guy 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
If you place this userbox ({{ User Good Articles3}}) userbox on your userpage, it will activate a link to a separate userspace where you can list the articles that you helped upgrade to GA. I created it because I wanted to list my GA articles without having them clutter my userpage. Just thought someone else might be interested.-- TheZachMorrisExperience ( talk) 04:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The July 2008 GAN Newsletter is ready for consumption. Enjoy! Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Is it just me or should Wikipedia:Good articles#Artists and architects be sorted last name, first name? Gary King ( talk) 19:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering, since we have featured topics, would it be worth having "good topics"? I'm sure the suggestion will get shoot down in 5 minutes—wikipedia doesn't like change—but I can't see any harm in it. I assume we don't already have such a thing? — Realist2 ( Speak) 15:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Just passed this article, but unsure of the category it belongs in. I've listed it under World history > Heads of state, but should it be under Monarchs (do we count self-proclaimed emperors in this?) EyeSerene talk 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Is is still allowed to delist an article on one's own authority if it clearly does not meet standards? I'm looking at Grand Theft Auto (series), and I'm surprised it actually has been listed (especially so recently) -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The Wagiman language article has been nominated for quite some time now, it's listed as GA under the languages wikiproject and the Australia wikiproject. Can I just attempt to push it along a bit? jangari – ngili-ma 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Before I take up everyone's time with a submission, would the example or citation style used disqualify this article? -- Adoniscik( t, c) 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Currentlly GA count is updated by the bot or manuelly—40001. Why can not it be done in a simpler way? For instance it can be done like this—40,006, which is realised by the following code {{formatnum:{{#expr:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Wikipedia_good_articles|R}}-16}}}} (see {{ Counter}}). Ruslik ( talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
← Well, they shouldn't. And that means there are two articles in two sections, or one article in three sections. Gary King ( talk) 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I created template {{ Counter}}, which produces various numbers:
Ruslik ( talk) 13:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
"...this is accurate enough and requires no maintenance." – Accurate enough is another argument. There's really no need to have the count accurate to the article, for instance. WP:FA only reports the count accurate to the nearest 10. As for no maintanence, since people seem to want to go to categories and subcategories, let's just declare the WP:GA listing historical and quit updating it. Gimmetrow 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Butting in here, I'm quite impressed that 1 in 300 or so articles has been through some kind of review process. Only 0.03% I know, but I'd never have imagined it was even that many. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The category count through the magic word/template is consistently wrong (it's again off by three). But if people want wrong, that's fine with me. I will quit updating the page entirely. Gimmetrow 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This page historically had a count of the articles listed on the page. If you use the count in the category as the "GA count", then that makes the category primary. About a day and a half ago this page and the category were synced (5 articles added from the category), but already there are three articles in the category and not on the page. It looks like enough people think and want the category to be primary, and it's not worth the trouble keeping them in sync. So fine, redirect this page to Category:Wikipedia good articles. Gimmetrow 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Howdy folks. I am writing a pretty lengthy term paper on Wikipedia and in it I briefly am discussing FAs and GAs. As it's written for people who don't know Wikipedia, I am writing how one identifies both. A FA can be identified by a small star, as we all know. But how can a GA be identified? Other than cross-referencing the article being read with the GA list here, or using the obscure preference which adds a header to an article telling you, how does one know? Might a small icon be created and added to GAs for identification? That would be extraordinarily useful and, moreover, won't make my professor confused about this lack of consistency. Thanks. Bstone ( talk) 00:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Echoing my professor (but mostly for myself), why would wikipedia not want to identify those articles which stand out and well sourced, written and edited? Bstone ( talk) 03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem GA faces in its attempt to attain an article space icon is that it's a one reviewer pass project. Only one set of eyes, not counting the authors and nominator, determine if the article meets the criteria or not. Unfortunately, without any extra checks, we lose balance, because not every reviewer is as thorough as would be ideal. Personally, I support the idea. I gave a strong push for it about a year ago when I got sweeps rolling. I proposed it be added only to articles that have passed sweeps. It did not gain consensus, obviously.
Many great changes have been made to ensure project quality, but perception has proven to be the most difficult thing to change. Until some major process changes are made, this will most likely remain an unrealistic expectation. LaraLove| Talk 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick count on Word, and I arrived at 4,670 articles listed on this page. Why is this number so inconsistent with the official one? Are these simply de-listed GA's that people have forgotten to remove from the list? Lampman ( talk) 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I've been trying to figure out where the article Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism should be categorized on this list, and I've decided that the most appropriate thing to do is create a new sub-category called 'Interdisciplinary' under 'Social sciences and society'. Any thoughts? – SJL 16:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You've misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that the ASEN is too 'high brow' to be in the same category as the Boy Scouts, I'm saying they're different types of things. As for a category not being defined by its contents, I'd appreciate it if you could explain what the criteria are. Looking at this page more closely, I see a lot of things that have nothing to do with other that are nonetheless grouped together, and I am interested to know why. – SJL 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a while since I looked at this page – wow, what a lot of GAs :D Could I ask that the category heading "Racecar driving" under "Everyday life" is changed to "Motor sport" or "Motorsport"? The relevant wikiproject is Wikiproject:Motorsport, the articles are not all about racecar driving, and 'racecar' is American usage, where I believe that 'motorsport' is acceptable in both UK and US usage (could be wrong on the last one). It would also allow for articles on motorcycles, not just cars. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 08:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The recently promoted GA World Science Festival does not seem to fit into any of the existing categories. I would propose the creation of a subcategory "General" (or "Miscellaneous Science", but I would prefer "General") to put it in. Any other future GA that is natural-science related, but not concerned with one particular scientific field, could go in there, as well. Markus Poessel ( talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The august newsletter is ready for reading. Enjoy! Dr. Cash ( talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The intro states that some articles may be 'unlikely to reach featured article quality', but does not say why, could we have some examples or criteria of these – I can picture some possible examples e.g. maybe very short articles or controversial issues – but even these could be good if perfectly written ? LeeVJ ( talk) 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Evolutionary history of life has been promoted to GA, but has a lot of holes – see Talk:Evolutionary history of life #Structure and questions. I was strongly tempted to put a "needs expert attention" tag on it, but it would be embarassing for Wikipedia to have this banner on a GA. I really hate being so harsh, but one could produce a better article from almost any Paleontology 101 textbook, i.e. a better article with just one source. Articles on science subjects need to be reviewed for content as well as compliance with WP:rules_on_everything. I suspect reviews of articles on other "academic" or "technical" subjects are in a similar situation, e.g. history, music.
PS Do not take this as criticism of the reviewer, who was friendly, helpful and as, as far as I could see, did what current policies require. It's the policies that have the problems. Unfortunately it's not even a new problem – Cambrian explosion was once FA, but a review in the scientific journal Nature pointed out a lot of errors. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The current GA template says this: "If [the article] no longer meets [the GA] criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment." But note that the template includes (or should include) the particular revision that was evaluated to be of GA quality.
What happened to Raoul Wallenberg was that lots of material of questionable value was added by some enthusiastical user, and then someone figured the article was no longer of GA quality. However, the earlier revision was -- as far as I can evaluate -- still of GA quality. Would it be wrong to revert the article back to the GA-status version and list it as GA again?
Fred- J 16:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The editor of Let's Get It On has reformatted the GA review on Talk:Let's Get It On. My understanding is that the formatting is not to be changed. What should be done in this case, if anything? — Mattisse ( Talk) 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've promoted this article to GA but I really can't figure out which section to list it in! Any ideas? Million_Moments ( talk) 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please remove the GA-rating from this article? It was assigned to it inappropriately by the article's creator [2], without going through the GA-approval process. The article's author User:Lajolla2009 had previously assigned this article A-class rating [3]. Since he does not react well to my comments and I don't want to keep reverting him (3RR is already close), could someone else please remove the GA-rating and try to talk to User:Lajolla2009 about the rating process? Hopefully he will react better to additional input. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 15:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Otto Frederick Hunziker article was recently listed as a good article under the good article criteria. When I requested GA assessment, I stated: "I struggled with the subtopic. Other potential subtopics include: Farming and cultivation, Education, Chemistry and materials science." (I think I originally listed "Food" or "Drink" as the topic.) The reviewer stated: "I've not put this article in the Good Article list because there doesn't seem to be an appropriate section- one needs to be created." Potential GA categories appear to be:
Does anyone have any recommendation regarding what might be best? How would I indicate the new topic? (I assume that I would edit the GA template on the article's talk page such that "topic=x" is changed so that "x" is replace by the topic name. Correct?) Thank you for any guidance. -- Rpclod ( talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope the process is fairly self-explanatory :) Please don't nominate topics you haven't worked on. Please address any questions you have about how exactly good topics are implemented here – rst20xx ( talk) 02:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Has there ever been discussion of adding GAs to the main page (without removing any current feature). GAs are now higher quality than FAs were when they first went to the main page, IMO.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a great fan of GAs, but I don't think it's worth putting them on the front page. On average, a given FA will be of better quality than a given GA. Surely the purpose of the front page is to promote our best work, there seems no particular reason to highlight our very good, but not quite best work. FA and GA should not be in competition with each other (I know this is not necessarily the case!), and to my mind they serve quite different purposes: FA gives us our very best work, but these are restricted in number because of the effort required; GA (because it is easier) allows us to create a large number of high quality articles. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 10:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I support having GAs on the main page. There needs to be greater recognition of GAs. SGpedian article writers like Aldwinteo usually get their articles on DYK and nominate said articles for GA shortly after, while Mailer diablo once said that he would rather write DYKs than GAs, because the former appeared on the main page. This suggests that greater recognition of GAs would increase the GA project's potential to fight systemic bias. Unfortunately, such ideas will probably be shot by the elitist FAC community. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to stop maintaining WP:GA soon. Someone either needs to take over adding the articles the reviewers don't, or the page can be redirected to CAT:GA. Gimmetrow 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Report. Gimmetrow 04:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Good. One more for now: where to put Who Made Huckabee? Gimmetrow 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, Archibald Dixon pushed the article count to 5000. WP:GA and CAT:GA currently in sync, but updates will be less frequent from now on. Gimmetrow 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me what you mean? Will you be updating weekly instead of daily or just not at all?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If no one has any objections, I'd like to create a new subsection under Engineering and Technology – Transport for automobiles. The Road Transport section is pretty cluttered – it's one of the biggest sections on the page and is the biggest in Transport, so it's kinda hard to see which links are to vehicles.-- Flash176 ( talk) 06:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does it take so long for messages posted on the GA review page to appear on the article talk page? -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 12:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
At
Wikipedia:Good articles/recent, I have been trying to add delisted articles here since there is no where else to summarize delistings. People keep changing Recently listed/delisted good articles to Recently listed good articles. Is there a reason not to announce delistings there.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
05:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
1 in 500 Wikipedia articles are GAs! Congratulations and keep writing GAs! -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 11:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought it might be useful to outline some aspects of the early history of GA. This is my own flawed analysis, and I welcome other editors making corrections or adding further information.
