![]() | 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. |
Greetings,
In
this edit GA tag was added to the article. I have just removed it (11 days after that edit). Few days before someone posted a similar issue in my talk page! Is there any way to quickly find out unreviewed good articles or does GA Bot do anything here? Or since generally registered users review articles and add templates can we ask cluebot to undo every anonymous edit which include {{
Good article}}--
Tito Dutta (
talk) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that our GA review process is too lax when it comes to evaluating the actual content of articles. An article should fail the review if it has significant coverage gaps; however, if the reviewer is unfamiliar with the topic and the full range of scholarship pertaining to it, how can the reviewer know what the gaps are? Frankly, awarding GA status to an article that doesn't provide satisfactory coverage strikes me as one of the chief ways we can damage Wikipedia's credibility.
When an article is nominated for GA review, Point 4 in the process is regularly ignored: notify major contributing editors … [and] relevant WikiProjects for the article. Notifying projects that have bannered the article should be mandatory. If a GA review has occurred without notifying the projects, there should be no requirement for community review before delisting: delisting should be automatic if anyone objects.
Is there any way to make sure that Point 4 in the procedure has been followed and a minimum number of editors have reviewed an article before the GA rating can be given? Cynwolfe ( talk) 12:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the last sentence at the end of paragraph 1 ("He is a convicted rapist") as this information is already contained within the article and it appears that someone is attempting to use Wikipedia as a tool to act out a vendetta against this person. MarcusB2003 ( talk) 14:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Are we permitted to remove the transclusion of a GA review from the article's talk page, once it has been completed and added to the article history template? Till 13:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
what is the award for good new article?
A link to this page should be in the template which lists all awards. Don't know how to add this, nor the award name for new article.
Anybody can help? Spoildead ( talk) 17:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The article history on Talk:Benjamin Lee Whorf is simultaneously listing the article as having passed GA and as having failed. The GA1 review, as far as I can see, shows a fail, yet presumably it was listed for a reason. Maybe someone who knows more about how these listings work could take a look. Presumably when someone does look, the article will collapse into a GA or non-GA state. Thanks, Simon Burchell ( talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Simon Burchell ( talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
When the
Good article criteria vaguely states the requirements and leaves many things on the reviewer, is it really a good idea to let any registered user review a GA nomination? Can any user properly judge the "factual accuracy" and "broad coverage" points?
(Has this point been already discussed in past? Please direct me to that past discussion to avoid repetition.) §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C} 18:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good articles/Mathematics has only 33 articles listed; I think we should merge this into Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences. Thoughts? Adabow ( talk) 22:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Im having some issues with a certain review on the article "Ghost in the Shell". Although i CAN agree with the things i cant agree with the subjective issues the reviewer is asking for. It would be great if i could get a less bias review. Please discuss here: Talk:Ghost in the Shell/GA1. Lucia Black ( talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the fact that a fake can reach a "good article" status (see PC-World, Yahoo News Daily Dot) be of some concern and maybe a reason to rethink the criteria and procedure for "good articles"?
I find it in particular concerning, that the criteria doesn't explicitly require reviewers to at least partially check the actual correctness of the content by either alternative sources, personal domain knowledge or by verifying the given sources (existence & content). I'm aware that a full verification of the given sources is can be extremely tedious and may pose severe logistical problems (access), but I think we should require either at least a partial verification of the sources or a (partial) verification of the content by other means (domain knowledge, alternative sources).
Currently we simply seem to assess whether an article "looks good" rather tha assessing whether it "is good".-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what possible relevance these suggested changes have to a fake article that appears to have been created back in July 2007 and later awarded GA-status in October 2007. All the articles awarded GA-status prior to 26 August 2007 were listed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps (see list) and re-reviewed, but it took three-years to do it; and that effort is very unlikely to be repeated. Someone obviously created the article and nominated it at WP:GAN, someone (the name is known) awarded it GA-status and later in November 2007 it was nominated at WP:FAC by a named editor, but it failed to become a FA (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bicholim conflict/archive1). These changes appear to be demanded to address an event that happened nearly five and a half years ago. The (unstated) justification for the changes appears to be preventing a reoccurence of this "embarrassment". However, even if these changes were put in place at WP:GAN tomorrow it would do nothing to address any other fake articles in the system that were awarded GA-status, possibly as recently as today (or whenever, or if ever, this change came into being). FAC is consider to be a higher standard than GAN, and whilst the references in Bicholim conflict were considered during that review, the article was not identified as a fake. As far as I am aware there is no required at FAC for the reviewers to have access to all the sources, for them to confirm that the article is compliant with the sources and/or verifiable against alternative sources. These suggested requirements are instruction crepe and as they are not mandatory at FAC, they should not be forced on GAN. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I got access to the review and there was no obvious source checking (i.e. no facts were challenged). I don't have any concerns about the reviewer being a sock or any deception on their part. No sweeps were conducted, which I should have worked out as it fell outside the sweep dates by a couple of months.
As to the points brought up by Kmhkmh, the reviewer is already required to do point a and this is covered in the "de facto" how-to-guide. I would not add point b as written, because there should be no alternative to checking sources. Part of this is because there are copyright concerns and if you don't at least compare some of the article to the source you can't determine if this has occurred. As a slightly different take on this we could add to the Step 1 number 3 point in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles something along the lines of "Conduct an independent search (i.e a Google search) of the topic and use this to assess the articles coverage". This is something that is done by some reviewers already and should pick up any fake articles. Also it is not presented as an alternative to source checking. AIRcorn (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I think one of the issues is with the "those you can access" part of the reviewing guideline at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. What about adding something along side it (or as a footnote even) similar to your point B. Suggestion:
The second to last sentence is new and based off the above suggestion while the last one is moved up and modified from the next bulletpoint on that page (added translations as that is also a problem). Feel free to reword. AIRcorn (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There are serious problems with the evaluated expressions in Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary. The entire text of the FL list is being included, rather than just the total number of FLs. This needs the attention of an editor familiar with those templates and evaluations: I don't understand them myself. MartinPoulter ( talk) 15:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
This concerns "Culture, society and psychology" section. Here is a list of problems I see:
This list will still be problematic, but I hope that my above suggestions at least advance it from a catastrophic mess to something manageable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this now, I'd also like to merge "Cultural studies" with "Anthropology, anthropologists, sociology and sociologists". There is a lot of overlap anyway. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. "Caldwell, Lynton K." should be moved from ethnic groups (sic!) to political scientists, but I don't see such a category anywhere. Is it merged with political figures? Can someone move him? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Are articles allowed to be listed as GANs while they are undergoing a DYK nomination? Till 12:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The albums section of the GAs should be sorted into the year of release as done to the Songs section. It is very uncomfortable and cumbersome to navigate through in its current state. Till 14:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that "Works" under "Language and Literature" has become a huge category. Perhaps it is time to split it up? We could do something like what is done under "Songs" in "Music" (by date), or we could split it up by poetry/prose/drama. I'm partial to the latter option. Wrad ( talk) 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You might be interested in User:The ed17/Good articles by wiki text and User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Opened at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#RFC: New wording of the quickfail criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
What happens to the talk page of a GA when the article gets merged into another one. Till 02:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Theoretically, a severely POV article can be made a GA by a single, self-selected editor, even though the POV problems have been pointed out very clearly and several editors agree that they exist. E.g. this could be done as part of a stonewalling strategy to protect the article against improvement. If it happens, is there any way to contest this right after the fact? I am concerned because I know from experience that FA and GA versions tend to be used as "last good version" for long-distance reverts, a popular technique in POV pushing. Hans Adler 18:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The article referred to by Hans is this one on circumcision which was passed by me. One of a number of concerns was that it does not mention "male genital mutilation". The issue is that this term is not used in reliable sources. This same editor refers to a document produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics as a " severely biased advocacy document" [3]. So yes the topic is controversial for some. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is this happening here. The correct answer was given in the second sentence of the first reply. Try and work the issues out for yourselves at the talk page first and then go to WP:GAR if that doesn't work. This is the wrong place for this discussion. Note that it is very rare for an article to be delisted due to instability, especially if the person nominating it for delisting is one of the parties involved in its instability. AIRcorn (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Bill_Clinton#WP:OVERLINK_.3F or just step in and edit as you see fit.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I've given Delhi Daredevils in 2012 a review, however the nominator hasn't made an edit since 22 January. Is the rule on this to leave it for a week before closing if it doesn't get replied to or something else? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 14:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
A user removed unflattering content about a community called Bacliff, Texas, saying that the source article for the content was "non-factual" (See this edit)
The article has been marked as a "good article" since 2009. What procedures need to be done if a user is trying to dispute a source being used in the "good article"? WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Blocking historic content is not the way to guarantee wikipedia's trustworthiness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.210.186 ( talk) 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Currently, Toy Story, TV special The World of Strawberry Shortcake, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and TMNT (film), among others surely, are listed under the film category (461 articles). There are also features like The Care Bears' Big Wish Movie, Mulan, Treasure Planet, and The Iron Giant in the Animation category (20 articles). Would there be benefit to a third category, of "Animated films"? If not, which of these two categories should animated feature films be listed in? -- Zanimum ( talk) 21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
If an article in its entirety qualifies as GA does this automatically mean that this rating is applied to all the WikiProjects it belongs to? Or can one article have different quality ratings for different WikiProjects? Case in point, the article on Michael Boulding, a former professional footballer, has a GA rating. It belongs to three WikiProjects; Biography, Football and Tennis. The tennis content consist of one paragraph which forms just a tiny part of the article and which, if it were a separate tennis article, would probably be a Stub or a Start rating at best. Yet it shares (in effect piggybacks on) the WikiProject Football GA rating. Is it supposed to work like this? -- Wolbo ( talk) 21:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that singles which are released in the year proceeding the album release are listed in the single's year of release. An example is that Rihanna's Loud was released in 2010. The singles " Only Girl (In the World)" and " What's My Name?", as well as other non-singles, are listed in 2010 songs. However, the songs from the album which were released as singles in 2011 are in the 2011 section. It says "2011 songs". So technically, " S&M", " California King Bed" etc should be in 2010 songs. As it says songs, not singles. They were primarily for a 2010 released 2010. It just seems strange to spread them over two different year sections. — AARON • TALK 18:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I have listed this article under physics, but seeing as it is about measurement I could see it being more appropriately listed under mathematics. I am undecided, so I listed it at physics—where it was nominated. Feel free to reclassify. Adabow ( talk) 10:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes these articles are very close to GA, and although the nominator may have not made major contribution to the article, they take most of the credit of the GA. I was wondering if we could add a parameter or entry that the nominator could enter themselves asking for who contributed the most or who helped the most into getting the article to GA quality.
