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. |
Following this discussion on what to do when an article's GA status is brought into question at FAC, I have set up Category:Good articles in need of review to provide a mechanism for drawing GA editors' attention to problematic articles. The category is automatically listed by a bot, and changes can be watchlisted here. At the moment this list is transcluded onto the good article reassessment page.
To add an article, just place its talk page in the category. This feature is experimental, and comments and suggestions are most welcome. In particular, it is not intended as a substitute for community reassessment or GA Sweeps: it is preferable to open an individual reassessment or request a community reassessment rather than ask others to do it instead!
The intention is that GAs which are unsuccessful at FAC and have obvious weaknesses be added to the category for review by the GA process. However, it could also be useful for drawing attention to good article nominations which are passed without an adequate review. Geometry guy 11:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have delisted the following medical article as they were not broad enough in scope. I hope I have the syntax correct:
Do the number of good article automatically adjust themselves or is this something that must be done manually? -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wondering if this should be classified under organism rather than health and medicine? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
In section "History," subsection "War and Military," sub-subsection "Weapons and military equipment," I think there is a disproportinante number of ships in the section. May I suggest creating a "ships" sub-subsection in "War and Military?" - Ed! (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Featured_articles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Featured_articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Featured_articles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ruslik_ Zero 13:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that Zithan ( talk · contribs), sockpuppet of crat/admin/OS Nichalp ( talk · contribs) (now impeached by arbcom) nominated four articles that he wrote for business clients for GAN in return for money, and two passed. His most recent article is currently up at AFD as a whitewash/spam YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Marketing performance measurement and management is another article by Zithan ( talk · contribs). See Talk:Marketing performance measurement and management/GA1. It also had a peer review. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Marketing performance measurement and management/archive1.It seems to have an agenda in that it sources certain articles, but I am not qualified to evaluate this article. — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I just promoted this article and somehow the GA status does not show on the article page, can't see what I have done wrong? I have purged my browser several times. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where this should be listed; could a GA regular address this please? I'm not sure where on the transport section it belongs. Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Have just passed Mark Steel's in Town - a radio comedy series, but not drama. I placed it in the actors, performers category, but surely there should be a radio category, also comedy? Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The GA Sweeps process is continuing to move at a good pace, as June's total of swept articles reached 290! We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. If everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when it was first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. I am again inviting any experienced GAN/GAR reviewers to consider reviewing some articles. If you're interested please read the instructions here. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia.Could editors of wikipedia please do something about that embarrassing feel-good article about the Eastern European Dictator (Joseph Broz-the former Yugoslavia). He is portrayed as some sort of pop star and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. This article is embarrassing considering he was responsible for war crimes,mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this? Sir Floyd ( talk) 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I just tested whether LivingBot would add a new WP:GA to Wikipedia:Good articles/recent if I did not ensure it was added myself. It seems that the bot is not working properly as it did not add Aces and eights (blackjack).-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it because of sweeps? It looks like we added about 135 articles this month, which is the least since Nov 2007, not counting the last two months which are even lower. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 11:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Sweeps' effect on GA growth is twofold: 1.) Some of the most prolific GA reviewers have been deeply involved in sweeps lately, which takes effort away from reviewing new GANs. 2.) Since May, the sweeps effort has really picked up pace (though it's slowing off again now). With 2-400 articles reviewed a month, and some 33-50% of these delisted, this is naturally going to affect the net growth of the number of GAs. This means that under normal circumstances, you could probably add some 1-200 articles to the monthly growth, so the number isn't really all that depressing.