Good articles were initiated in October 2005 by Worldtraveller, with the following mission: "Many articles contain excellent content but are unlikely to become featured; they may be too short, or on too broad a topic, or on too specific a topic, or an a topic about which not much is known. We should endeavour to identify good content that is not likely to become featured." This original motivation has developed into a myth that GA was originally invented to recognise short articles; the truth is a little more subtle.
The initial process was: "Simply add any articles here that match the criteria. If you see an article listed here that you think is not good, be bold and remove it, leaving a note on its talk page to indicate why you think it is not good." Six GA criteria were identified from the initial statement. It remained as a proposed process for over 6 months.
GAN started out as a concern that nominations should be independent, and was first formalized as a " Self-nominations page". This was converted into a nominator-reviewer system on 10 March 2006, when the criteria were also listed on a separate page.
GAR started out as a place for resolving disputes over delisting. It gradually expanded its role and changed its name. Closely related was the introduction of sweeps. This expanded in September 2006 after the criteria were changed to require more inline citation.
The monthly growth of the number of good articles reflects these various changes. The initial enthusiasm is evident in the rapid early growth, when it was easy to list an article. This was tempered considerably by the endeavour that began in September 2006 to ensure verifiability. If you want to see what is a "drive-by delist", look to this period. I believe a lot of ill feeling towards the GA project has its origins here. We have to maintain quality but also avoid discouraging or alienating content-producers. My own involvement with GA began in Spring 2007. I find it encouraging that the number of new GAs per month continues to grow approximately linearly. Geometry guy 18:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
(←) That's a useful reminder, Walkerma! These are updated every Sunday. The log in particular is worth checking as it provides a summary of the article talk page changes to GA status: this can then be compared to the list on this page to trap any errors. Meanwhile, the good news is that GimmeBot is back in action. My understanding is that in future bot updates are intended to happen twice a week, on Tuesday and Saturday evening.
I've updated the GA header to use Ruslik's {{ Counter}}. This counts the number of articles in Category:Wikipedia good articles rather than the number of (distinct) articles listed on this page, so we need to check regularly that they are in sync. Finally a curiosity: Category:GA-Class Good articles claims to have 7 more articles in it than Category:Wikipedia good articles. I went through it, and the two categories appear have identical content. Can anyone figure out where the discrepancy comes from? Geometry guy 11:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Q: Is it acceptable to ignore point 4 in the process (and thus effectively point 3 and 5)
A: I would contend this is impolite and the instructions on this page should be followed to the letter as far as is possible.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
←I am disappointed with myself for wasting my time in trying to have a rational discussion with ZincBelief. That is my final word on this ludicrous debacle. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
To introduce another piece of evidence, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps#Process clearly states that we should follow the guidelines of the GA delisting process. There is again this muddying of process, guidelines and instructions and probably criteria as well. However, the GA Sweep guidelines seem to agree with me, we should not ignore point 4, we should follow it. It goes on to say give editors a chance to respond. A laudable statement, and one which must be adhered to in a community.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 10:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Long-standing nominations are a higher priority than more recently added ones.
If you see an article below under "Nominations" that you haven't significantly contributed to and that meets the 'Good Article' criteria:
The above discussion does not appear mostly relevent to the RFC at hand. Problems with personal behavior should be directed to WP:WQA or other dispute resolution forums. Problems with specific articles should be addressed on that specific article's talk page or at the community GAR board, where appropriate. Let's bring this back to the focus of the RFC here: Is it ever appropriate, in any situation, no matter how bizare, to remove a GA from the list, or must every GA on the list go through an extensive review process before it is removed? You know where I and ZincBelief stand on the issue, it would be nice to hear how others feel about this.-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
← I did not invent this, and nor did I write it: "If the article has any of the above problems, it can simply be failed ... without going through the on hold process of improvement based on specific issues[my emphasis]." Seems plain enough to me. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have nowhere invented an arbitrary 2 day hold procedure and repeatedly saying that I have will not change that. I am not even proposing anything new. All I am saying is "Allow time for other editors to respond" (as in my remark above). This sentence has been in the delisting guidelines for more than a year.
I am not against summary delisting of articles which meet the quickfail criteria (neither do I wish to advocate it), but calling them "delisting criteria" is disingenuous: the sentence you quote and the page you link are discussing good article nominations, not good article reassessment. How can you quickfail an article that hasn't been nominated? Geometry guy 15:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to propose a compromise. Reviewers should be able to delist an article, whose quality if far below GA standards and which can not be expected to be brought up to them in a reasonable time, without any waiting period. However if an editor (or editors) manages to fix unfixable in 7 days after the delisting, they can ask the reviewer to reconsider the delisting. If the reviewer believes that the article is of GA quality, he withdraws his delisting and keeps the article. Ruslik ( talk) 09:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not the first time that this worry about "drive-by delisting" has cropped up. What does that mean, exactly? Has anyone ever seen a drive-by delisting? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
[[{{{1}}}]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/{{{1}}}/ |reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. template can be used for this purpose, by placing ArticleName has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. on talk pages. It is thus completely true for me to repeat that summary delisting is not allowed. It may even be helpful. -- ZincBelief ( talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I can see some merits to this proposal, but I think it adds unnecessary complication. The real problem we have is that editors do not understand what it means when an article they are interested in gets delisted: they sometimes take it as an affront. Making the process more complicated won't resolve this issue. Also the proposal effectively suggests a mandatory 7 day wait period, albeit with the condition that article remains delisted rather than listed during this period. What if a reviewer doesn't respond? GAR. But GAR is available anyway for contested delisting.
GA status is primarily intended for editors not readers. The principle about protecting the reader would suggest that whenever a good article is nominated for reassessment then it should be delisted until the reassessment is complete. I am against this, both in terms of the unnecessary work it creates, and the flawed nature of the underlying principle. Geometry guy 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The present discussion seems to be going round and round in ever-decreasing circles. Perhaps it would be best to take it in bite-sized chunks. Regardless of what the present guidelines are interpreted to mean, perhaps we first of all need to have a discussion about whether "quickfails" or whatever else the PC term of the week is ought to be allowed or not. Can we maybe establish a consensus that it's either not permissible to ever delist an article without putting it on hold (for whatever period of time), or that it is? And if it is permissible, under what circumstances? Should there be different procedures for GAN and GA Sweeps? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ruslik's proposal is looking even more attractive to me. It's a simple, non-bureaucratic way to permit quickfails while allowing for non-GAR remedy. Majoreditor ( talk) 05:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Add {{
subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (this is a subpage of the article talk page, just like a review of a good article nomination).
2. Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article. 3. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{ Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window. 4. If you feel that the problems with the article are so serious that they can not be resolved in a reasonably short time, delist the article. In this case the review should include detailed description of the problems that led to the prompt delisting. It is courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer about article's delisting. Decision to delist the article without giving editors opportunity to make improvements should not be taken lightly; the article should be severely deficient to justify such an action. 5. If you feel that the problems can be fixed a reasonable time, allow time for other editors to respond and to improve the article. In this case it is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The {{ GARMessage}} template can be used for this purpose, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages. If the article does not meet the criteria after the holding period (usually a week), it can be delisted. 6. To delist the article, remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles and then remove the {{ GA}} template from the article talk page. 7. To close the reassessment, replace the date in the {{ GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted". 8. A reviewer can reconsider their decision to delist an article if it was made in error. For instance, if an article was delisted without hold, but the problems were quickly fixed, the reviewer is encouraged to reopen the review and reinstate the article in GA list. |
I created draft guidelines. They are not ideal, please, feel free to edit them. Ruslik ( talk) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Point 4 is ultimately just weasel words. The current guidelines are perfectly acceptable, there is no need to make them subjective like this. Point 8 is also not paticularly tight. Compare these to the Featured Article delisting process.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 11:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that point 4 makes instant de-listing just a matter of one editor's opinion, with no accountability and no progress towards improving the article. I suggest adding "Instant de-listing should be a rare exception and an editors who de-list an article without giving a few day's notice should be ready to justify their action promptly and in detail if challenged. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw a request for comments on WP:VPP, and waded into this horrible mess. My take on the situation:
Anomie ⚔ 13:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be no consensus to implement my proposal. Probably, it was doomed from the beginning as it is really difficult to define what constitutes common sense and what is an occasional exception. Ruslik ( talk) 18:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there a list anywhere of which GAs are about living people? I'm asking because a problem I have noticed during my sweep of sports persons is that except for a those that are regularly maintained by dedicated editors, many of the articles about active sportspersons haven't been properly updated in a year or more (except for the occasional "hE is teh GAY! lol!"). This is being cleared up as I draw the attention of respective wikiprojects to the issue, but a list would be useful to enable future sweepers to check which articles are about living people and thus are likely to significantly change over time.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about including new GAs in the DYKs on the Main Page. Is this something we would want? Lampman ( talk) 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) after reading the discussion at the link kindly given by OhanaUnited , I would lead to not bothering. GA are doing what they say, the gates to jump are a lot harder and higher that they were a short time ago when I became involved. The review process is much tighter and because of this much fairer. There will always been a reviewer that an either destroy a GA review by making unreasonable demands and a reviewer that will decide to give a fly-by pass because they wish to. These will always exist even with the sterling work the sweeps have been doing. The main page sees far more negatives to adding GAs than positives and I am not sure GAs being placed on the main page will not add layers of stress, demands, etc that do more than just "improve articles" and GAs but actually start to redefine them more than it is worth. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
We have an I.P. today either maliciously or in good faith trying to list McDonald's, an article that has not yet gone through the GA process. I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to semi-protect the page indefinitely; while the volume of vandalism isn't high at all, the consequences are problematic and I can't think of any reason that a non-autoconfirmed editor would need to edit the page. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 04:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Why didn't the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report run last night?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 05:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed before or if this is the wrong venue. I'm in the midst of reviewing It's About Time (Christina Milian album) and the hold-up is the lack of citations following each quote. I've had several GAs of my own held up for this reason, with the reason given that the article could be re-arranged and the quote moved away from its source. The nominator notes that there are featured articles (e.g. The Other Woman) that don't hold to this standard. I'm not an enormous stickler on the point but would like to get some feedback from more experienced reviewers as to whether such referencing is needed. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Nearing 300 entries, "Recordings, compositions and performances" is now the largest subsection of Good Articles. I propose that this section is further split into something like "Songs", "Albums", and "Other recordings, compositions and performances".-- Remurmur ( talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Any objection to grouping them under ["Art" < "Theatre, film and drama" < "Theatre and musical theatre"] instead of ["Art" < "Music" < "Recordings, compositions and performances"] (the current location)? I think they should be grouped in the same category as musicals. It's also pretty difficult for someone to find opera articles where they are now, being surrounded by a huge number of album articles.-- Remurmur ( talk) 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Singkawang is tagged on its talk page as a Good Article, but not only is it not listed on this page, it seems to be well below the quality expected of GAs; I presume that it has been tagged as such mistakenly or falsely, but I hesitate to remove it myself; could someone more knowledgeable than I look into this, please? // Programming gecko ( talk) 00:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a relevant discussion involving adding GAs to the mainpage going on here Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Introducing GA to main page. Some of the ideas proposed include creating a separate WP:FA-like box to feature the GA, incorporating into DYK or not including GA on the main page at all. Agne Cheese/ Wine 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The following pages are in Category:Wikipedia good articles without corresponding article links from Wikipedia:Good articles
Thanks. Gimmetrow 03:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that Aloe vera is moved to the heading Organisms. It is about a species and it does include a taxobox. -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ GA number}} currently lists 5,701 GAs, but there are 5,717 pages in Category:Wikipedia good articles. Is this a) a glitch, b) due to GA maintenance pages being listed in that category, or c) due to delisted GAs still being in the category/GAs passed without due process? If this has been asked and answered before, I apologize in advance :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Saxbe fix was added to two places in the GA page. Does this cause double counting.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
When I add an article to a section, should I update the number of articles in that section? I just passed my 7th GA but this is the first time I noticed it. It's probably not worthwhile to fix the other cases, but I'm just wondering if I should make sure to update the number in the future. Crystal whacker ( talk) 02:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I just promoted Lego Modular Houses, but I have no idea where to put it. Any suggestions? Lampman ( talk) 14:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
When I nominated Stella Power Station, I nominated it under the Architecture section. When recently nominating Blyth Power Station, I felt it made more sense to list it under Engineering and technology section. I'd like it if Stella Power Station could be listed under engineering and technology instead of architecture because I think it would be a better place for it. However, I do not know if there is a proper process to go through in doing this, or if it is simply moved there. Fintan264 ( talk) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but: is it inappropriate or not allowed for one Wikipedian to review a GA article nominated by another person? For example, I'm part of WikiProject Barack Obama, and one of the other members has nominated an article for GA. Can I review it, or it is better to have someone from outside the WikiProject do it? -- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The page is far too long to be practical. It's currently 267K. Only twenty or so articles are longer than that. Would it be more constructive to split the page into subpages? EA Swyer Talk Contributions 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want a faster loading page, try Category:Wikipedia good articles. All nice and alphabetized within categories. Gimmetrow 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We had a prior discussion about this back in May 2008 found here. Like EyeSerene said above, now is a good time to start making changes. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 09:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If this has been asked before, please forgive me and just point me to the relevant discussion, but I was wondering why we don't note GAs with the GA symbol in the upper right hand corner of the article like we do with the FA star. It seems that readers would be interested to know that the article they are reading has been through a review process and found to be at least adequate for an encyclopedia article. Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
With all this talk about Flagged Revisions and such, why not bring up the Great Green Dot Debate again, just to throw even more fuel onto the fire,... =) Dr. Cash ( talk) 23:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think GA-symbols in mainspace inevitably will come with time; support seems to get wider every time it's brought up. One important step on the way is to finish the sweeps project, which aims at getting rid of articles that were passed at a time when the criteria were more lax. Currently it's only about 45% through. I've done a bit, but I could certainly do more, and the project could need more participants. Lampman ( talk) 13:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
There are some ineluctable laws of human nature that no amount of elimination drives will have the slightest effect on. Has anyone else noticed, for instance, that the progress of the GA Sweeps Drive mentioned above is an almost perfect example of the Pareto Principle? Would you believe that 80% of the reviews have been done by 23% of the reviewers? Spooky! -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I have stared at the "Sweeps" page and wondered what it all means. Sorry to say, I don't understand how the process works. Can you give a simplified explanation of how the reviewing of old GAs works? — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I've listed House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 under "Political figures", since that seemed to be the most applicable category. If we handle subarticles differently than that, feel free to correct me and drop a line here so I know for next time. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 13:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In all articles I have written, if a nephew/uncle/aunt of the subject has done something notable they are mentioned in the article. This includes articles such as
Elmer Gedeon,
Bob Chappuis,
Barry Bonds. This is true even for infamous things such as
Elmer Gedeon and his infamous uncle. Being part of a family of athletes is a significnat thing for an athlete bio. At the current
Keith Bostic (American football) there is discussion on the relevance of a nephew who is most notable for his infamy. It does not makes sense to me that an article would be considered more complete without such facts. Although you can not choose your family it is not relevant. Regardless of whether he raised his nephew the guy is his nephew and shares his last name. If people want to know if they are related, we should
WP:PRESERVE that info if we have it.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Has an expandable TOC been considered, or a normal TOC? It's really hard to find the minor sections. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 12#Suggested split of "Recordings, compositions and performances" subsection that the songs and recordings was split as it neared 300. The TV eps section is over 300. Any ideas? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 13:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if a new section for (non-computer) "Role-playing games" could be added. The Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject has been doing a lot of work on bringing articles up to Good status, but they don't really fit in anywhere on the current table. We've been putting most of them in with "Board and card games," but there's also some in literature. Having an additional section just might make categorization for this kind of article easier. Thanks for the consideration! - Drilnoth ( talk) 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor recently delisted Moonrise (Warriors) from GA status with no warning on the talk page and no reassessment page. I reverted his delisting, and left a note on his talk page that it was considered polite to follow the individual reassessment guidelines, and at least leave a message on the article talk page. He replied, saying that the GA tag stated that "If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment." (bolding mine). He felt this meant that the article could be boldly delisted with no notes on the article talk page. Is there anyway we could change the tag to point to the instructions for an individual reassessment, rather than apparently encouraging editors to remove GA status with no discussion or comments? Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing Ling.Nut.Public ( talk) 08:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The GA rating is given to Wikiproject templates on article talkpages via the GA review, at least this is indicated in WP:GAN. However, the reassessment page does not, I think, state what one should do with the Wikiproject ratings after delisting, and this confuses me. When a good article gets delisted, the ratings in the Wikiprojects should reflect that delisting, right? Then should one delete the quality ratings and ask the projects for reassessment? This is a heavy burden on the projects. Should one let the ratings remain GA because they are not in the major Category:Wikipedia good articles? This would I think go against common sense, since the projects get the GA rating from the good article review in the first place (and they are simply not GA after delisting anymore). Or is one supposed to assess the article per the general criteria, which I think one could possibly do since only the importance of an article is dependent on the Wikiproject ("Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope." from WP:1.0/A). Note: I saw a somewhat similar question asked on the GAR talk page here. I'm thankful for comments or clarification. Hekerui ( talk) 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that February was perhaps the best month ever for GAs:
Now obviously, there is no purely numerical battle between the FA and GA projects; FAs still have a quality highly superior to GAs. Also, it should be remembered that the growth in GAs in February was to a large extent due to the elimination drive. Nevertheless, I think the above numbers give cause for optimism, and celebration. Lampman ( talk) 23:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
H.M.S. Pinafore is tagged as a Good Article, but it doesn't seem to be listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. What gives? – Quadell ( talk) 23:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A list of the non-listed. Gimmetrow 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added these to the good article page. Hopefully in the right places. Sasata ( talk) 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
New list. Gimmetrow 03:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Reviewers are responsible for adding articles to this page. Gimmetrow 20:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest list. Gimmetrow 23:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
*
Talk:Chuck E. Cheese's
*
Talk:Edward the Martyr
The WP:GA page was last synced on March 29, when the page had 6583 unique articles listed. This page now has 6620. Therefore, a net 37 articles were added to WP:GA; since there were about 7 delists, that means about 44 articles added. During the same period, another 34 articles (listed above) became GA but were not added to this page. Thus, about 43% of the articles that become GA are not showing up here. If this trend continues, might as well just declare this page historical. Gimmetrow 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. This edit removed mention of WP:GA, with an edit summary: "unrequired steps and matters beyond the scope of the GA process". I suggest redirecting WP:GA to Category:Wikipedia good articles. Gimmetrow 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The bot has not run three nights in a row. Last night I complained at User talk:StatisticianBot and User talk:Dvandersluis.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 08:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've asked a question about why demoted FAs don't regain their GA status (if the still meet GA criteria) at WT:FA#FAR. Your thoughts would be appreciated there. Mjroots ( talk) 05:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(I know this belongs at WT:WGA, but there doesn't seem to be as much activity there, so I'm posting here as well just so more people see it.)