Or is this better off being a barnstar? Lucia Black ( talk) 11:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have opened a Request for Comment here, which may be of interest. I have proposed that newly-promoted Good Articles be allowed to be nominated as a DYK, i.e. to get a hook fact on the main page for a few hours. Comments would be welcome on the RfC.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 23:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed that a limited number of newly-promoted Good Articles should appear below or within the Featured Article slot, i.e. to get a hook fact on the Main Page for a day. Comments would be welcome in the RfC. Prioryman ( talk) 07:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I passed Kim Possible (character), but I accidentally edited the nominations page to say that it was on hold earlier. I now know that the bot is supposed to edit the page, but I don't know how to fix my mistake. SL93 ( talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm planning on completing more Good Article reviews, but probably just in relation to television series and films. With this review, I was surprised how fast the nominator fixed my concerns. SL93 ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 16:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Can a GA have (essentially) two sources? Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive is problematic here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The article International System of Units is currently under review. The editor conducting the review has little Wikipedia experience and has entered into many long and tedious discussions. I have resorted to stopping the discussions and telling him that I plan to get a second opinion of these comments. He has requested that I do this now and tat these issues be resolved before the review continues. How best do I continue? Martinvl ( talk) 02:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
What "On-going disputes"? I made observations, judgements and recommendations based on my understanding of the criteria. For a handful of them, largely ones which only neeed a few words of clarification to solve, Martinvl chose to stubbornly refute, with no sound supporting reasoning. In fact, he seemed to intentionally take the discussions around in circles, and laterly treated my comments with contempt. And what's that stuff about a "sock-puppet investigation" and "sabotage"? FishGF ( talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the requirements of good articles is that they be verifiable. I feel that this means that all sources on good articles should be checked. "Checked" is an ambiguous term and I do not want to define it, but I did want to check in with others about making the statement "All sources cited in good article candidates should be checked." At the good article level, the "checking" could be some or all of these:
Again, I do not want to propose a definition of "checking" and or set any standards, but I would like to start saying that in the good article process there should be a "check" on the validity of the sources. If ever there were standards, I would propose a significantly lower standard for GA than FA, but again, I do not want to talk about standards at this time.
How do others feel? Is there anyone here who does not feel that sources in GA candidates should not be "checked", whatever that term means? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Bluerasberry: I see this now:
Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means. Reviewers can confirm information from sources they cannot access at the resource exchange or request translations at Wikipedia:Translation. Beware of on-line sources that have copied content from Wikipedia.
This is copied from from here, which is an editing guideline. So I guess the place to edit/discuss is WP:RGA/ WT:RGA. Thanks for posting here. I guess we'll go over there now. =) Biosthmors ( talk) 15:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
But to be honest, @ Bluerasberry:, I think WP:RGA is in line with what you were saying over at WP:ENB. I'm surprised it's that strict, actually. I'm not complaining, though. Biosthmors ( talk) 15:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed an exceptional article earlier this morning, passing it here: Talk:Mirror symmetry (string theory)/GA1. My GA review didn't transclude on the talk page. What did I do wrong? -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 21:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Gun violence was supposedly rated a GA article on January 28, 2011 by USER:Jj98. Is this correct? I don't seem to find any supporting evidence. Please see current bottom of discussion at Talk:Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Off_topic_content. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 22:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to those here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move Kvinneakt from the architecture section to the art section? -- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems and Minneapolis wireless internet network are currently categorized in "Engineering and technology" → "Computing and engineering" → "Computer-related businesspeople". I think we should take these articles out of the "businesspeople" category, but I'm not sure what other category would be the best option. Thoughts? Edge3 ( talk) 04:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this. Smauritius is a major editor of the article, nominated it for GA status, reviewed it, and approved it. Is there a speedy removal or what is the process? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was in the middle of a GA review, but I'm on wikibreak now/in about two days and can't finish the review before I go. Please could someone finish it off and close it as needed? Thanks and sorry, RainCity471 ( whack!) 18:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
20695 GAs (5 GAs per FA) 22760 GAs (GAs+FAs+FLs = 1 in 150 articles)
All the best!
Also hope for more even coverage (more non-Western stuff, more non-films/sports/music stuff). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.242.154 ( talk) 15:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but here it goes. I noticed that some articles such as Eddy (Ed, Edd n Eddy) and Justin Bieber on Twitter were good articles, but they have since been merged into other articles. I'm curious to know why this happens. I was under the impression that good articles passed the general notability guidelines.
Americanfreedom ( talk) 07:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Thank you! So you're saying the two topics I mentioned were notable but didn't really merit their own articles? I've always thought that anything that passes the GNG would be kept. Go figure. Anyway thanks for your time! Americanfreedom ( talk) 18:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:
It reports that on-wiki writing contests are successful at meeting their goal of improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, including good articles. We hope you'll participate and comment on the talk page, too! SarahStierch ( talk) 18:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I failed Forest cobra without realizing that the nominator requested to have extra time to fix the comments, is it possible to reverse the failure or not? Iainstein ( talk) 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Could I just continue with the review without fixing the talk page, and when it is done update the talk page accordingly? Iainstein ( talk) 14:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone look at Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA2 and Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA2.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:
We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.
Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 12:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In August 2013, Lohan successfully guest-hosted the talk show Chelsea Lately, generating widespread positive reviews [1] and later that year guest starred on the HBO series Eastbound and Down. In 2014, it was announced that would star in the reality series Lindsay on the Oprah Winfrey Network and that Lindsay would premiere on March 9th, 2014 [2] . Lindsay will be Lohan's second work for the Oprah Winfrey Network, following an interview with Oprah on Oprah's Next Chapter on August 18th, 2013. JackSpearsLohan ( talk) 19:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Light novel is a kind of novel. Novels are put in the subsection "Works" in language and literature. However, Maria-sama ga Miteru and Baccano! are both light novels, but the former is under "Comics" and the latter under "Works". I would like opinions on the subject. How is the best way to categorize them? Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure what you're referring to. can you point it out? Lucia Black ( talk) 02:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this - I'm not sure what the correct procedure is, but I'm pretty sure this should be re-reviewed. Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 10:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
24.112.61.28 ( talk) 02:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on this matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Standard lead paragraph length. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It is now a WP:RfC; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 12:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi all-- what does everyone thing of starting to do really high level splitting of the politician biography category, History > World history > Historical figures: politicians. -- Zanimum ( talk) 19:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, if there is very little info on a subject, could it still be a GA despite having a short article? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 12:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Back to the Egg passed as a GA (2nd time around) on 28 March, but the pass still hasn't been acknowledged on the page. The initial fail was due to the review timing out; and I did a complete rewrite when I took over the nomination, so a second review process was a good idea anyway. With this discrepancy between a pass at GAR2 and the lack of a symbol on the actual article page, is it to do with the fact that the failing of the 25 Nov 2013 version still shows on Talk:Back to the Egg – does anyone know? Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
A question was asked ( here) about using a module to automate the article counts on each subpage. There are some ideas to automate the whole subpage, but my suggestion is more modest. For example, WP:Good articles/Natural sciences#Mineralogy has this wikitext:
=====Mineralogy===== [[Kauri gum]] – [[Nassak Diamond]] – [[Vanadinite]] – <small> (3 articles)</small>
That could be changed to something like:
=====Mineralogy===== {{#invoke:join|ga |Kauri gum |Nassak Diamond |Vanadinite }}
The above would invoke a module that would generate wikitext equivalent to what is currently used. If a piped link is used, it would be necessary to specify it in full. Also, it would be fine to include square brackets to make a link if wanted. For example, this would work:
=====Mineralogy===== {{#invoke:join|ga |[[Kauri gum]] |[[Nassak Diamond|Eye of the Idol]] |Vanadinite }}
Is something like this wanted? Johnuniq ( talk) 10:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
#invoke:join|ga
could be replaced with a template if wanted), and the output can be anything wanted, with the count always correct.
Johnuniq (
talk) 03:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)== X {{#invoke:Tools|NumberOfArticlesBetween|START X|END}} == <!--START X--> Bla bla bla... <!--END-->
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nowayatall ( talk) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Taylor Alison Swift 'SLUT' Swifter1 ( talk) 09:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello there. There is a section of GA articles named Earthquakes in the Geography and places category, but I think that they would be better placed under Natural sciences. (specifically under Earth Sciences) Should they be recategorized? MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
114.79.172.124 ( talk) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Quickfailing unreleased media czar
♔ 21:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied with the list's use of copious subsections for shows with as few as three good articles related to them alongside very large subsections; it makes the list feel unclean. I'd prefer if the Television section was organized similarly to Video games. Tezero ( talk) 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed something odd that should be resolved. Streets are being listed under "Places", yet highways are under the regional sections of "Road transport". I would think that streets are a form of road so they'd be listed along with the articles on highways. Imzadi 1979 → 17:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
For a long time I've wondered why lists have been exempt from GA and have to skip the process. While lists generally might not need quite the depth of content that articles have, they often take a great deal of time to research and fully get right, a lot of tweaking and minor editing. The more detailed lists require a great deal of effort to reach FL status and I really think we need somewhere in between which is satisfactory but not quite there. I think it might prove more productive to have such a milestone and then editors can decide whether to "perfect" their lists to FL status. We have a lot of decent lists which should really be good articles even if not featured lists.
List of Hammond organs for instance would be fine for a Good Article list, but might not yet scrape FL status. I think it's about time we introduced it as I feel we should be trying to encourage as many editors as possible to go for GA on all articles and lists and many might be deterred with going straight to FLC. Anyway, please don't take this as a strict support-oppose thing, I'd rather see intelligent discussion on why this is or is not a good idea before we go any further.♦
Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that the list itself must be technically sound and complete with reasonable quality prose in the columns, but it does not need strong paragraphs of prose putting it in context above it like many FLs require, only a few lines but they must be sourced and decent and of reasonable quality of course. I agree in part though with your outlook and that the scope is far less than GA and FA with lists. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
True, OK, you've changed my mind on this! I wasn't aware of an active previous proposal or discussion on it either although I suspected that there would have been opposition to it for the reasons you stated. @ Ritchie333: There you have it, I think Eric's explained it well enough! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The article, Charles Calvert (governor) in regards of {{WikiProject Maryland}} is either self assessed GA or it is missing the GA nomination page. Can someone check it? I would've removed GA rating but it is there since 2010. [5] OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops! You found something I did (wrong) back in 2010. I have corrected my mistake. Thanks for the ping. Folklore1 ( talk) 21:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason other than the sheer tedium involved in making the judgment for ~500 articles that the extremely lengthy "Works" category is not divided into "Fiction" and "Non-fiction"? -- erachima talk 13:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
the article isnt a good article, so I have it removed, as for Ebla, now I see its not just a site, but also a kingdom and a historic Era, so its place is appropriate-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello to everyone; I agree with the advances made to sub-categorize the "Works" section and have just added a few additional suggested sub-categories. What does everyone think? I got the idea for each section name while re-categorizing the Works section: I simply opened and read the first few sentences of each article in "Works" to get a good idea of what type of literary work each is. As the types began to sort out, the section titles rather wrote themselves.
For the next hour or so I am moving articles from "Works" into the new sections until "Works" is empty. I just agree that it's good to give this place the clean-up it deserves, and I enjoy doing it. Of course feel free to combine these sections or change any of the work I am doing; "evolve" it, if you will! I'll remove the "In use" tag very soon. Cheers to all. Prhartcom ( talk) 20:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding criteria 3a (broad coverage) at Talk:Piotr Skarga/GA1. The review there is stalled as me (primary author) and the reviewer cannot reach consensus on whether the article addresses the main aspects of the topic. The reviewer belives that the article does not do so with regards to the aspects of Polish history relevant to this biographical article, whereas I believe it 1) does so, that 2) those aspects are irrelevant there and linking articles such as counter-reformation in Poland is sufficient, and 3) that expanding this article with requested information would divert the reader from the primary subject (biography) into side topics (history of Poland). A third opinion would be appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Piotrus: GA doesn't have to be comprehensive though and it does seem to have a good basic grasp of the topic. It looks GA worthy to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
An apparent ne'er-do-well started a deficient review. How do we resolve this sort of problem? Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken ( talk · contribs) added the following text to Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary:
If the article being nominated has an editor who has been its primary contributor, it's a good idea to get them involved in the GA process. Of course, no one owns an article, but the active participation or cooperation of the primary contributor should help to make the GA process less problematic, while failing to do so can lead to hard feelings and make cooperation more difficult.