A template called {{ Good Article}} has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Good Article. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The two wikilinks to "Good article criteria" in this project article link to two different places: Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:What is a good article?, the second of which redirects to the first. That would seem both unnecessary and against WP:ASTONISH-- for one thing, it means that the browser doesn't highlight that the link has already been visited.
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just in case anyone's wondering, I listed the most recent list of unlisted articles (dated April 11) that disappeared with the last archive. Sasata ( talk) 04:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
How can I verify an article's GA status if it is not listed on Wikipedia:Good articles? Finell (Talk) 20:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Finell, if you have any suggestions for how to make an articles GA status more readily and reliably easy to check, please add your suggestions here. Geometry guy 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody review Jim Gilmore presidential campaign, 2008 to stop Uga Man's gloating? -- Retracted ( talk) 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ Good Article}} has been nominated for deletion. See WP:TFD.
76.66.202.139 ( talk) 09:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Briefly: I am teaching a course over the summer, and I want to teach students how to write Good Articles. But classes, unlike most things on Wikipedia, have specific timeframe. The students would greatly benefit if their articles (related to family) would be reviewed within the time they can still make adjustments and before the course ends; in other words, there will be ~4 or 5 articles that will need to be reviewed within a day or two of being listed (on 21 July), as I'll be grading them on 28 July (and the students will need a few days to read the comments and make modifications). I run a similar course last year ( see here), but I don't think a single article the students listed was reviewed in the time frame needed for the course. I understand that GA reviewers have a backlog, and I don't mind waiting several weeks for my own GA to be reviewed, but in this case (and I expect that there are other teachers out there who would like to use GA to teach) some form for expedite review would be useful. Perhaps we can create a page where expedite reviews could be requested, as a form of collaboration between WP:GA and Wikipedia:School and university projects? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to update everyone on the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have requested that a bot handle the task of updating Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. If anyone wants to throw in their two cents, the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 28#Newly listed GA articles. Also, there is the question of should we rely on the bot as a backup plan in case someone forgets to add the article, or should it be the primary updater so the humans don't have to worry about it? And of course once this plan is finalized someone will probably have to post a notice somewhere that editors no longer have to update the list. -- ErgoSum| talk| trib 17:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
In Category:Wikipedia good articles without links from Wikipedia:Good articles
Gimmetrow 16:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the bot's been approved and is here to stay! One recent improvement: proper reporting of what's added (tested on one edit) and what's been taken away (just added, untested yet). That should help to give the bot a slightly less automata feel to it, and helps in the history of the page. Meanwhile, links on this page remain on the exempted list; if anyone has any questions or suggestions, please do shout. The big question is of course now: can we rely on the bot? Perhaps a little too confidently I am going to say "definitely" now, so you can afford to post to WP:GA and then just get on with improving the encyclopaedia, rather than spending time propagating that listing to /recent. Congratulations everyone. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
A bot generated a listing for Good Articles in need of cleanup: Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing, Tom B ( talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have requested comments over at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/recent, suggesting an increase in the number of recently listed good articles, and adding a commented-out bot notice to the page. -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 08:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please enlighten me on GA criteria (for astronomy articles) ? I'll try to explain myself. Scroll to the very bottom of WP:GA and locate the category "Stars, galaxies and extrasolar objects". Click some numbered article, e.g. HD 217107. Is it GA ? What is the lowest limit on the amount and importance of information for an article to be GA? More than half of the articles in that and nearby GA subsections (i.e. remote astronomical objects) are like that. I could understand that they passed on old standards, but they were reassessed this spring and found suitable. Perhaps another sweep by an experienced astronomer is long overdue. Materialscientist ( talk) 08:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
These statistics are flawed, are they not? I'm no statistician, but I'm pretty sure the numbers on either sides of the dividing line must be comparable. Lists are surely included in the 2,4 million articles, so why are not the 750 Featured Lists included with GAs and FAs? That would bring the ratio closer to 340 than 380 to one. Lampman Talk to me! 02:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
What section should a humanitarian go under? I just passed Teresa Hsu Chih but have no idea where to put it. Nikki 311 20:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A bit ago I split the sports persons section into individual sports because the section had over 200 articles and it was getting difficult to browse. I know this is a slippery slope, so I think any new section needs to have at least 5 entries. For that reason I am going to put the chess section back into miscellaneous. Other groups are developing, too: there are four poker articles, four track/field articles, and three pool/billiards articles, for instance. Gimmetrow 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
An editor has made some good suggestions at Wikipedia talk:The perfect article#Rewrititionization?; discussion is welcome. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Some articles apparently passed but not listed here:
Someone want to deal with these? Gimmetrow 03:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Revanta is listed in DEities section.-- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears nobody is interested in maintaining this page. Gimmetrow 03:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, this list, in its current form, is completely unusable. Too many entries (page is nearly 200kb), all squished together. To see how it would look, I took the sports and games section and modified it into several three-column charts in my sandbox. Personally, I think that this looks much better (despite the fact that the layout in my sandbox isn't all that great either), and is much easier to find topics. Especially since the table of contents goes deeper than the top level "Sports and recreation" heading.
With this in mind, I propose that we finally consider breaking this list into subpages, and reorganize each new subpage into defined columns. Perhaps, the subpages could cover the following:
The biggest problem with the tables in my sandbox, at pesent, is that the articles would have to be manually moved around to ensure each of the three columns in each section remains balanced. That could probably be done by a bot. Thoughts? Reso lute 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you not just make all the sections auto-hide so you scroll through a list of headings, then only unhide the one whose contents you wish to read? This would make the page much less visually cluttered, but of course it would not reduce the page size/loading times – a good temporary solution? Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk) 17:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I liked the concept of having a separate talk page specifically for GA-assessment discussion. I don't have any expertise in creating bots, but have a suggestion. Is it possible to transclude only the section-headings of the assessed article to the assessment-talk page? See an example. That would make it convenient so that all the issues could be discussed under relevant section headings. If a section in the article is merged/removed (which is possible, but will be infrequent), then the corresponding comments on the talk page would stay, but unlinked to the original section of the article. This will make the discussions much smoother and convenient. And, those who are short of time can post all their comments in a section named on the lines of "Article in general"/"General discussion". There can be separate sections for images used, too. But, I repeat, I just don't possess any expertise to create such a bot/template.
—KetanPanchal taLK 15:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My article for the Howmet TX recently passed GA, however I believe the reviewer has run into a bit of a problem regarding where the article should go on the list. The article is about a racing car, so it theoretically falls under both "Everyday life" (for being part of a sport) and "Transport" (for being a vehicle). However, it doesn't really seem to fit any of the subcategories within these two sections. It's not a game, a sport, a sports person, sports event, sports mascot, sports team, or a sports stadium, and while it is road transport, I would think this ignores the primarily sporting element of the vehicle.