I think this is a very poor addition and cuts against the grain of a collaborative project. I should note that it arises from a dispute over the structure and context of High Line (New York City), which was nominated for GA status by a third editor. For context please see User_talk:Mackensen#Here.27s_a_tip_for_you..... I reverted the change because I think it's a bad change; BMK later reverted me. That's not how WP:BRD works but whatever. I'd like for persons not involved with the High Line article to consider whether this is a reasonable addition. Best, Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
According to this, the mentioned article is not listed in any good article subpage (supposingly on Wikipedia:Good articles/History)! Not sure if this was a SERIOUS mistake, but can the article be listed? Someone may check if it is really listed. HYH.124 ( talk) 11:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
West Triangle Economic Zone also likely not listed, supposingly on Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. HYH.124 ( talk) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Prison Break episode Demi Lovato guest starred in was Season 2 Episode 4 not episode 7 174.125.76.241 ( talk) 01:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there's been a delay/lag of late with this? A song article that was listed on 14 November – The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord) – still doesn't carry the icon. Soon after the reviewer passed the article, I changed the quality rating myself on the Talk page. Just guessing, but might that be relevant; i.e., is it something that a bot should change? JG66 ( talk) 00:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
A major problem occurred with this article which resulted in it being stripped of its GA status. It degraded so badly since July 2013 that I've largely restored the version that passed, with some refinements (which now need to sorted out) with the intention of getting it to GA again. The problem is the article is a liability. It attracts a whole bunch of shoddy editors and edit wars. I know that articles need to be stable to pass GA but I was wondering if there would be general support for placing a full lock on the article, should we get it to GA status. It's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to produce a stable (and sound) version.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible for a bot to run through the subpages of Wikipedia:Good articles, remove the articles that have become featured, and update the respective totals? I found one in passing, and I'd hazard that others are present. Seattle ( talk) 23:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, I reckon Wikipedia:Good_articles/Warfare#Battles and exercises Modern history (1800 to present) (in the Milhist genre) should be split. Perhaps 1800-1899, 1900-1999 and 2000-. This subsection currently has nearly 400 articles, and is huge in comparison to the others in the genre. Thoughts? Regards, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 16:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Can someone (preferably someone who speaks Finnish) help me with Kajaani, an article about a Finnish town with 37,000 people? It passed GA review but has been challenged. Help would be appreciated! Regards, -- AmaryllisGardener talk 16:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Critical response to She Has a Name, Good Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.
Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention animal sacrifice performed at many Kali or Durga temples throughout India. Must say that is a serious ommision. Jonathansammy ( talk) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It is already mentioned at Animal Sacrifice as well Animal Sacrifice in Hinduism but it should be included here as well. I want to discuss it here before adding content to a GA Jonathansammy ( talk) 19:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case, where do I discuss inclusion of this information of overwhelming importance to the article ? Jonathansammy ( talk) 22:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
By 2013 Eminem has sold over 172 million albums
95.233.86.101 ( talk) 23:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
02:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Can someone familiar with the process update this article's talk page and remove it from Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences? It seems to have failed reassessment. -- NeilN talk to me 23:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposal. Res Mar 01:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Messi's goals in La Liga is 278 not 400. 139.194.97.251 ( talk) 09:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
As you may know, we've started providing bare lists of GA promotions in the featured content section of the Signpost.
We're fine for this week, since the cutoff is always a week and a half before publication (otherwise, we'd have three days to do the work in), but we have a problem for next week: [Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Good_articles_by_quality_log&offset=&limit=500&action=history The good article log is corrupt after 12 April.] - I don't know if it'll resume sanity from the 16th, but the entries for the 13th and 14th are completely corrupt, and I suspect the 15th of being problematic as well.
So... anyone have any ideas? I'd prefer not to screw people out of recognition because the bot went crazy, but I've been depending on that for entries, and I'll have to drop the feature if I have to spend an entire day compiling them every week. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
David Bednar was notable as a theatre exec, in the corporate world. But his legacy is as general manager of an independent non profit corp, the Canadian National Exhibition Association. There's no category for government employees... Do I just put him under the businessperson section? -- Zanimum ( talk) 21:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a backlog of articles waiting for community reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, and DragonZero informs me that they're the only editor who has been closing these for the past year or so. That doesn't seem fair to me, so assistance from other editors would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that a reviewer for an article that I nominated has disappeared. Would anyone care to take a look? RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
why is this article locked ?
to the commercial section add that as of jan 2015 she has sold 1.56 million copies in usa. here is the source http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6450846/ask-billboard-controversial-hits-katy-perrys-sales-taylor-swifts?page=0%2C1 . 50.246.91.141 ( talk) 20:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The reviewer at Talk:Negative resistance/GA1 has put the article on hold and declared that he will not pass the article for reasons he admits himself are not part of the GA criteria (principally over-referencing). He has also declared that he will hand over to another reviewer. There is a discussion of the issue at the user's talk page. Comments? Spinning Spark 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Bharat Ratna was listed as a good article by the now banned user AmritasyaPutra, who did not list it under a category at
Wikipedia:Good articles/all. They put |topic=Culture, sociology and psychology
in {{
GA}} on
Talk:Bharat Ratna, but I'm unsure exactly where the article would go. Could someone else please work out where the article fits and then add it to the list, updating the talk page template if necessary? —
Bilorv
(talk)
(c)
(e) 23:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add new section 'Awards' - relevant to Google Inc
In 2015, Google ranked #2 great places to work in India. [6] Google won 2013 ‘overall brand of the year’ award from Ace Metrix [7]. In 2015, Fortune has awarded Google best place to work consecutively for 6 years. [8]
Jame0360 ( talk) 04:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Asher Vollmer, Histoire Naturelle, I Ching, Shahid Kapoor and USS Maine (BB-10) appear to have passed GA reviews, but they are not listed anywhere on Wikipedia:Good articles/all. Could someone please work out where they should go and add them there? — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 10:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I gave an immediate failure to the article George Washington Truett. Aside from missing a number of GA-criteria, there was something extremely fishy about the editors in question and I deferred to my gut instinct to make this an immediate fail instead of wasting resources on a review that would have been extremely painstaking due to the volume of problems with the article. Anyway, I got a severe browbeating from BlueMoonset who took me to the woodshed over my decision to fail it immediately. In response, and against my better judgment, I invested significant time into a second review (including tracking down and uploading audio) only to see the nominating editor then immediately indeffed for sockpuppetry before they could begin to respond. While it's good to know my gut instinct is still working to A+ level, I'm disappointed at having spent all this time on the (second ... sigh) review. I was wondering if anyone would mind taking over this article so my (reluctant) work isn't wasted? Thanks. (Pinging Prhartcom and SilkTork in case they're available.) LavaBaron ( talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for a second opinion (or third, or fourth) at Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4. If you are willing to help, please do! Wugapodes ( talk) 02:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
There has long been a hidden comment requesting some sort of split of the animal section, but on what grounds? Taxonomic? Or could be extant/extinct? Also, just changed the subsection "animal genera" to taxa, as most were species. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
After searching through the various GA animal lists and filtering non-taxonomic articles, domestic breeds, and individuals, I get the following rough break down, sorted into fairly broad/recognizable groups (and found a couple articles not currently listed). All include extinct members, with the exception of Reptiles & Amphibians, but the Dinosaurs could be merged.
Do these seem like reasonable groups? I realize that Reptiles & amphibians is not a natural group, but is commonly used (just see any herpetology book). I'm fine with a single invertebrate group as well. I hesitate to make too many more categories, even in the larger categories like Fish and Mammals, to prevent too much splitting, there's nothing terribly wrong with large categories: we're just trying to showcase articles here, not teach a lesson in taxonomy. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I failed two articles on review by myself by one nominator due to no response in the seven day grace period and extremely low activity by the nominator in that time, only a few edits, and no acknowledgement indicated to me that the he needed extra time due to real life. I failed them this morning, on the seventh day, and the nominator has since proceeded to come online, see it failed, and made the improvements, and has asked me if they are now acceptable to pass. Am I allowed to remove the failed GA templates which have been processed by the bot and replaced them with passed GA templates, or does he have to re-nominate them and wait for them to be reviewed a second time? A speedy response on this would be great to get it sorted quickly. — Calvin999 16:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I just finished the editing process for the article Inna. I think it is now ready for the Good-article-status. Can anyone help me with this process (or stuff like this)? I'm not so long on Wikipedia. Thanks!
Cartoon network freak ( talk) 17:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It would appear that some of the "art" articles are in the "architecture" section. For example the National Police Memorial, The Dream (sculpture), World War I Memorial (East Providence, Rhode Island), Sir Bevil Grenville's Monument and Statue of James II, Trafalgar Square.-- TangoTizerWolfstone ( talk) 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jensen01hi ( talk) 13:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you please not let people just put what they want on here. Because kids could be researching for facts and people are putting fake things on here and make them get a bad grade from people putting fake stuff on here. For example that happened to me in 3rd and 4th grad
by
have a good evening
Free7272 ( talk) 20:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
195.195.223.50 ( talk) 11:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC) he also had great hair man
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello
Goodbye 82.8.133.78 ( talk) 19:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
117.200.88.85 ( talk) 10:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
117.214.44.105 ( talk) 11:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fernandaaass ( talk) 15:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Any objection to splitting the huge animal taxa section into say vertebrates & invertebrates? Or would there be a better way to split it more evenly? This is just the kind of mind numbing task I'd be into. delldot ∇. 03:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing proposal about the GAC here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposed_Amendments_to_GA_Criteria. TheMagikCow ( talk) 13:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Participants here often create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a content is neutral, determine if sources are reliable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture is approaching 400 articles now under "Architecture". Perhaps we could split a few ones like houses and hotels?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
This article was promoted yesterday and in all honesty I am concerned whether or not it should have been listed in the first place. For starters I am not sure if the article has gone through a thorough copyedit, and there are still "citation needed" and "clarification needed" tags. There are also several citations within the article tagged with "self-published source" and "dead link". Many seem to be unreliable too. This statement has been added to many references:
"This is a tertiary source that clearly includes information from other sources but does not name them."
I have noticed that some paragraphs are not even cited, and the user who nominated the article wasn't even a major contributor (infact I don't think they even made a single one until someone decided to review this). I think an urgent second review is needed. Burklemore1 ( talk) 07:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ladycools ( talk) 23:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change married to Tyler Diebel. 66.87.144.111 ( talk) 15:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I notice the Biology section has a lot of articles like Brain, Cervix, Pudendal nerve, etc. Would it make sense to add an anatomy section just for these? (It could be human and nonhuman anatomy). I would be happy to do the split. delldot ∇. 21:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure how this passed a GA review considering the disputes ongoing and grossly over sized article with dead links and dated statements. Do other think this should be reviewed? Talk:United States/GA2 is so small considering all the problems.-- Moxy ( talk) 14:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The article Flame & Citron passed the GA review on January 19, 2016 ( [9]) but until know the bot didn't add the GA icon. Is it a problem if I add on my own? Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There are a mass of entries in English and Chinese Wikipedia that include out-of-date facts or references. And there are some existed software tools or algorithms relative to natural language pattern matching to solve this problem. We would like to measure the usefulness of these tools and algorithms and create a new bot to identify those information based on the result of measurement. During the work of measuring existed tools and testing the new bot, we will try to collect abundant Wikipedia entries and create some new cases. And the modular software can be used by Wikireview and other contributors of Wikipedia.
URL of detailed proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias
Please give us your advice in the discussion board of the proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias
Li Linxuan ( talk) 16:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no proof but TV images that this person walked on the Moon. This article must be considered incomplete and must have different sources to approve this fact. Madovsky ( talk) 17:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks, The Core Contest is on again, running from May 15 to June 30. Enter at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Cheers! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello. These two sports should be having separate listings under "Sport and recreation". I have completed a split in the article listings page but cannot access the index page where there is the "baseball and cricket" entry. The icon used in the article listing was a football, which is obviously in error, so I have inserted baseball and cricket ball icons in new listings. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 06:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I was not looking far enough and have found the right page now. The change has been made. You have incorrect icons for all sports and I will try to be rectifying this. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 06:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I see that within "Culture, sociology, and psychology" articles, the article Lesbian is listed under "ethnic groups". It should be moved somewhere else, perhaps to "Culture and cultural studies". Lesbians are not an ethnic group. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I can understand not allowing FAs to be classified as being of a certain level of quality according to random passers-by, but the GAN process is nowhere near strict enough to override all previous assessments of the articles' quality (it is essentially just the same thing -- a random Wikipedia editor decides, often based simply on the quality of the prose and how nice the article looks to promote it or not). We have articles that are immediately moved up from "Start" to "GA" based on this assessment process ( just one example), but the question rarely seems to be asked why the article was classified as "Start" before the GA review passed.
Given how often GA reviews pass without any serious, critical source checks, shouldn't we make some allowance for WikiProjects to maintain their original quality assessments and clarify that GA status is often just a matter of opinion and often based on nothing more than the appearance of quality?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Special:Diff/730185929-- OJJ ( talk) 14:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl added the article Sexual Preference (book) to the "Psychology and psychologists" section. Although the article could certainly be added there, a case could be made for adding it to the "Anthropology, anthropologists, sociology and sociologists" section instead. Of the book's three authors, one was a psychologist, while the other two are sociologists. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we should protect this page somewhat so people can't keep writing that they're a "censorship advocacy group". Could someone please do that? Tjdrum2000 ( talk) 13:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
MLP appears to be an independent risk factor for mortality in community acquire pneumonia and its addition may help improve commonly used prognostic indices in the future [citation: Gurdeep Singh Mannu, Yoon Kong Loke, James Peter Curtain, Kelum Nadeesha Pelpola, Phyo Kyaw Myint, Prognosis of multi-lobar pneumonia in community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis, European Journal of Internal Medicine, Volume 24, Issue 8, December 2013, Pages 857-863, ISSN 0953-6205, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2013.05.001.]
JSadari ( talk) 13:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Greninja123 ( talk) 21:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC) CREATE A GSCAM WIKAPEDIA
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
92.15.200.41 ( talk) 18:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Kevin Durant's height from 6'9 to 6'11. It was recently revealed in a interview that he is actually 6'11. 1moneyglass83 ( talk) 00:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, I just promoted Sam Manekshaw on its third try, but the nom received a "failed" message, and the icon hasn't been added to the page. Did I screw something up? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The main page doesn't work in mobile view on the iPhone, not sure abouut other devices. It only shows the left half of the page in both portrait and landscape view and it doesn't zoom out. If you try to scroll over to see the rest, it swipes you to the next tab. I don't know anything about formatting for mobile, so hopefully someone who does will see this. —PermStrump (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
There are many articles in the "engineering technology" section that are neither items of technology nor a technological process. I think we need an "Engineering analysis" section, or something similar. Some of the articles that don't really fit with their current subsection, but could be described as analysis include; Foster's reactance theorem, Impedance analogy, Mechanical-electrical analogies, Mobility analogy, Negative resistance, Prototype filter, Reflections of signals on conducting lines, Topology (electrical circuits), Antimetric electrical network, Nominal impedance, Primary line constants. Spinning Spark 18:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. [3] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. [4] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested. |
We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:
If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. [5] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Additionally, the
WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the
journal's talk page, or the
general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I successfully nominated the article Electoral history of Ronald Reagan as a good article half a year ago, but it is not listed here. Why is that? Thank you. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think there's some mistake with Progressive pop being listed here under Wikipedia:Good articles/Music. It doesn't seem as though a GA review ever took place, but someone added the GA icon at the article on 8 November, based on the article's appearance in the list here, and the talk page was then changed accordingly. Or maybe I'm missing something? JG66 ( talk) 11:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I've asked at WP:VPT about the possibility of moving some of these old reviews to a /GA1 page through an automatic or semi-automatic process. We might be able to get this list down to numbers that can be gone through manually. If it proves to be possible, is there consensus to do this. Spinning Spark 08:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I recently nominated an article for GA status and put it under a certain topic, but on second thought I probably should have listed it under a different topic than what I did. Would it be OK for me to change the topic for the nomination? -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
For better organization of these lists, does anyone object to me breaking out topics which have over 100 links in them, if it makes sense to break them out? An obvious choice in the link I provided is breaking out the Olympics and Paralympics articles. I personally use these lists to try to find good articles that already exist on a topic I am reviewing or writing, and the easier I can find them the better.
Anyone object to me being bold and doing that? Any thoughts or suggestions on this topic? Kees08 ( talk) 18:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
An inexperienced editor just removed my Good Article nomination for Adele. Major contribution is not a criteria for good article nominations, but only for Featured ones. I am ready to make repairs and work on the article and will become a major contributor in the GA process. I wish that an admin stops him/her.-- Shane Cyrus (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I just promoted Russian military deception to GA. I'm unclear, however, where under Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare I should list it. It's a set of tactics underlying a strategy, so it doesn't seem to fit anywhere. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Biology and Behavior/Behavior": "A red panda Futa became a visitor attraction in Japan for his ability to stand upright for ten seconds at a time." should read "A red panda, Futa, became a visitor attraction in Japan for his ability to stand upright for ten seconds at a time." 99.39.112.29 ( talk) 04:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.
Please join and participate.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit requested: Add where the Congressman Barney Frank's archives are held.
Archives information: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, link http://www.lib.umassd.edu/archives/congressman-barney-frank-collection Lvandenberg ( talk) 13:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey,
WP:GACR says that a GA nomination will immediately fail if [i]t contains copyright infringements
and one of the sub-criteria under Criterion #2 is it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism
, which links to
Wikipedia:Copyrights. I have a question about unattributed copying within Wikipedia, which
is addressed on the linked page.
If material that was copy-pasted within Wikipedia, without attribution, makes up a significant portion of a GA nomination, does that count as a copyvio for GA purposes? What about if it was accidental and edit summaries can't be edited after the fact to give proper attribution?
Specifically, I am a little concerned about Talk:Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack)/GA1, which didn't apparently address copyright issues, but per this analysis appears to have largely been copy-pasted from the August 2016 edition of Music of Game of Thrones. The edit that moved the material out of the original article mentioned the target of the move in its edit summary, but the page history of the GA in question doesn't mention that the material was copy-pasted from there.
Cheers,
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here.
Should good article icons be added to 2016 Manzanita tornado and Debby Applegate? I've created talk page discussions for each in an attempt to confirm. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
My GA nomination of Revolver (Beatles album) was successful and the article was listed, yet I automatically received a notification that it had failed. I think the problem was because the GA1 fail, from years back, was still there at the top of the article talk page (since removed). I don't usually value accolades too highly, but this of all articles took a huge amount of work – and, well yes I would like the result recorded on my talk page. Is it possible to send a second (pass) notification, perhaps? Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 17:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The following redirects, Good article, Good Article, Good articles, and Good Articles, have been relisted into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 20#Redirects to Wikipedia:Good articles, where you are invited to discuss them. Thank you. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I think an experienced editor and reviewer should consider this review by someone who joined the site as recently as 16 July 2017 and has not exactly distinguished himself, especially when he places stuff like this on another user's talk page.
I will make no comment about the review here. I merely ask that someone who is fully conversant with WP:GAC decides if the review should stand or if the nomination should be restored. Thank you. Jack | talk page 11:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I think American football GAs should be divided and listed the same way as every other sport: a section that lists teams, events, venues etc, and a section that lists biographies. The current setup of "pro" and "college" is problematic due to the potential for overlap. Lizard ( talk) 11:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
How long does it usually take? It's not a major malfunction, but I don't think I've seen it take over 1.5 hours before. — fortuna velut luna 08:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone say, what should be the action taken by a reviewer when the nominator does not responds to the comments even after pinging the nominator personally? RRD ( talk) 12:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says the name of the band is polka tulk blues company, but only when I look it up on google KidFlersh ( talk) 20:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just nominated article Monterey Bay Aquarium under the Places category because, although it doesn't fit the description of Places, Tennessee Aquarium was recently promoted into the category. There seems to be a hole with some museums, because art and history museums can go in "Art and architecture" and "History", respectively, but should all zoological institutions go under Recreation's "Stadiums, zoos, public parks, and amusements"? Currently, this may only affect Edinburgh Zoo, Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park, Phoenix Zoo, Prospect Park Zoo (all under #Recreation), and Tennessee Aquarium. But if a natural science museum such as the National Museum of Natural History were to be promoted to GA status, which category would it belong in? (Apparently Rice Northwest Museum of Rocks and Minerals is under Earth sciences' "Geologists, geophysicists and mineralogists"…)
I think that zoological institutions should either be…
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nickyjamelcangri40 ( talk) 06:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dreamswriter13 ( talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
genres:action, adventure, sci-fi,thriller
jack frost en frozen 2 si .
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
190.238.207.182 ( talk) 17:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is just a heads-up about a grammatical problem with the GA banner, which I've raised at the relevant template talk. In at least one instance, the template is producing the indefinite article "a" when it should be "an". I'd be grateful if anyone were minded to have a go at fixing it. Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the link on this page to Good Article log. The page that this link goes to has very little interest because it is not maintained (and seems to never have been complete, and seems to not have been maintained for several years). -- Ettrig ( talk) 16:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the standard for disambiguated titles to include the disambiguation in the visible part of the link, or not? I see both styles used in the list. E.g. should it be ''[[Yellow Submarine (album)|Yellow Submarine]]'' or [[Yellow Submarine (album)|''Yellow Submarine'' (album)]]? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've requested a second opinion on an GA review I was doing here: Talk:Armin_T._Wegner/GA1#Second_opinion_request. I wonder if an experienced volunteer could have a look and advise on the best course of action. Thank you. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: Any chance can you through this piece of incomptence in the trash and put the GA back in its original place in the queue? Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 18:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey everyone, an editor has by mistake started the review for 1982 Formula One World Championship. Can someone reset this? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
1. Agriculture, food, and drink : Move Food and drink into 1 article
2. Engineering and technology : Move Transport into 1 article
3. Natural sciences : Divide into 4 articles: Biology and medicine · Chemistry and materials science · Earth sciences+Physics and astronomy
4. Social sciences and society : Divide into 6 articles: Culture, sociology, and psychology · Education · Economics and business · Law · Magazines and print journalism · Politics and government
2001:EE0:4141:268D:90C5:122C:7EF4:600F ( talk) 10:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alysahk20 ( talk) 22:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I think Hiltler should be known as a jerk who killed Jews who deserved more in life!!!
Did Brian Kershisnik get missed with some update process? The review passed, but the WikiProject tags were not updated (I just did today), nor does it seem to have shown up on Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. Chris857 ( talk) 16:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Where should this article go in the list of good articles? He was an Australian notable for being accidentally/criminally stranded in the outback for 71 days. Serial Number 54129 thinks it could be categorized under explorers, but I'm not sure. Thanks in advance. Catrìona ( talk) 19:34, 21 August 2018 (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. |
Greetings,
In
this edit GA tag was added to the article. I have just removed it (11 days after that edit). Few days before someone posted a similar issue in my talk page! Is there any way to quickly find out unreviewed good articles or does GA Bot do anything here? Or since generally registered users review articles and add templates can we ask cluebot to undo every anonymous edit which include {{
Good article}}--
Tito Dutta (
talk) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that our GA review process is too lax when it comes to evaluating the actual content of articles. An article should fail the review if it has significant coverage gaps; however, if the reviewer is unfamiliar with the topic and the full range of scholarship pertaining to it, how can the reviewer know what the gaps are? Frankly, awarding GA status to an article that doesn't provide satisfactory coverage strikes me as one of the chief ways we can damage Wikipedia's credibility.