So, where does it go? The359 ( talk) 00:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Not only are spaced en dashes non-standard for separating items in a list, but they take too much space (both on-screen and in the edit window); personally, I find them rather unsightly, not to mention the displacement at the end of lines. I propose replacing them with spaced en dashes, breaking only at the space following them (using
Template:Ndash, as in Item 1{{–}} Item 2
). What do the honourable colleagues think?
Waltham,
The Duke of
03:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Using {{–}} adds 14 characters per line to the post-expand include size. Not an issue with the post-expand limit at 2Mb, but it seems to double or more the time needed to serve the page (<4s to 7-13 seconds). Going back to form without templates. Gimmetrow 20:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
–
... If this is considered too cumbersome, there is the option of not using hard spaces at all (maintaining the status quo in this aspect), but I believe that dashes should stick with their preceding links, or a link might appear to continue into the next line without that being true. In any case, my basic proposal is to replace the em dashes with en dashes, and there are no technical complications involved here.
Waltham,
The Duke of
08:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)The subpage system for GA reviews appears to have bedded down quite well now. After a month in action, the templates now generate an error when there is no subpage, and very few errors have been generated. The change seems to have had a positive effect on review quality and overall activity.
An issue that was raised several times during the discussion of GAN review subpages (see here, here and here) is that individual delisting/reassessment activities need to be as accountable as GAN reviews. Following further discussion, I've provided reassessment templates that support high quality reassessment and delisting of articles by individual editors. As with GAN reviews, these reassessments are stored permanently on a dedicated /GAn subpage of article talk, so that reassessments are just as transparent as GAN reviews. The process works much like WP:GAR, by substituting a template ({{ subst:GAR}}) at the top of the article talk page, only now this provides a choice between "individual reassessment" and "community reassessment".
Something like this is essential for the transparency of the reassessment/delisting process. I encourage editors to try it out. Once feedback on the process has been received, the plan is to update the guidelines at WP:GAR to provide better and clearer support both for individual and community reassessments. Geometry guy 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
If you place this userbox ({{ User Good Articles3}}) userbox on your userpage, it will activate a link to a separate userspace where you can list the articles that you helped upgrade to GA. I created it because I wanted to list my GA articles without having them clutter my userpage. Just thought someone else might be interested.-- TheZachMorrisExperience ( talk) 04:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The July 2008 GAN Newsletter is ready for consumption. Enjoy! Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Is it just me or should Wikipedia:Good articles#Artists and architects be sorted last name, first name? Gary King ( talk) 19:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering, since we have featured topics, would it be worth having "good topics"? I'm sure the suggestion will get shoot down in 5 minutes—wikipedia doesn't like change—but I can't see any harm in it. I assume we don't already have such a thing? — Realist2 ( Speak) 15:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Just passed this article, but unsure of the category it belongs in. I've listed it under World history > Heads of state, but should it be under Monarchs (do we count self-proclaimed emperors in this?) EyeSerene talk 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Is is still allowed to delist an article on one's own authority if it clearly does not meet standards? I'm looking at Grand Theft Auto (series), and I'm surprised it actually has been listed (especially so recently) -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The Wagiman language article has been nominated for quite some time now, it's listed as GA under the languages wikiproject and the Australia wikiproject. Can I just attempt to push it along a bit? jangari – ngili-ma 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Before I take up everyone's time with a submission, would the example or citation style used disqualify this article? -- Adoniscik( t, c) 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Currentlly GA count is updated by the bot or manuelly—40001. Why can not it be done in a simpler way? For instance it can be done like this—40,006, which is realised by the following code {{formatnum:{{#expr:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Wikipedia_good_articles|R}}-16}}}} (see {{ Counter}}). Ruslik ( talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
← Well, they shouldn't. And that means there are two articles in two sections, or one article in three sections. Gary King ( talk) 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I created template {{ Counter}}, which produces various numbers:
Ruslik ( talk) 13:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
"...this is accurate enough and requires no maintenance." – Accurate enough is another argument. There's really no need to have the count accurate to the article, for instance. WP:FA only reports the count accurate to the nearest 10. As for no maintanence, since people seem to want to go to categories and subcategories, let's just declare the WP:GA listing historical and quit updating it. Gimmetrow 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Butting in here, I'm quite impressed that 1 in 300 or so articles has been through some kind of review process. Only 0.03% I know, but I'd never have imagined it was even that many. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The category count through the magic word/template is consistently wrong (it's again off by three). But if people want wrong, that's fine with me. I will quit updating the page entirely. Gimmetrow 19:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This page historically had a count of the articles listed on the page. If you use the count in the category as the "GA count", then that makes the category primary. About a day and a half ago this page and the category were synced (5 articles added from the category), but already there are three articles in the category and not on the page. It looks like enough people think and want the category to be primary, and it's not worth the trouble keeping them in sync. So fine, redirect this page to Category:Wikipedia good articles. Gimmetrow 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Howdy folks. I am writing a pretty lengthy term paper on Wikipedia and in it I briefly am discussing FAs and GAs. As it's written for people who don't know Wikipedia, I am writing how one identifies both. A FA can be identified by a small star, as we all know. But how can a GA be identified? Other than cross-referencing the article being read with the GA list here, or using the obscure preference which adds a header to an article telling you, how does one know? Might a small icon be created and added to GAs for identification? That would be extraordinarily useful and, moreover, won't make my professor confused about this lack of consistency. Thanks. Bstone ( talk) 00:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Echoing my professor (but mostly for myself), why would wikipedia not want to identify those articles which stand out and well sourced, written and edited? Bstone ( talk) 03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem GA faces in its attempt to attain an article space icon is that it's a one reviewer pass project. Only one set of eyes, not counting the authors and nominator, determine if the article meets the criteria or not. Unfortunately, without any extra checks, we lose balance, because not every reviewer is as thorough as would be ideal. Personally, I support the idea. I gave a strong push for it about a year ago when I got sweeps rolling. I proposed it be added only to articles that have passed sweeps. It did not gain consensus, obviously.
Many great changes have been made to ensure project quality, but perception has proven to be the most difficult thing to change. Until some major process changes are made, this will most likely remain an unrealistic expectation. LaraLove| Talk 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick count on Word, and I arrived at 4,670 articles listed on this page. Why is this number so inconsistent with the official one? Are these simply de-listed GA's that people have forgotten to remove from the list? Lampman ( talk) 02:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I've been trying to figure out where the article Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism should be categorized on this list, and I've decided that the most appropriate thing to do is create a new sub-category called 'Interdisciplinary' under 'Social sciences and society'. Any thoughts? – SJL 16:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You've misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that the ASEN is too 'high brow' to be in the same category as the Boy Scouts, I'm saying they're different types of things. As for a category not being defined by its contents, I'd appreciate it if you could explain what the criteria are. Looking at this page more closely, I see a lot of things that have nothing to do with other that are nonetheless grouped together, and I am interested to know why. – SJL 21:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a while since I looked at this page – wow, what a lot of GAs :D Could I ask that the category heading "Racecar driving" under "Everyday life" is changed to "Motor sport" or "Motorsport"? The relevant wikiproject is Wikiproject:Motorsport, the articles are not all about racecar driving, and 'racecar' is American usage, where I believe that 'motorsport' is acceptable in both UK and US usage (could be wrong on the last one). It would also allow for articles on motorcycles, not just cars. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 08:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The recently promoted GA World Science Festival does not seem to fit into any of the existing categories. I would propose the creation of a subcategory "General" (or "Miscellaneous Science", but I would prefer "General") to put it in. Any other future GA that is natural-science related, but not concerned with one particular scientific field, could go in there, as well. Markus Poessel ( talk) 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The august newsletter is ready for reading. Enjoy! Dr. Cash ( talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The intro states that some articles may be 'unlikely to reach featured article quality', but does not say why, could we have some examples or criteria of these – I can picture some possible examples e.g. maybe very short articles or controversial issues – but even these could be good if perfectly written ? LeeVJ ( talk) 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Evolutionary history of life has been promoted to GA, but has a lot of holes – see Talk:Evolutionary history of life #Structure and questions. I was strongly tempted to put a "needs expert attention" tag on it, but it would be embarassing for Wikipedia to have this banner on a GA. I really hate being so harsh, but one could produce a better article from almost any Paleontology 101 textbook, i.e. a better article with just one source. Articles on science subjects need to be reviewed for content as well as compliance with WP:rules_on_everything. I suspect reviews of articles on other "academic" or "technical" subjects are in a similar situation, e.g. history, music.
PS Do not take this as criticism of the reviewer, who was friendly, helpful and as, as far as I could see, did what current policies require. It's the policies that have the problems. Unfortunately it's not even a new problem – Cambrian explosion was once FA, but a review in the scientific journal Nature pointed out a lot of errors. -- Philcha ( talk) 10:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The current GA template says this: "If [the article] no longer meets [the GA] criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment." But note that the template includes (or should include) the particular revision that was evaluated to be of GA quality.
What happened to Raoul Wallenberg was that lots of material of questionable value was added by some enthusiastical user, and then someone figured the article was no longer of GA quality. However, the earlier revision was -- as far as I can evaluate -- still of GA quality. Would it be wrong to revert the article back to the GA-status version and list it as GA again?