When an article is nominated for GA review, Point 4 in the process is regularly ignored: notify major contributing editors … [and] relevant WikiProjects for the article. Notifying projects that have bannered the article should be mandatory. If a GA review has occurred without notifying the projects, there should be no requirement for community review before delisting: delisting should be automatic if anyone objects.
Is there any way to make sure that Point 4 in the procedure has been followed and a minimum number of editors have reviewed an article before the GA rating can be given? Cynwolfe ( talk) 12:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the last sentence at the end of paragraph 1 ("He is a convicted rapist") as this information is already contained within the article and it appears that someone is attempting to use Wikipedia as a tool to act out a vendetta against this person. MarcusB2003 ( talk) 14:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Are we permitted to remove the transclusion of a GA review from the article's talk page, once it has been completed and added to the article history template? Till 13:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
what is the award for good new article?
A link to this page should be in the template which lists all awards. Don't know how to add this, nor the award name for new article.
Anybody can help? Spoildead ( talk) 17:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The article history on Talk:Benjamin Lee Whorf is simultaneously listing the article as having passed GA and as having failed. The GA1 review, as far as I can see, shows a fail, yet presumably it was listed for a reason. Maybe someone who knows more about how these listings work could take a look. Presumably when someone does look, the article will collapse into a GA or non-GA state. Thanks, Simon Burchell ( talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Simon Burchell ( talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
When the
Good article criteria vaguely states the requirements and leaves many things on the reviewer, is it really a good idea to let any registered user review a GA nomination? Can any user properly judge the "factual accuracy" and "broad coverage" points?
(Has this point been already discussed in past? Please direct me to that past discussion to avoid repetition.) §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C} 18:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good articles/Mathematics has only 33 articles listed; I think we should merge this into Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences. Thoughts? Adabow ( talk) 22:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Im having some issues with a certain review on the article "Ghost in the Shell". Although i CAN agree with the things i cant agree with the subjective issues the reviewer is asking for. It would be great if i could get a less bias review. Please discuss here: Talk:Ghost in the Shell/GA1. Lucia Black ( talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the fact that a fake can reach a "good article" status (see PC-World, Yahoo News Daily Dot) be of some concern and maybe a reason to rethink the criteria and procedure for "good articles"?
I find it in particular concerning, that the criteria doesn't explicitly require reviewers to at least partially check the actual correctness of the content by either alternative sources, personal domain knowledge or by verifying the given sources (existence & content). I'm aware that a full verification of the given sources is can be extremely tedious and may pose severe logistical problems (access), but I think we should require either at least a partial verification of the sources or a (partial) verification of the content by other means (domain knowledge, alternative sources).
Currently we simply seem to assess whether an article "looks good" rather tha assessing whether it "is good".-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what possible relevance these suggested changes have to a fake article that appears to have been created back in July 2007 and later awarded GA-status in October 2007. All the articles awarded GA-status prior to 26 August 2007 were listed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps (see list) and re-reviewed, but it took three-years to do it; and that effort is very unlikely to be repeated. Someone obviously created the article and nominated it at WP:GAN, someone (the name is known) awarded it GA-status and later in November 2007 it was nominated at WP:FAC by a named editor, but it failed to become a FA (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bicholim conflict/archive1). These changes appear to be demanded to address an event that happened nearly five and a half years ago. The (unstated) justification for the changes appears to be preventing a reoccurence of this "embarrassment". However, even if these changes were put in place at WP:GAN tomorrow it would do nothing to address any other fake articles in the system that were awarded GA-status, possibly as recently as today (or whenever, or if ever, this change came into being). FAC is consider to be a higher standard than GAN, and whilst the references in Bicholim conflict were considered during that review, the article was not identified as a fake. As far as I am aware there is no required at FAC for the reviewers to have access to all the sources, for them to confirm that the article is compliant with the sources and/or verifiable against alternative sources. These suggested requirements are instruction crepe and as they are not mandatory at FAC, they should not be forced on GAN. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I got access to the review and there was no obvious source checking (i.e. no facts were challenged). I don't have any concerns about the reviewer being a sock or any deception on their part. No sweeps were conducted, which I should have worked out as it fell outside the sweep dates by a couple of months.
As to the points brought up by Kmhkmh, the reviewer is already required to do point a and this is covered in the "de facto" how-to-guide. I would not add point b as written, because there should be no alternative to checking sources. Part of this is because there are copyright concerns and if you don't at least compare some of the article to the source you can't determine if this has occurred. As a slightly different take on this we could add to the Step 1 number 3 point in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles something along the lines of "Conduct an independent search (i.e a Google search) of the topic and use this to assess the articles coverage". This is something that is done by some reviewers already and should pick up any fake articles. Also it is not presented as an alternative to source checking. AIRcorn (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I think one of the issues is with the "those you can access" part of the reviewing guideline at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. What about adding something along side it (or as a footnote even) similar to your point B. Suggestion:
The second to last sentence is new and based off the above suggestion while the last one is moved up and modified from the next bulletpoint on that page (added translations as that is also a problem). Feel free to reword. AIRcorn (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There are serious problems with the evaluated expressions in Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary. The entire text of the FL list is being included, rather than just the total number of FLs. This needs the attention of an editor familiar with those templates and evaluations: I don't understand them myself. MartinPoulter ( talk) 15:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
This concerns "Culture, society and psychology" section. Here is a list of problems I see:
This list will still be problematic, but I hope that my above suggestions at least advance it from a catastrophic mess to something manageable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this now, I'd also like to merge "Cultural studies" with "Anthropology, anthropologists, sociology and sociologists". There is a lot of overlap anyway. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. "Caldwell, Lynton K." should be moved from ethnic groups (sic!) to political scientists, but I don't see such a category anywhere. Is it merged with political figures? Can someone move him? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Are articles allowed to be listed as GANs while they are undergoing a DYK nomination? Till 12:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The albums section of the GAs should be sorted into the year of release as done to the Songs section. It is very uncomfortable and cumbersome to navigate through in its current state. Till 14:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that "Works" under "Language and Literature" has become a huge category. Perhaps it is time to split it up? We could do something like what is done under "Songs" in "Music" (by date), or we could split it up by poetry/prose/drama. I'm partial to the latter option. Wrad ( talk) 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You might be interested in User:The ed17/Good articles by wiki text and User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Opened at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#RFC: New wording of the quickfail criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
What happens to the talk page of a GA when the article gets merged into another one. Till 02:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Theoretically, a severely POV article can be made a GA by a single, self-selected editor, even though the POV problems have been pointed out very clearly and several editors agree that they exist. E.g. this could be done as part of a stonewalling strategy to protect the article against improvement. If it happens, is there any way to contest this right after the fact? I am concerned because I know from experience that FA and GA versions tend to be used as "last good version" for long-distance reverts, a popular technique in POV pushing. Hans Adler 18:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The article referred to by Hans is this one on circumcision which was passed by me. One of a number of concerns was that it does not mention "male genital mutilation". The issue is that this term is not used in reliable sources. This same editor refers to a document produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics as a " severely biased advocacy document" [3]. So yes the topic is controversial for some. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Why is this happening here. The correct answer was given in the second sentence of the first reply. Try and work the issues out for yourselves at the talk page first and then go to WP:GAR if that doesn't work. This is the wrong place for this discussion. Note that it is very rare for an article to be delisted due to instability, especially if the person nominating it for delisting is one of the parties involved in its instability. AIRcorn (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Bill_Clinton#WP:OVERLINK_.3F or just step in and edit as you see fit.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I've given Delhi Daredevils in 2012 a review, however the nominator hasn't made an edit since 22 January. Is the rule on this to leave it for a week before closing if it doesn't get replied to or something else? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 14:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
A user removed unflattering content about a community called Bacliff, Texas, saying that the source article for the content was "non-factual" (See this edit)
The article has been marked as a "good article" since 2009. What procedures need to be done if a user is trying to dispute a source being used in the "good article"? WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Blocking historic content is not the way to guarantee wikipedia's trustworthiness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.210.186 ( talk) 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Currently, Toy Story, TV special The World of Strawberry Shortcake, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and TMNT (film), among others surely, are listed under the film category (461 articles). There are also features like The Care Bears' Big Wish Movie, Mulan, Treasure Planet, and The Iron Giant in the Animation category (20 articles). Would there be benefit to a third category, of "Animated films"? If not, which of these two categories should animated feature films be listed in? -- Zanimum ( talk) 21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
If an article in its entirety qualifies as GA does this automatically mean that this rating is applied to all the WikiProjects it belongs to? Or can one article have different quality ratings for different WikiProjects? Case in point, the article on Michael Boulding, a former professional footballer, has a GA rating. It belongs to three WikiProjects; Biography, Football and Tennis. The tennis content consist of one paragraph which forms just a tiny part of the article and which, if it were a separate tennis article, would probably be a Stub or a Start rating at best. Yet it shares (in effect piggybacks on) the WikiProject Football GA rating. Is it supposed to work like this? -- Wolbo ( talk) 21:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that singles which are released in the year proceeding the album release are listed in the single's year of release. An example is that Rihanna's Loud was released in 2010. The singles " Only Girl (In the World)" and " What's My Name?", as well as other non-singles, are listed in 2010 songs. However, the songs from the album which were released as singles in 2011 are in the 2011 section. It says "2011 songs". So technically, " S&M", " California King Bed" etc should be in 2010 songs. As it says songs, not singles. They were primarily for a 2010 released 2010. It just seems strange to spread them over two different year sections. — AARON • TALK 18:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I have listed this article under physics, but seeing as it is about measurement I could see it being more appropriately listed under mathematics. I am undecided, so I listed it at physics—where it was nominated. Feel free to reclassify. Adabow ( talk) 10:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes these articles are very close to GA, and although the nominator may have not made major contribution to the article, they take most of the credit of the GA. I was wondering if we could add a parameter or entry that the nominator could enter themselves asking for who contributed the most or who helped the most into getting the article to GA quality.
Or is this better off being a barnstar? Lucia Black ( talk) 11:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have opened a Request for Comment here, which may be of interest. I have proposed that newly-promoted Good Articles be allowed to be nominated as a DYK, i.e. to get a hook fact on the main page for a few hours. Comments would be welcome on the RfC.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 23:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed that a limited number of newly-promoted Good Articles should appear below or within the Featured Article slot, i.e. to get a hook fact on the Main Page for a day. Comments would be welcome in the RfC. Prioryman ( talk) 07:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I passed Kim Possible (character), but I accidentally edited the nominations page to say that it was on hold earlier. I now know that the bot is supposed to edit the page, but I don't know how to fix my mistake. SL93 ( talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm planning on completing more Good Article reviews, but probably just in relation to television series and films. With this review, I was surprised how fast the nominator fixed my concerns. SL93 ( talk) 19:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ WP:FOUR/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:WAWARD) 16:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Can a GA have (essentially) two sources? Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive is problematic here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The article International System of Units is currently under review. The editor conducting the review has little Wikipedia experience and has entered into many long and tedious discussions. I have resorted to stopping the discussions and telling him that I plan to get a second opinion of these comments. He has requested that I do this now and tat these issues be resolved before the review continues. How best do I continue? Martinvl ( talk) 02:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
What "On-going disputes"? I made observations, judgements and recommendations based on my understanding of the criteria. For a handful of them, largely ones which only neeed a few words of clarification to solve, Martinvl chose to stubbornly refute, with no sound supporting reasoning. In fact, he seemed to intentionally take the discussions around in circles, and laterly treated my comments with contempt. And what's that stuff about a "sock-puppet investigation" and "sabotage"? FishGF ( talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the requirements of good articles is that they be verifiable. I feel that this means that all sources on good articles should be checked. "Checked" is an ambiguous term and I do not want to define it, but I did want to check in with others about making the statement "All sources cited in good article candidates should be checked." At the good article level, the "checking" could be some or all of these:
Again, I do not want to propose a definition of "checking" and or set any standards, but I would like to start saying that in the good article process there should be a "check" on the validity of the sources. If ever there were standards, I would propose a significantly lower standard for GA than FA, but again, I do not want to talk about standards at this time.
How do others feel? Is there anyone here who does not feel that sources in GA candidates should not be "checked", whatever that term means? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Bluerasberry: I see this now:
Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means. Reviewers can confirm information from sources they cannot access at the resource exchange or request translations at Wikipedia:Translation. Beware of on-line sources that have copied content from Wikipedia.
This is copied from from here, which is an editing guideline. So I guess the place to edit/discuss is WP:RGA/ WT:RGA. Thanks for posting here. I guess we'll go over there now. =) Biosthmors ( talk) 15:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
But to be honest, @ Bluerasberry:, I think WP:RGA is in line with what you were saying over at WP:ENB. I'm surprised it's that strict, actually. I'm not complaining, though. Biosthmors ( talk) 15:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I reviewed an exceptional article earlier this morning, passing it here: Talk:Mirror symmetry (string theory)/GA1. My GA review didn't transclude on the talk page. What did I do wrong? -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 21:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Gun violence was supposedly rated a GA article on January 28, 2011 by USER:Jj98. Is this correct? I don't seem to find any supporting evidence. Please see current bottom of discussion at Talk:Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Off_topic_content. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 22:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion may be of interest to those here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move Kvinneakt from the architecture section to the art section? -- Another Believer ( Talk) 03:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems and Minneapolis wireless internet network are currently categorized in "Engineering and technology" → "Computing and engineering" → "Computer-related businesspeople". I think we should take these articles out of the "businesspeople" category, but I'm not sure what other category would be the best option. Thoughts? Edge3 ( talk) 04:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this. Smauritius is a major editor of the article, nominated it for GA status, reviewed it, and approved it. Is there a speedy removal or what is the process? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was in the middle of a GA review, but I'm on wikibreak now/in about two days and can't finish the review before I go. Please could someone finish it off and close it as needed? Thanks and sorry, RainCity471 ( whack!) 18:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
20695 GAs (5 GAs per FA) 22760 GAs (GAs+FAs+FLs = 1 in 150 articles)
All the best!
Also hope for more even coverage (more non-Western stuff, more non-films/sports/music stuff). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.242.154 ( talk) 15:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but here it goes. I noticed that some articles such as Eddy (Ed, Edd n Eddy) and Justin Bieber on Twitter were good articles, but they have since been merged into other articles. I'm curious to know why this happens. I was under the impression that good articles passed the general notability guidelines.
Americanfreedom ( talk) 07:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Thank you! So you're saying the two topics I mentioned were notable but didn't really merit their own articles? I've always thought that anything that passes the GNG would be kept. Go figure. Anyway thanks for your time! Americanfreedom ( talk) 18:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:
It reports that on-wiki writing contests are successful at meeting their goal of improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, including good articles. We hope you'll participate and comment on the talk page, too! SarahStierch ( talk) 18:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I failed Forest cobra without realizing that the nominator requested to have extra time to fix the comments, is it possible to reverse the failure or not? Iainstein ( talk) 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Could I just continue with the review without fixing the talk page, and when it is done update the talk page accordingly? Iainstein ( talk) 14:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone look at Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA2 and Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA2.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:
We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.
Cheers, Jake Ocaasi t | c 12:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In August 2013, Lohan successfully guest-hosted the talk show Chelsea Lately, generating widespread positive reviews [1] and later that year guest starred on the HBO series Eastbound and Down. In 2014, it was announced that would star in the reality series Lindsay on the Oprah Winfrey Network and that Lindsay would premiere on March 9th, 2014 [2] . Lindsay will be Lohan's second work for the Oprah Winfrey Network, following an interview with Oprah on Oprah's Next Chapter on August 18th, 2013. JackSpearsLohan ( talk) 19:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Light novel is a kind of novel. Novels are put in the subsection "Works" in language and literature. However, Maria-sama ga Miteru and Baccano! are both light novels, but the former is under "Comics" and the latter under "Works". I would like opinions on the subject. How is the best way to categorize them? Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure what you're referring to. can you point it out? Lucia Black ( talk) 02:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see this - I'm not sure what the correct procedure is, but I'm pretty sure this should be re-reviewed. Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 10:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
24.112.61.28 ( talk) 02:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on this matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Standard lead paragraph length. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It is now a WP:RfC; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 ( talk) 12:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi all-- what does everyone thing of starting to do really high level splitting of the politician biography category, History > World history > Historical figures: politicians. -- Zanimum ( talk) 19:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, if there is very little info on a subject, could it still be a GA despite having a short article? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 12:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Back to the Egg passed as a GA (2nd time around) on 28 March, but the pass still hasn't been acknowledged on the page. The initial fail was due to the review timing out; and I did a complete rewrite when I took over the nomination, so a second review process was a good idea anyway. With this discrepancy between a pass at GAR2 and the lack of a symbol on the actual article page, is it to do with the fact that the failing of the 25 Nov 2013 version still shows on Talk:Back to the Egg – does anyone know? Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
A question was asked ( here) about using a module to automate the article counts on each subpage. There are some ideas to automate the whole subpage, but my suggestion is more modest. For example, WP:Good articles/Natural sciences#Mineralogy has this wikitext:
=====Mineralogy===== [[Kauri gum]] – [[Nassak Diamond]] – [[Vanadinite]] – <small> (3 articles)</small>
That could be changed to something like:
=====Mineralogy===== {{#invoke:join|ga |Kauri gum |Nassak Diamond |Vanadinite }}
The above would invoke a module that would generate wikitext equivalent to what is currently used. If a piped link is used, it would be necessary to specify it in full. Also, it would be fine to include square brackets to make a link if wanted. For example, this would work:
=====Mineralogy===== {{#invoke:join|ga |[[Kauri gum]] |[[Nassak Diamond|Eye of the Idol]] |Vanadinite }}
Is something like this wanted? Johnuniq ( talk) 10:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
#invoke:join|ga
could be replaced with a template if wanted), and the output can be anything wanted, with the count always correct.
Johnuniq (
talk) 03:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)== X {{#invoke:Tools|NumberOfArticlesBetween|START X|END}} == <!--START X--> Bla bla bla... <!--END-->
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nowayatall ( talk) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Taylor Alison Swift 'SLUT' Swifter1 ( talk) 09:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello there. There is a section of GA articles named Earthquakes in the Geography and places category, but I think that they would be better placed under Natural sciences. (specifically under Earth Sciences) Should they be recategorized? MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
114.79.172.124 ( talk) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Quickfailing unreleased media czar
♔ 21:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied with the list's use of copious subsections for shows with as few as three good articles related to them alongside very large subsections; it makes the list feel unclean. I'd prefer if the Television section was organized similarly to Video games. Tezero ( talk) 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed something odd that should be resolved. Streets are being listed under "Places", yet highways are under the regional sections of "Road transport". I would think that streets are a form of road so they'd be listed along with the articles on highways. Imzadi 1979 → 17:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
For a long time I've wondered why lists have been exempt from GA and have to skip the process. While lists generally might not need quite the depth of content that articles have, they often take a great deal of time to research and fully get right, a lot of tweaking and minor editing. The more detailed lists require a great deal of effort to reach FL status and I really think we need somewhere in between which is satisfactory but not quite there. I think it might prove more productive to have such a milestone and then editors can decide whether to "perfect" their lists to FL status. We have a lot of decent lists which should really be good articles even if not featured lists.
List of Hammond organs for instance would be fine for a Good Article list, but might not yet scrape FL status. I think it's about time we introduced it as I feel we should be trying to encourage as many editors as possible to go for GA on all articles and lists and many might be deterred with going straight to FLC. Anyway, please don't take this as a strict support-oppose thing, I'd rather see intelligent discussion on why this is or is not a good idea before we go any further.♦
Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd say that the list itself must be technically sound and complete with reasonable quality prose in the columns, but it does not need strong paragraphs of prose putting it in context above it like many FLs require, only a few lines but they must be sourced and decent and of reasonable quality of course. I agree in part though with your outlook and that the scope is far less than GA and FA with lists. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
True, OK, you've changed my mind on this! I wasn't aware of an active previous proposal or discussion on it either although I suspected that there would have been opposition to it for the reasons you stated. @ Ritchie333: There you have it, I think Eric's explained it well enough! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The article, Charles Calvert (governor) in regards of {{WikiProject Maryland}} is either self assessed GA or it is missing the GA nomination page. Can someone check it? I would've removed GA rating but it is there since 2010. [5] OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops! You found something I did (wrong) back in 2010. I have corrected my mistake. Thanks for the ping. Folklore1 ( talk) 21:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason other than the sheer tedium involved in making the judgment for ~500 articles that the extremely lengthy "Works" category is not divided into "Fiction" and "Non-fiction"? -- erachima talk 13:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
the article isnt a good article, so I have it removed, as for Ebla, now I see its not just a site, but also a kingdom and a historic Era, so its place is appropriate-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello to everyone; I agree with the advances made to sub-categorize the "Works" section and have just added a few additional suggested sub-categories. What does everyone think? I got the idea for each section name while re-categorizing the Works section: I simply opened and read the first few sentences of each article in "Works" to get a good idea of what type of literary work each is. As the types began to sort out, the section titles rather wrote themselves.
For the next hour or so I am moving articles from "Works" into the new sections until "Works" is empty. I just agree that it's good to give this place the clean-up it deserves, and I enjoy doing it. Of course feel free to combine these sections or change any of the work I am doing; "evolve" it, if you will! I'll remove the "In use" tag very soon. Cheers to all. Prhartcom ( talk) 20:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding criteria 3a (broad coverage) at Talk:Piotr Skarga/GA1. The review there is stalled as me (primary author) and the reviewer cannot reach consensus on whether the article addresses the main aspects of the topic. The reviewer belives that the article does not do so with regards to the aspects of Polish history relevant to this biographical article, whereas I believe it 1) does so, that 2) those aspects are irrelevant there and linking articles such as counter-reformation in Poland is sufficient, and 3) that expanding this article with requested information would divert the reader from the primary subject (biography) into side topics (history of Poland). A third opinion would be appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Piotrus: GA doesn't have to be comprehensive though and it does seem to have a good basic grasp of the topic. It looks GA worthy to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
An apparent ne'er-do-well started a deficient review. How do we resolve this sort of problem? Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken ( talk · contribs) added the following text to Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary:
If the article being nominated has an editor who has been its primary contributor, it's a good idea to get them involved in the GA process. Of course, no one owns an article, but the active participation or cooperation of the primary contributor should help to make the GA process less problematic, while failing to do so can lead to hard feelings and make cooperation more difficult.