Fred- J 16:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The editor of Let's Get It On has reformatted the GA review on Talk:Let's Get It On. My understanding is that the formatting is not to be changed. What should be done in this case, if anything? — Mattisse ( Talk) 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've promoted this article to GA but I really can't figure out which section to list it in! Any ideas? Million_Moments ( talk) 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone please remove the GA-rating from this article? It was assigned to it inappropriately by the article's creator [2], without going through the GA-approval process. The article's author User:Lajolla2009 had previously assigned this article A-class rating [3]. Since he does not react well to my comments and I don't want to keep reverting him (3RR is already close), could someone else please remove the GA-rating and try to talk to User:Lajolla2009 about the rating process? Hopefully he will react better to additional input. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 15:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Otto Frederick Hunziker article was recently listed as a good article under the good article criteria. When I requested GA assessment, I stated: "I struggled with the subtopic. Other potential subtopics include: Farming and cultivation, Education, Chemistry and materials science." (I think I originally listed "Food" or "Drink" as the topic.) The reviewer stated: "I've not put this article in the Good Article list because there doesn't seem to be an appropriate section- one needs to be created." Potential GA categories appear to be:
Does anyone have any recommendation regarding what might be best? How would I indicate the new topic? (I assume that I would edit the GA template on the article's talk page such that "topic=x" is changed so that "x" is replace by the topic name. Correct?) Thank you for any guidance. -- Rpclod ( talk) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope the process is fairly self-explanatory :) Please don't nominate topics you haven't worked on. Please address any questions you have about how exactly good topics are implemented here – rst20xx ( talk) 02:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Has there ever been discussion of adding GAs to the main page (without removing any current feature). GAs are now higher quality than FAs were when they first went to the main page, IMO.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a great fan of GAs, but I don't think it's worth putting them on the front page. On average, a given FA will be of better quality than a given GA. Surely the purpose of the front page is to promote our best work, there seems no particular reason to highlight our very good, but not quite best work. FA and GA should not be in competition with each other (I know this is not necessarily the case!), and to my mind they serve quite different purposes: FA gives us our very best work, but these are restricted in number because of the effort required; GA (because it is easier) allows us to create a large number of high quality articles. Cheers. 4u1e ( talk) 10:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I support having GAs on the main page. There needs to be greater recognition of GAs. SGpedian article writers like Aldwinteo usually get their articles on DYK and nominate said articles for GA shortly after, while Mailer diablo once said that he would rather write DYKs than GAs, because the former appeared on the main page. This suggests that greater recognition of GAs would increase the GA project's potential to fight systemic bias. Unfortunately, such ideas will probably be shot by the elitist FAC community. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 14:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to stop maintaining WP:GA soon. Someone either needs to take over adding the articles the reviewers don't, or the page can be redirected to CAT:GA. Gimmetrow 00:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Report. Gimmetrow 04:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Good. One more for now: where to put Who Made Huckabee? Gimmetrow 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, Archibald Dixon pushed the article count to 5000. WP:GA and CAT:GA currently in sync, but updates will be less frequent from now on. Gimmetrow 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you tell me what you mean? Will you be updating weekly instead of daily or just not at all?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
If no one has any objections, I'd like to create a new subsection under Engineering and Technology – Transport for automobiles. The Road Transport section is pretty cluttered – it's one of the biggest sections on the page and is the biggest in Transport, so it's kinda hard to see which links are to vehicles.-- Flash176 ( talk) 06:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does it take so long for messages posted on the GA review page to appear on the article talk page? -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 12:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
At
Wikipedia:Good articles/recent, I have been trying to add delisted articles here since there is no where else to summarize delistings. People keep changing Recently listed/delisted good articles to Recently listed good articles. Is there a reason not to announce delistings there.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
05:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
1 in 500 Wikipedia articles are GAs! Congratulations and keep writing GAs! -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 11:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought it might be useful to outline some aspects of the early history of GA. This is my own flawed analysis, and I welcome other editors making corrections or adding further information.
Good articles were initiated in October 2005 by Worldtraveller, with the following mission: "Many articles contain excellent content but are unlikely to become featured; they may be too short, or on too broad a topic, or on too specific a topic, or an a topic about which not much is known. We should endeavour to identify good content that is not likely to become featured." This original motivation has developed into a myth that GA was originally invented to recognise short articles; the truth is a little more subtle.
The initial process was: "Simply add any articles here that match the criteria. If you see an article listed here that you think is not good, be bold and remove it, leaving a note on its talk page to indicate why you think it is not good." Six GA criteria were identified from the initial statement. It remained as a proposed process for over 6 months.
GAN started out as a concern that nominations should be independent, and was first formalized as a " Self-nominations page". This was converted into a nominator-reviewer system on 10 March 2006, when the criteria were also listed on a separate page.
GAR started out as a place for resolving disputes over delisting. It gradually expanded its role and changed its name. Closely related was the introduction of sweeps. This expanded in September 2006 after the criteria were changed to require more inline citation.
The monthly growth of the number of good articles reflects these various changes. The initial enthusiasm is evident in the rapid early growth, when it was easy to list an article. This was tempered considerably by the endeavour that began in September 2006 to ensure verifiability. If you want to see what is a "drive-by delist", look to this period. I believe a lot of ill feeling towards the GA project has its origins here. We have to maintain quality but also avoid discouraging or alienating content-producers. My own involvement with GA began in Spring 2007. I find it encouraging that the number of new GAs per month continues to grow approximately linearly. Geometry guy 18:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
(←) That's a useful reminder, Walkerma! These are updated every Sunday. The log in particular is worth checking as it provides a summary of the article talk page changes to GA status: this can then be compared to the list on this page to trap any errors. Meanwhile, the good news is that GimmeBot is back in action. My understanding is that in future bot updates are intended to happen twice a week, on Tuesday and Saturday evening.
I've updated the GA header to use Ruslik's {{ Counter}}. This counts the number of articles in Category:Wikipedia good articles rather than the number of (distinct) articles listed on this page, so we need to check regularly that they are in sync. Finally a curiosity: Category:GA-Class Good articles claims to have 7 more articles in it than Category:Wikipedia good articles. I went through it, and the two categories appear have identical content. Can anyone figure out where the discrepancy comes from? Geometry guy 11:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Q: Is it acceptable to ignore point 4 in the process (and thus effectively point 3 and 5)
A: I would contend this is impolite and the instructions on this page should be followed to the letter as far as is possible.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 21:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
←I am disappointed with myself for wasting my time in trying to have a rational discussion with ZincBelief. That is my final word on this ludicrous debacle. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
To introduce another piece of evidence, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps#Process clearly states that we should follow the guidelines of the GA delisting process. There is again this muddying of process, guidelines and instructions and probably criteria as well. However, the GA Sweep guidelines seem to agree with me, we should not ignore point 4, we should follow it. It goes on to say give editors a chance to respond. A laudable statement, and one which must be adhered to in a community.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 10:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Long-standing nominations are a higher priority than more recently added ones.
If you see an article below under "Nominations" that you haven't significantly contributed to and that meets the 'Good Article' criteria:
The above discussion does not appear mostly relevent to the RFC at hand. Problems with personal behavior should be directed to WP:WQA or other dispute resolution forums. Problems with specific articles should be addressed on that specific article's talk page or at the community GAR board, where appropriate. Let's bring this back to the focus of the RFC here: Is it ever appropriate, in any situation, no matter how bizare, to remove a GA from the list, or must every GA on the list go through an extensive review process before it is removed? You know where I and ZincBelief stand on the issue, it would be nice to hear how others feel about this.-- Jayron32. talk. contribs 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
← I did not invent this, and nor did I write it: "If the article has any of the above problems, it can simply be failed ... without going through the on hold process of improvement based on specific issues[my emphasis]." Seems plain enough to me. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have nowhere invented an arbitrary 2 day hold procedure and repeatedly saying that I have will not change that. I am not even proposing anything new. All I am saying is "Allow time for other editors to respond" (as in my remark above). This sentence has been in the delisting guidelines for more than a year.
I am not against summary delisting of articles which meet the quickfail criteria (neither do I wish to advocate it), but calling them "delisting criteria" is disingenuous: the sentence you quote and the page you link are discussing good article nominations, not good article reassessment. How can you quickfail an article that hasn't been nominated? Geometry guy 15:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to propose a compromise. Reviewers should be able to delist an article, whose quality if far below GA standards and which can not be expected to be brought up to them in a reasonable time, without any waiting period. However if an editor (or editors) manages to fix unfixable in 7 days after the delisting, they can ask the reviewer to reconsider the delisting. If the reviewer believes that the article is of GA quality, he withdraws his delisting and keeps the article. Ruslik ( talk) 09:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not the first time that this worry about "drive-by delisting" has cropped up. What does that mean, exactly? Has anyone ever seen a drive-by delisting? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 14:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
[[{{{1}}}]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/{{{1}}}/ |reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. template can be used for this purpose, by placing ArticleName has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. on talk pages. It is thus completely true for me to repeat that summary delisting is not allowed. It may even be helpful. -- ZincBelief ( talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I can see some merits to this proposal, but I think it adds unnecessary complication. The real problem we have is that editors do not understand what it means when an article they are interested in gets delisted: they sometimes take it as an affront. Making the process more complicated won't resolve this issue. Also the proposal effectively suggests a mandatory 7 day wait period, albeit with the condition that article remains delisted rather than listed during this period. What if a reviewer doesn't respond? GAR. But GAR is available anyway for contested delisting.