I think this is a very poor addition and cuts against the grain of a collaborative project. I should note that it arises from a dispute over the structure and context of High Line (New York City), which was nominated for GA status by a third editor. For context please see User_talk:Mackensen#Here.27s_a_tip_for_you..... I reverted the change because I think it's a bad change; BMK later reverted me. That's not how WP:BRD works but whatever. I'd like for persons not involved with the High Line article to consider whether this is a reasonable addition. Best, Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
According to this, the mentioned article is not listed in any good article subpage (supposingly on Wikipedia:Good articles/History)! Not sure if this was a SERIOUS mistake, but can the article be listed? Someone may check if it is really listed. HYH.124 ( talk) 11:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
West Triangle Economic Zone also likely not listed, supposingly on Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. HYH.124 ( talk) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Prison Break episode Demi Lovato guest starred in was Season 2 Episode 4 not episode 7 174.125.76.241 ( talk) 01:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there's been a delay/lag of late with this? A song article that was listed on 14 November – The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord) – still doesn't carry the icon. Soon after the reviewer passed the article, I changed the quality rating myself on the Talk page. Just guessing, but might that be relevant; i.e., is it something that a bot should change? JG66 ( talk) 00:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
A major problem occurred with this article which resulted in it being stripped of its GA status. It degraded so badly since July 2013 that I've largely restored the version that passed, with some refinements (which now need to sorted out) with the intention of getting it to GA again. The problem is the article is a liability. It attracts a whole bunch of shoddy editors and edit wars. I know that articles need to be stable to pass GA but I was wondering if there would be general support for placing a full lock on the article, should we get it to GA status. It's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to produce a stable (and sound) version.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 21:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible for a bot to run through the subpages of Wikipedia:Good articles, remove the articles that have become featured, and update the respective totals? I found one in passing, and I'd hazard that others are present. Seattle ( talk) 23:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
G'day all, I reckon Wikipedia:Good_articles/Warfare#Battles and exercises Modern history (1800 to present) (in the Milhist genre) should be split. Perhaps 1800-1899, 1900-1999 and 2000-. This subsection currently has nearly 400 articles, and is huge in comparison to the others in the genre. Thoughts? Regards, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 16:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Can someone (preferably someone who speaks Finnish) help me with Kajaani, an article about a Finnish town with 37,000 people? It passed GA review but has been challenged. Help would be appreciated! Regards, -- AmaryllisGardener talk 16:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Critical response to She Has a Name, Good Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.
Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 23:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention animal sacrifice performed at many Kali or Durga temples throughout India. Must say that is a serious ommision. Jonathansammy ( talk) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It is already mentioned at Animal Sacrifice as well Animal Sacrifice in Hinduism but it should be included here as well. I want to discuss it here before adding content to a GA Jonathansammy ( talk) 19:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case, where do I discuss inclusion of this information of overwhelming importance to the article ? Jonathansammy ( talk) 22:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
By 2013 Eminem has sold over 172 million albums
95.233.86.101 ( talk) 23:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
02:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Can someone familiar with the process update this article's talk page and remove it from Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences? It seems to have failed reassessment. -- NeilN talk to me 23:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposal. Res Mar 01:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Messi's goals in La Liga is 278 not 400. 139.194.97.251 ( talk) 09:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
As you may know, we've started providing bare lists of GA promotions in the featured content section of the Signpost.
We're fine for this week, since the cutoff is always a week and a half before publication (otherwise, we'd have three days to do the work in), but we have a problem for next week: [Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Good_articles_by_quality_log&offset=&limit=500&action=history The good article log is corrupt after 12 April.] - I don't know if it'll resume sanity from the 16th, but the entries for the 13th and 14th are completely corrupt, and I suspect the 15th of being problematic as well.
So... anyone have any ideas? I'd prefer not to screw people out of recognition because the bot went crazy, but I've been depending on that for entries, and I'll have to drop the feature if I have to spend an entire day compiling them every week. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
David Bednar was notable as a theatre exec, in the corporate world. But his legacy is as general manager of an independent non profit corp, the Canadian National Exhibition Association. There's no category for government employees... Do I just put him under the businessperson section? -- Zanimum ( talk) 21:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a backlog of articles waiting for community reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, and DragonZero informs me that they're the only editor who has been closing these for the past year or so. That doesn't seem fair to me, so assistance from other editors would be welcome. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that a reviewer for an article that I nominated has disappeared. Would anyone care to take a look? RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
why is this article locked ?
to the commercial section add that as of jan 2015 she has sold 1.56 million copies in usa. here is the source http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6450846/ask-billboard-controversial-hits-katy-perrys-sales-taylor-swifts?page=0%2C1 . 50.246.91.141 ( talk) 20:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The reviewer at Talk:Negative resistance/GA1 has put the article on hold and declared that he will not pass the article for reasons he admits himself are not part of the GA criteria (principally over-referencing). He has also declared that he will hand over to another reviewer. There is a discussion of the issue at the user's talk page. Comments? Spinning Spark 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Bharat Ratna was listed as a good article by the now banned user AmritasyaPutra, who did not list it under a category at
Wikipedia:Good articles/all. They put |topic=Culture, sociology and psychology
in {{
GA}} on
Talk:Bharat Ratna, but I'm unsure exactly where the article would go. Could someone else please work out where the article fits and then add it to the list, updating the talk page template if necessary? —
Bilorv
(talk)
(c)
(e) 23:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add new section 'Awards' - relevant to Google Inc
In 2015, Google ranked #2 great places to work in India. [6] Google won 2013 ‘overall brand of the year’ award from Ace Metrix [7]. In 2015, Fortune has awarded Google best place to work consecutively for 6 years. [8]
Jame0360 ( talk) 04:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Asher Vollmer, Histoire Naturelle, I Ching, Shahid Kapoor and USS Maine (BB-10) appear to have passed GA reviews, but they are not listed anywhere on Wikipedia:Good articles/all. Could someone please work out where they should go and add them there? — Bilorv (talk) (c) (e) 10:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I gave an immediate failure to the article George Washington Truett. Aside from missing a number of GA-criteria, there was something extremely fishy about the editors in question and I deferred to my gut instinct to make this an immediate fail instead of wasting resources on a review that would have been extremely painstaking due to the volume of problems with the article. Anyway, I got a severe browbeating from BlueMoonset who took me to the woodshed over my decision to fail it immediately. In response, and against my better judgment, I invested significant time into a second review (including tracking down and uploading audio) only to see the nominating editor then immediately indeffed for sockpuppetry before they could begin to respond. While it's good to know my gut instinct is still working to A+ level, I'm disappointed at having spent all this time on the (second ... sigh) review. I was wondering if anyone would mind taking over this article so my (reluctant) work isn't wasted? Thanks. (Pinging Prhartcom and SilkTork in case they're available.) LavaBaron ( talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for a second opinion (or third, or fourth) at Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4. If you are willing to help, please do! Wugapodes ( talk) 02:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
There has long been a hidden comment requesting some sort of split of the animal section, but on what grounds? Taxonomic? Or could be extant/extinct? Also, just changed the subsection "animal genera" to taxa, as most were species. FunkMonk ( talk) 10:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
After searching through the various GA animal lists and filtering non-taxonomic articles, domestic breeds, and individuals, I get the following rough break down, sorted into fairly broad/recognizable groups (and found a couple articles not currently listed). All include extinct members, with the exception of Reptiles & Amphibians, but the Dinosaurs could be merged.
Do these seem like reasonable groups? I realize that Reptiles & amphibians is not a natural group, but is commonly used (just see any herpetology book). I'm fine with a single invertebrate group as well. I hesitate to make too many more categories, even in the larger categories like Fish and Mammals, to prevent too much splitting, there's nothing terribly wrong with large categories: we're just trying to showcase articles here, not teach a lesson in taxonomy. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I failed two articles on review by myself by one nominator due to no response in the seven day grace period and extremely low activity by the nominator in that time, only a few edits, and no acknowledgement indicated to me that the he needed extra time due to real life. I failed them this morning, on the seventh day, and the nominator has since proceeded to come online, see it failed, and made the improvements, and has asked me if they are now acceptable to pass. Am I allowed to remove the failed GA templates which have been processed by the bot and replaced them with passed GA templates, or does he have to re-nominate them and wait for them to be reviewed a second time? A speedy response on this would be great to get it sorted quickly. — Calvin999 16:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I just finished the editing process for the article Inna. I think it is now ready for the Good-article-status. Can anyone help me with this process (or stuff like this)? I'm not so long on Wikipedia. Thanks!
Cartoon network freak ( talk) 17:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It would appear that some of the "art" articles are in the "architecture" section. For example the National Police Memorial, The Dream (sculpture), World War I Memorial (East Providence, Rhode Island), Sir Bevil Grenville's Monument and Statue of James II, Trafalgar Square.-- TangoTizerWolfstone ( talk) 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jensen01hi ( talk) 13:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you please not let people just put what they want on here. Because kids could be researching for facts and people are putting fake things on here and make them get a bad grade from people putting fake stuff on here. For example that happened to me in 3rd and 4th grad
by
have a good evening
Free7272 ( talk) 20:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
195.195.223.50 ( talk) 11:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC) he also had great hair man
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello
Goodbye 82.8.133.78 ( talk) 19:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
117.200.88.85 ( talk) 10:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
117.214.44.105 ( talk) 11:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fernandaaass ( talk) 15:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Any objection to splitting the huge animal taxa section into say vertebrates & invertebrates? Or would there be a better way to split it more evenly? This is just the kind of mind numbing task I'd be into. delldot ∇. 03:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing proposal about the GAC here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposed_Amendments_to_GA_Criteria. TheMagikCow ( talk) 13:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Participants here often create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a content is neutral, determine if sources are reliable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture is approaching 400 articles now under "Architecture". Perhaps we could split a few ones like houses and hotels?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
This article was promoted yesterday and in all honesty I am concerned whether or not it should have been listed in the first place. For starters I am not sure if the article has gone through a thorough copyedit, and there are still "citation needed" and "clarification needed" tags. There are also several citations within the article tagged with "self-published source" and "dead link". Many seem to be unreliable too. This statement has been added to many references:
"This is a tertiary source that clearly includes information from other sources but does not name them."
I have noticed that some paragraphs are not even cited, and the user who nominated the article wasn't even a major contributor (infact I don't think they even made a single one until someone decided to review this). I think an urgent second review is needed. Burklemore1 ( talk) 07:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ladycools ( talk) 23:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change married to Tyler Diebel. 66.87.144.111 ( talk) 15:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I notice the Biology section has a lot of articles like Brain, Cervix, Pudendal nerve, etc. Would it make sense to add an anatomy section just for these? (It could be human and nonhuman anatomy). I would be happy to do the split. delldot ∇. 21:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure how this passed a GA review considering the disputes ongoing and grossly over sized article with dead links and dated statements. Do other think this should be reviewed? Talk:United States/GA2 is so small considering all the problems.-- Moxy ( talk) 14:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The article Flame & Citron passed the GA review on January 19, 2016 ( [9]) but until know the bot didn't add the GA icon. Is it a problem if I add on my own? Gabriel Yuji ( talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 07:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There are a mass of entries in English and Chinese Wikipedia that include out-of-date facts or references. And there are some existed software tools or algorithms relative to natural language pattern matching to solve this problem. We would like to measure the usefulness of these tools and algorithms and create a new bot to identify those information based on the result of measurement. During the work of measuring existed tools and testing the new bot, we will try to collect abundant Wikipedia entries and create some new cases. And the modular software can be used by Wikireview and other contributors of Wikipedia.