GA status is primarily intended for editors not readers. The principle about protecting the reader would suggest that whenever a good article is nominated for reassessment then it should be delisted until the reassessment is complete. I am against this, both in terms of the unnecessary work it creates, and the flawed nature of the underlying principle. Geometry guy 19:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The present discussion seems to be going round and round in ever-decreasing circles. Perhaps it would be best to take it in bite-sized chunks. Regardless of what the present guidelines are interpreted to mean, perhaps we first of all need to have a discussion about whether "quickfails" or whatever else the PC term of the week is ought to be allowed or not. Can we maybe establish a consensus that it's either not permissible to ever delist an article without putting it on hold (for whatever period of time), or that it is? And if it is permissible, under what circumstances? Should there be different procedures for GAN and GA Sweeps? -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Ruslik's proposal is looking even more attractive to me. It's a simple, non-bureaucratic way to permit quickfails while allowing for non-GAR remedy. Majoreditor ( talk) 05:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Add {{
subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save the page. Follow the first bold link in the template to create an individual reassessment page (this is a subpage of the article talk page, just like a review of a good article nomination).
2. Leave a review on the reassessment page detailing the problems with the article in comparison to the criteria. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article. 3. Transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{ Talk:ArticleName/GAn}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page: you need to replace ArticleName and n by the name of the article and the subpage number: this is most conveniently done by copying the name of the subpage and pasting it into the edit window. 4. If you feel that the problems with the article are so serious that they can not be resolved in a reasonably short time, delist the article. In this case the review should include detailed description of the problems that led to the prompt delisting. It is courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer about article's delisting. Decision to delist the article without giving editors opportunity to make improvements should not be taken lightly; the article should be severely deficient to justify such an action. 5. If you feel that the problems can be fixed a reasonable time, allow time for other editors to respond and to improve the article. In this case it is also courteous to notify major contributing editors or WikiProjects and the most recent GA reviewer. The {{ GARMessage}} template can be used for this purpose, by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} on talk pages. If the article does not meet the criteria after the holding period (usually a week), it can be delisted. 6. To delist the article, remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles and then remove the {{ GA}} template from the article talk page. 7. To close the reassessment, replace the date in the {{ GAR/link}} template with five tildes and add the result as a "status" parameter, so that the template has the form {{GAR/link|~~~~~|page=n|status=result}}, where n should be replaced by the number of the reassessment page (e.g. 2), and result should be replaced by the outcome of the reassessment: either "kept" or "delisted". 8. A reviewer can reconsider their decision to delist an article if it was made in error. For instance, if an article was delisted without hold, but the problems were quickly fixed, the reviewer is encouraged to reopen the review and reinstate the article in GA list. |
I created draft guidelines. They are not ideal, please, feel free to edit them. Ruslik ( talk) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Point 4 is ultimately just weasel words. The current guidelines are perfectly acceptable, there is no need to make them subjective like this. Point 8 is also not paticularly tight. Compare these to the Featured Article delisting process.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 11:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned that point 4 makes instant de-listing just a matter of one editor's opinion, with no accountability and no progress towards improving the article. I suggest adding "Instant de-listing should be a rare exception and an editors who de-list an article without giving a few day's notice should be ready to justify their action promptly and in detail if challenged. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw a request for comments on WP:VPP, and waded into this horrible mess. My take on the situation:
Anomie ⚔ 13:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be no consensus to implement my proposal. Probably, it was doomed from the beginning as it is really difficult to define what constitutes common sense and what is an occasional exception. Ruslik ( talk) 18:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there a list anywhere of which GAs are about living people? I'm asking because a problem I have noticed during my sweep of sports persons is that except for a those that are regularly maintained by dedicated editors, many of the articles about active sportspersons haven't been properly updated in a year or more (except for the occasional "hE is teh GAY! lol!"). This is being cleared up as I draw the attention of respective wikiprojects to the issue, but a list would be useful to enable future sweepers to check which articles are about living people and thus are likely to significantly change over time.-- Jackyd101 ( talk) 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Did you know about including new GAs in the DYKs on the Main Page. Is this something we would want? Lampman ( talk) 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) after reading the discussion at the link kindly given by OhanaUnited , I would lead to not bothering. GA are doing what they say, the gates to jump are a lot harder and higher that they were a short time ago when I became involved. The review process is much tighter and because of this much fairer. There will always been a reviewer that an either destroy a GA review by making unreasonable demands and a reviewer that will decide to give a fly-by pass because they wish to. These will always exist even with the sterling work the sweeps have been doing. The main page sees far more negatives to adding GAs than positives and I am not sure GAs being placed on the main page will not add layers of stress, demands, etc that do more than just "improve articles" and GAs but actually start to redefine them more than it is worth. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
We have an I.P. today either maliciously or in good faith trying to list McDonald's, an article that has not yet gone through the GA process. I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to semi-protect the page indefinitely; while the volume of vandalism isn't high at all, the consequences are problematic and I can't think of any reason that a non-autoconfirmed editor would need to edit the page. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 04:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Why didn't the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report run last night?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 05:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed before or if this is the wrong venue. I'm in the midst of reviewing It's About Time (Christina Milian album) and the hold-up is the lack of citations following each quote. I've had several GAs of my own held up for this reason, with the reason given that the article could be re-arranged and the quote moved away from its source. The nominator notes that there are featured articles (e.g. The Other Woman) that don't hold to this standard. I'm not an enormous stickler on the point but would like to get some feedback from more experienced reviewers as to whether such referencing is needed. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Nearing 300 entries, "Recordings, compositions and performances" is now the largest subsection of Good Articles. I propose that this section is further split into something like "Songs", "Albums", and "Other recordings, compositions and performances".-- Remurmur ( talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Any objection to grouping them under ["Art" < "Theatre, film and drama" < "Theatre and musical theatre"] instead of ["Art" < "Music" < "Recordings, compositions and performances"] (the current location)? I think they should be grouped in the same category as musicals. It's also pretty difficult for someone to find opera articles where they are now, being surrounded by a huge number of album articles.-- Remurmur ( talk) 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Singkawang is tagged on its talk page as a Good Article, but not only is it not listed on this page, it seems to be well below the quality expected of GAs; I presume that it has been tagged as such mistakenly or falsely, but I hesitate to remove it myself; could someone more knowledgeable than I look into this, please? // Programming gecko ( talk) 00:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a relevant discussion involving adding GAs to the mainpage going on here Wikipedia talk:2008 main page redesign proposal#Introducing GA to main page. Some of the ideas proposed include creating a separate WP:FA-like box to feature the GA, incorporating into DYK or not including GA on the main page at all. Agne Cheese/ Wine 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The following pages are in Category:Wikipedia good articles without corresponding article links from Wikipedia:Good articles
Thanks. Gimmetrow 03:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that Aloe vera is moved to the heading Organisms. It is about a species and it does include a taxobox. -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
{{ GA number}} currently lists 5,701 GAs, but there are 5,717 pages in Category:Wikipedia good articles. Is this a) a glitch, b) due to GA maintenance pages being listed in that category, or c) due to delisted GAs still being in the category/GAs passed without due process? If this has been asked and answered before, I apologize in advance :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 22:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Saxbe fix was added to two places in the GA page. Does this cause double counting.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
When I add an article to a section, should I update the number of articles in that section? I just passed my 7th GA but this is the first time I noticed it. It's probably not worthwhile to fix the other cases, but I'm just wondering if I should make sure to update the number in the future. Crystal whacker ( talk) 02:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I just promoted Lego Modular Houses, but I have no idea where to put it. Any suggestions? Lampman ( talk) 14:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
When I nominated Stella Power Station, I nominated it under the Architecture section. When recently nominating Blyth Power Station, I felt it made more sense to list it under Engineering and technology section. I'd like it if Stella Power Station could be listed under engineering and technology instead of architecture because I think it would be a better place for it. However, I do not know if there is a proper process to go through in doing this, or if it is simply moved there. Fintan264 ( talk) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but: is it inappropriate or not allowed for one Wikipedian to review a GA article nominated by another person? For example, I'm part of WikiProject Barack Obama, and one of the other members has nominated an article for GA. Can I review it, or it is better to have someone from outside the WikiProject do it? -- Hunter Kahn ( talk) 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The page is far too long to be practical. It's currently 267K. Only twenty or so articles are longer than that. Would it be more constructive to split the page into subpages? EA Swyer Talk Contributions 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want a faster loading page, try Category:Wikipedia good articles. All nice and alphabetized within categories. Gimmetrow 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
We had a prior discussion about this back in May 2008 found here. Like EyeSerene said above, now is a good time to start making changes. -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 09:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If this has been asked before, please forgive me and just point me to the relevant discussion, but I was wondering why we don't note GAs with the GA symbol in the upper right hand corner of the article like we do with the FA star. It seems that readers would be interested to know that the article they are reading has been through a review process and found to be at least adequate for an encyclopedia article. Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