URL of detailed proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias
Please give us your advice in the discussion board of the proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias
Li Linxuan ( talk) 16:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no proof but TV images that this person walked on the Moon. This article must be considered incomplete and must have different sources to approve this fact. Madovsky ( talk) 17:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks, The Core Contest is on again, running from May 15 to June 30. Enter at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Cheers! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello. These two sports should be having separate listings under "Sport and recreation". I have completed a split in the article listings page but cannot access the index page where there is the "baseball and cricket" entry. The icon used in the article listing was a football, which is obviously in error, so I have inserted baseball and cricket ball icons in new listings. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 06:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I was not looking far enough and have found the right page now. The change has been made. You have incorrect icons for all sports and I will try to be rectifying this. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 06:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I see that within "Culture, sociology, and psychology" articles, the article Lesbian is listed under "ethnic groups". It should be moved somewhere else, perhaps to "Culture and cultural studies". Lesbians are not an ethnic group. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 07:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I can understand not allowing FAs to be classified as being of a certain level of quality according to random passers-by, but the GAN process is nowhere near strict enough to override all previous assessments of the articles' quality (it is essentially just the same thing -- a random Wikipedia editor decides, often based simply on the quality of the prose and how nice the article looks to promote it or not). We have articles that are immediately moved up from "Start" to "GA" based on this assessment process ( just one example), but the question rarely seems to be asked why the article was classified as "Start" before the GA review passed.
Given how often GA reviews pass without any serious, critical source checks, shouldn't we make some allowance for WikiProjects to maintain their original quality assessments and clarify that GA status is often just a matter of opinion and often based on nothing more than the appearance of quality?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Special:Diff/730185929-- OJJ ( talk) 14:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl added the article Sexual Preference (book) to the "Psychology and psychologists" section. Although the article could certainly be added there, a case could be made for adding it to the "Anthropology, anthropologists, sociology and sociologists" section instead. Of the book's three authors, one was a psychologist, while the other two are sociologists. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we should protect this page somewhat so people can't keep writing that they're a "censorship advocacy group". Could someone please do that? Tjdrum2000 ( talk) 13:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
MLP appears to be an independent risk factor for mortality in community acquire pneumonia and its addition may help improve commonly used prognostic indices in the future [citation: Gurdeep Singh Mannu, Yoon Kong Loke, James Peter Curtain, Kelum Nadeesha Pelpola, Phyo Kyaw Myint, Prognosis of multi-lobar pneumonia in community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis, European Journal of Internal Medicine, Volume 24, Issue 8, December 2013, Pages 857-863, ISSN 0953-6205, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2013.05.001.]
JSadari ( talk) 13:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Greninja123 ( talk) 21:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC) CREATE A GSCAM WIKAPEDIA
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
92.15.200.41 ( talk) 18:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Kevin Durant's height from 6'9 to 6'11. It was recently revealed in a interview that he is actually 6'11. 1moneyglass83 ( talk) 00:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
G'day all, I just promoted Sam Manekshaw on its third try, but the nom received a "failed" message, and the icon hasn't been added to the page. Did I screw something up? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
-- Redrose64 ( talk) 22:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The main page doesn't work in mobile view on the iPhone, not sure abouut other devices. It only shows the left half of the page in both portrait and landscape view and it doesn't zoom out. If you try to scroll over to see the rest, it swipes you to the next tab. I don't know anything about formatting for mobile, so hopefully someone who does will see this. —PermStrump (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
There are many articles in the "engineering technology" section that are neither items of technology nor a technological process. I think we need an "Engineering analysis" section, or something similar. Some of the articles that don't really fit with their current subsection, but could be described as analysis include; Foster's reactance theorem, Impedance analogy, Mechanical-electrical analogies, Mobility analogy, Negative resistance, Prototype filter, Reflections of signals on conducting lines, Topology (electrical circuits), Antimetric electrical network, Nominal impedance, Primary line constants. Spinning Spark 18:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. [3] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. [4] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested. |
We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:
If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. [5] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Additionally, the
WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the
journal's talk page, or the
general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I successfully nominated the article Electoral history of Ronald Reagan as a good article half a year ago, but it is not listed here. Why is that? Thank you. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think there's some mistake with Progressive pop being listed here under Wikipedia:Good articles/Music. It doesn't seem as though a GA review ever took place, but someone added the GA icon at the article on 8 November, based on the article's appearance in the list here, and the talk page was then changed accordingly. Or maybe I'm missing something? JG66 ( talk) 11:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I've asked at WP:VPT about the possibility of moving some of these old reviews to a /GA1 page through an automatic or semi-automatic process. We might be able to get this list down to numbers that can be gone through manually. If it proves to be possible, is there consensus to do this. Spinning Spark 08:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I recently nominated an article for GA status and put it under a certain topic, but on second thought I probably should have listed it under a different topic than what I did. Would it be OK for me to change the topic for the nomination? -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
For better organization of these lists, does anyone object to me breaking out topics which have over 100 links in them, if it makes sense to break them out? An obvious choice in the link I provided is breaking out the Olympics and Paralympics articles. I personally use these lists to try to find good articles that already exist on a topic I am reviewing or writing, and the easier I can find them the better.
Anyone object to me being bold and doing that? Any thoughts or suggestions on this topic? Kees08 ( talk) 18:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
An inexperienced editor just removed my Good Article nomination for Adele. Major contribution is not a criteria for good article nominations, but only for Featured ones. I am ready to make repairs and work on the article and will become a major contributor in the GA process. I wish that an admin stops him/her.-- Shane Cyrus (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I just promoted Russian military deception to GA. I'm unclear, however, where under Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare I should list it. It's a set of tactics underlying a strategy, so it doesn't seem to fit anywhere. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Biology and Behavior/Behavior": "A red panda Futa became a visitor attraction in Japan for his ability to stand upright for ten seconds at a time." should read "A red panda, Futa, became a visitor attraction in Japan for his ability to stand upright for ten seconds at a time." 99.39.112.29 ( talk) 04:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.
Please join and participate.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit requested: Add where the Congressman Barney Frank's archives are held.
Archives information: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, link http://www.lib.umassd.edu/archives/congressman-barney-frank-collection Lvandenberg ( talk) 13:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey,
WP:GACR says that a GA nomination will immediately fail if [i]t contains copyright infringements
and one of the sub-criteria under Criterion #2 is it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism
, which links to
Wikipedia:Copyrights. I have a question about unattributed copying within Wikipedia, which
is addressed on the linked page.
If material that was copy-pasted within Wikipedia, without attribution, makes up a significant portion of a GA nomination, does that count as a copyvio for GA purposes? What about if it was accidental and edit summaries can't be edited after the fact to give proper attribution?
Specifically, I am a little concerned about Talk:Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack)/GA1, which didn't apparently address copyright issues, but per this analysis appears to have largely been copy-pasted from the August 2016 edition of Music of Game of Thrones. The edit that moved the material out of the original article mentioned the target of the move in its edit summary, but the page history of the GA in question doesn't mention that the material was copy-pasted from there.
Cheers,
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here.
Should good article icons be added to 2016 Manzanita tornado and Debby Applegate? I've created talk page discussions for each in an attempt to confirm. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
My GA nomination of Revolver (Beatles album) was successful and the article was listed, yet I automatically received a notification that it had failed. I think the problem was because the GA1 fail, from years back, was still there at the top of the article talk page (since removed). I don't usually value accolades too highly, but this of all articles took a huge amount of work – and, well yes I would like the result recorded on my talk page. Is it possible to send a second (pass) notification, perhaps? Thanks, JG66 ( talk) 17:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The following redirects, Good article, Good Article, Good articles, and Good Articles, have been relisted into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 20#Redirects to Wikipedia:Good articles, where you are invited to discuss them. Thank you. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I think an experienced editor and reviewer should consider this review by someone who joined the site as recently as 16 July 2017 and has not exactly distinguished himself, especially when he places stuff like this on another user's talk page.
I will make no comment about the review here. I merely ask that someone who is fully conversant with WP:GAC decides if the review should stand or if the nomination should be restored. Thank you. Jack | talk page 11:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I think American football GAs should be divided and listed the same way as every other sport: a section that lists teams, events, venues etc, and a section that lists biographies. The current setup of "pro" and "college" is problematic due to the potential for overlap. Lizard ( talk) 11:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
How long does it usually take? It's not a major malfunction, but I don't think I've seen it take over 1.5 hours before. — fortuna velut luna 08:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone say, what should be the action taken by a reviewer when the nominator does not responds to the comments even after pinging the nominator personally? RRD ( talk) 12:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says the name of the band is polka tulk blues company, but only when I look it up on google KidFlersh ( talk) 20:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I've just nominated article Monterey Bay Aquarium under the Places category because, although it doesn't fit the description of Places, Tennessee Aquarium was recently promoted into the category. There seems to be a hole with some museums, because art and history museums can go in "Art and architecture" and "History", respectively, but should all zoological institutions go under Recreation's "Stadiums, zoos, public parks, and amusements"? Currently, this may only affect Edinburgh Zoo, Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park, Phoenix Zoo, Prospect Park Zoo (all under #Recreation), and Tennessee Aquarium. But if a natural science museum such as the National Museum of Natural History were to be promoted to GA status, which category would it belong in? (Apparently Rice Northwest Museum of Rocks and Minerals is under Earth sciences' "Geologists, geophysicists and mineralogists"…)
I think that zoological institutions should either be…
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Nickyjamelcangri40 ( talk) 06:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dreamswriter13 ( talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
genres:action, adventure, sci-fi,thriller
jack frost en frozen 2 si .
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
190.238.207.182 ( talk) 17:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is just a heads-up about a grammatical problem with the GA banner, which I've raised at the relevant template talk. In at least one instance, the template is producing the indefinite article "a" when it should be "an". I'd be grateful if anyone were minded to have a go at fixing it. Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the link on this page to Good Article log. The page that this link goes to has very little interest because it is not maintained (and seems to never have been complete, and seems to not have been maintained for several years). -- Ettrig ( talk) 16:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the standard for disambiguated titles to include the disambiguation in the visible part of the link, or not? I see both styles used in the list. E.g. should it be ''[[Yellow Submarine (album)|Yellow Submarine]]'' or [[Yellow Submarine (album)|''Yellow Submarine'' (album)]]? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've requested a second opinion on an GA review I was doing here: Talk:Armin_T._Wegner/GA1#Second_opinion_request. I wonder if an experienced volunteer could have a look and advise on the best course of action. Thank you. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset: Any chance can you through this piece of incomptence in the trash and put the GA back in its original place in the queue? Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 18:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey everyone, an editor has by mistake started the review for 1982 Formula One World Championship. Can someone reset this? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 11:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
1. Agriculture, food, and drink : Move Food and drink into 1 article
2. Engineering and technology : Move Transport into 1 article
3. Natural sciences : Divide into 4 articles: Biology and medicine · Chemistry and materials science · Earth sciences+Physics and astronomy
4. Social sciences and society : Divide into 6 articles: Culture, sociology, and psychology · Education · Economics and business · Law · Magazines and print journalism · Politics and government
2001:EE0:4141:268D:90C5:122C:7EF4:600F ( talk) 10:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Good articles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alysahk20 ( talk) 22:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I think Hiltler should be known as a jerk who killed Jews who deserved more in life!!!
Did Brian Kershisnik get missed with some update process? The review passed, but the WikiProject tags were not updated (I just did today), nor does it seem to have shown up on Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. Chris857 ( talk) 16:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Where should this article go in the list of good articles? He was an Australian notable for being accidentally/criminally stranded in the outback for 71 days. Serial Number 54129 thinks it could be categorized under explorers, but I'm not sure. Thanks in advance. Catrìona ( talk) 19:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)