With all this talk about Flagged Revisions and such, why not bring up the Great Green Dot Debate again, just to throw even more fuel onto the fire,... =) Dr. Cash ( talk) 23:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I think GA-symbols in mainspace inevitably will come with time; support seems to get wider every time it's brought up. One important step on the way is to finish the sweeps project, which aims at getting rid of articles that were passed at a time when the criteria were more lax. Currently it's only about 45% through. I've done a bit, but I could certainly do more, and the project could need more participants. Lampman ( talk) 13:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
There are some ineluctable laws of human nature that no amount of elimination drives will have the slightest effect on. Has anyone else noticed, for instance, that the progress of the GA Sweeps Drive mentioned above is an almost perfect example of the Pareto Principle? Would you believe that 80% of the reviews have been done by 23% of the reviewers? Spooky! -- Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I have stared at the "Sweeps" page and wondered what it all means. Sorry to say, I don't understand how the process works. Can you give a simplified explanation of how the reviewing of old GAs works? — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I've listed House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 under "Political figures", since that seemed to be the most applicable category. If we handle subarticles differently than that, feel free to correct me and drop a line here so I know for next time. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 13:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
In all articles I have written, if a nephew/uncle/aunt of the subject has done something notable they are mentioned in the article. This includes articles such as
Elmer Gedeon,
Bob Chappuis,
Barry Bonds. This is true even for infamous things such as
Elmer Gedeon and his infamous uncle. Being part of a family of athletes is a significnat thing for an athlete bio. At the current
Keith Bostic (American football) there is discussion on the relevance of a nephew who is most notable for his infamy. It does not makes sense to me that an article would be considered more complete without such facts. Although you can not choose your family it is not relevant. Regardless of whether he raised his nephew the guy is his nephew and shares his last name. If people want to know if they are related, we should
WP:PRESERVE that info if we have it.--
TonyTheTiger (
t/
c/
bio/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:LOTM)
00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Has an expandable TOC been considered, or a normal TOC? It's really hard to find the minor sections. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 12#Suggested split of "Recordings, compositions and performances" subsection that the songs and recordings was split as it neared 300. The TV eps section is over 300. Any ideas? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 13:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if a new section for (non-computer) "Role-playing games" could be added. The Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject has been doing a lot of work on bringing articles up to Good status, but they don't really fit in anywhere on the current table. We've been putting most of them in with "Board and card games," but there's also some in literature. Having an additional section just might make categorization for this kind of article easier. Thanks for the consideration! - Drilnoth ( talk) 02:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor recently delisted Moonrise (Warriors) from GA status with no warning on the talk page and no reassessment page. I reverted his delisting, and left a note on his talk page that it was considered polite to follow the individual reassessment guidelines, and at least leave a message on the article talk page. He replied, saying that the GA tag stated that "If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment." (bolding mine). He felt this meant that the article could be boldly delisted with no notes on the article talk page. Is there anyway we could change the tag to point to the instructions for an individual reassessment, rather than apparently encouraging editors to remove GA status with no discussion or comments? Thanks! Dana boomer ( talk) 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing Ling.Nut.Public ( talk) 08:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The GA rating is given to Wikiproject templates on article talkpages via the GA review, at least this is indicated in WP:GAN. However, the reassessment page does not, I think, state what one should do with the Wikiproject ratings after delisting, and this confuses me. When a good article gets delisted, the ratings in the Wikiprojects should reflect that delisting, right? Then should one delete the quality ratings and ask the projects for reassessment? This is a heavy burden on the projects. Should one let the ratings remain GA because they are not in the major Category:Wikipedia good articles? This would I think go against common sense, since the projects get the GA rating from the good article review in the first place (and they are simply not GA after delisting anymore). Or is one supposed to assess the article per the general criteria, which I think one could possibly do since only the importance of an article is dependent on the Wikiproject ("Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope." from WP:1.0/A). Note: I saw a somewhat similar question asked on the GAR talk page here. I'm thankful for comments or clarification. Hekerui ( talk) 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that February was perhaps the best month ever for GAs:
Now obviously, there is no purely numerical battle between the FA and GA projects; FAs still have a quality highly superior to GAs. Also, it should be remembered that the growth in GAs in February was to a large extent due to the elimination drive. Nevertheless, I think the above numbers give cause for optimism, and celebration. Lampman ( talk) 23:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
H.M.S. Pinafore is tagged as a Good Article, but it doesn't seem to be listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. What gives? – Quadell ( talk) 23:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A list of the non-listed. Gimmetrow 02:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added these to the good article page. Hopefully in the right places. Sasata ( talk) 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
New list. Gimmetrow 03:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Reviewers are responsible for adding articles to this page. Gimmetrow 20:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest list. Gimmetrow 23:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
*
Talk:Chuck E. Cheese's
*
Talk:Edward the Martyr
The WP:GA page was last synced on March 29, when the page had 6583 unique articles listed. This page now has 6620. Therefore, a net 37 articles were added to WP:GA; since there were about 7 delists, that means about 44 articles added. During the same period, another 34 articles (listed above) became GA but were not added to this page. Thus, about 43% of the articles that become GA are not showing up here. If this trend continues, might as well just declare this page historical. Gimmetrow 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. This edit removed mention of WP:GA, with an edit summary: "unrequired steps and matters beyond the scope of the GA process". I suggest redirecting WP:GA to Category:Wikipedia good articles. Gimmetrow 01:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The bot has not run three nights in a row. Last night I complained at User talk:StatisticianBot and User talk:Dvandersluis.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 08:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've asked a question about why demoted FAs don't regain their GA status (if the still meet GA criteria) at WT:FA#FAR. Your thoughts would be appreciated there. Mjroots ( talk) 05:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(I know this belongs at WT:WGA, but there doesn't seem to be as much activity there, so I'm posting here as well just so more people see it.)
A template called {{ Good Article}} has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Good Article. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The two wikilinks to "Good article criteria" in this project article link to two different places: Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:What is a good article?, the second of which redirects to the first. That would seem both unnecessary and against WP:ASTONISH-- for one thing, it means that the browser doesn't highlight that the link has already been visited.
Best wishes SimonTrew ( talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just in case anyone's wondering, I listed the most recent list of unlisted articles (dated April 11) that disappeared with the last archive. Sasata ( talk) 04:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
How can I verify an article's GA status if it is not listed on Wikipedia:Good articles? Finell (Talk) 20:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Finell, if you have any suggestions for how to make an articles GA status more readily and reliably easy to check, please add your suggestions here. Geometry guy 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody review Jim Gilmore presidential campaign, 2008 to stop Uga Man's gloating? -- Retracted ( talk) 21:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ Good Article}} has been nominated for deletion. See WP:TFD.
76.66.202.139 ( talk) 09:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Briefly: I am teaching a course over the summer, and I want to teach students how to write Good Articles. But classes, unlike most things on Wikipedia, have specific timeframe. The students would greatly benefit if their articles (related to family) would be reviewed within the time they can still make adjustments and before the course ends; in other words, there will be ~4 or 5 articles that will need to be reviewed within a day or two of being listed (on 21 July), as I'll be grading them on 28 July (and the students will need a few days to read the comments and make modifications). I run a similar course last year ( see here), but I don't think a single article the students listed was reviewed in the time frame needed for the course. I understand that GA reviewers have a backlog, and I don't mind waiting several weeks for my own GA to be reviewed, but in this case (and I expect that there are other teachers out there who would like to use GA to teach) some form for expedite review would be useful. Perhaps we can create a page where expedite reviews could be requested, as a form of collaboration between WP:GA and Wikipedia:School and university projects? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to update everyone on the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have requested that a bot handle the task of updating Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. If anyone wants to throw in their two cents, the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 28#Newly listed GA articles. Also, there is the question of should we rely on the bot as a backup plan in case someone forgets to add the article, or should it be the primary updater so the humans don't have to worry about it? And of course once this plan is finalized someone will probably have to post a notice somewhere that editors no longer have to update the list. -- ErgoSum| talk| trib 17:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
In Category:Wikipedia good articles without links from Wikipedia:Good articles
Gimmetrow 16:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the bot's been approved and is here to stay! One recent improvement: proper reporting of what's added (tested on one edit) and what's been taken away (just added, untested yet). That should help to give the bot a slightly less automata feel to it, and helps in the history of the page. Meanwhile, links on this page remain on the exempted list; if anyone has any questions or suggestions, please do shout. The big question is of course now: can we rely on the bot? Perhaps a little too confidently I am going to say "definitely" now, so you can afford to post to WP:GA and then just get on with improving the encyclopaedia, rather than spending time propagating that listing to /recent. Congratulations everyone. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
A bot generated a listing for Good Articles in need of cleanup: Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing, Tom B ( talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I have requested comments over at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/recent, suggesting an increase in the number of recently listed good articles, and adding a commented-out bot notice to the page. -- ErgoSum• talk• trib 08:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please enlighten me on GA criteria (for astronomy articles) ? I'll try to explain myself. Scroll to the very bottom of WP:GA and locate the category "Stars, galaxies and extrasolar objects". Click some numbered article, e.g. HD 217107. Is it GA ? What is the lowest limit on the amount and importance of information for an article to be GA? More than half of the articles in that and nearby GA subsections (i.e. remote astronomical objects) are like that. I could understand that they passed on old standards, but they were reassessed this spring and found suitable. Perhaps another sweep by an experienced astronomer is long overdue. Materialscientist ( talk) 08:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)