Still, the backlog is getting serious now, and might be staring to have a demoralising effect on editors. A backlog drive would be helpful, but there is little point in doing this before the sweeps effort is done. The good news is that there are only some 450 articles left to review, of the original 2,800 (there were almost 1,500 in April). With some help from experienced reviewers, and a final push, we could probably get this done in one or two months. Lampman ( talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps has over 400 articles left to review. If you have not contributed to Sweeps yet, now is your chance to help review the remaining articles so that existing Sweeps reviewers can return to fully focus on GAN (instead of splitting between the two as some reviewers have done). Choose whichever articles you are interested in as there are articles available on a variety of topics and of varying lengths. Awards are available at the conclusion of the drive for excellent reviews. If you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I just passed this article, which was nominated under the "sports and recreation" subheading. There doesn't seem to be a heading appropriate to it on this page under "everyday life." Should it go under "Arts" and "architecture?" Alex finds herself awake at night ( Talk · What keeps her up) 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I just passed Aki Toyosaki. Does it belong under "Performers, groups, composers and other music people" or under "Actors, models, performers and celebrities"? Good raise 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know why originally the GAs were mostly transportation articles? [1] Just curious. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I've written an essay on how to handle deletion discussions of good and featured articles. Your input and edits are welcome. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
(1) Khoo Kheng-Hor -- Article was listed as a GA in August 2008, but the article itself appears to be completely orphaned. Is this a problem with regard to it's GA status?
(2) William Monahan -- Article was listed as a GA in March 2007, and has since been promoted and demoted from FA status. Is the original GA listing still valid, or should the project assessments be changed to B-Class? PC78 ( talk) 16:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Following on from that, I'll ask a third question that I didn't think needed a new section.
(3) Does the fact that the subject of an article is about an ongoing event preclude it from becoming a good article? There's no edit war or content dispute in the article I'm considering nominating, it's just that new content will (uncontroversially) be added as 2009 and 2010 progress. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife ( talk) 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
At what point does a new subsection for GA's emerge? WP:CYCLING now has ten Good Articles, up from the four it had for the first three or so years of its existence. This is comparable to other subsections in the "Everyday life" category, and quite a bit more than "Sports mascots and supporters" and "Poker." So can we have "Cycling" as a separate subsection? They're only "Miscellaneous sport" right now because there isn't a cycling section. Alex finds herself awake at night ( Talk · What keeps her up) 06:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The article for comic-book and comic-strip artist Al Williamson just achieved Good Article status. What is the protocol for adding it to the page, and to the "Recently added" list? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Nasty case here. A GA nom. has been approved by an account that turns out to be a sock of a banned user. By rights, the nom. should be redone IMHO. The sock didn't give any feedback anyway at Talk:Rex Shelley/GA1. The last time I nominated a GA, I got grilled like crazy so a one-line pass seems inappropriate. Thoughts? Wknight94 talk 22:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
--
Caspian blue 17:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the idea of putting an icon on a page (similar to the FA icon) to mark it as a good article has been discussed in here before. But I had this thought that it would be a nice addition to give those pages a small merit badge. I.e. a circular icon with a symbol representing the broad category. Thus you could have, say, the common atom symbol with three twirling electrons for chemistry. (Although the icon would be small, so maybe a flask would work better?) That can then be linked back to the GA page. It would provide an indicator that the page has achieved some level of recognition for its quality, as well possibly encourage more GA volunteers. What do you think?— RJH ( talk) 21:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Be aware that there have apparently been several discussions about this, one of which is here. I started to wade into this one time as well, but backed off after seeing the massive discussion. Proceed with caution. Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 21:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a question at WP:VPP that it would be good if someone involved here would weigh in on. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Can a delisted featured article still be a good article?.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 05:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues
This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.
On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I just found an article, Wallachia, where the article had been downgraded to B-class on its talk page in October 2007 but not at wp:GA, is there any automated way of reconciling the wp:Good Articles list to talk page project designations? Tom B ( talk) 20:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I just passed the article Sociology as GA. When I came to update WP:Good articles, I found no section to correspond with the Sociology section of WP:GAN so I was bold and added one. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. When Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added this category to the military history section to accommodate the Red Tail Project which I've just promoted.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Whenever a good article is approved for listing, it will now be posted on Twitter by @wikiarticles. @ harej 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Last time I passed a GA, I had to go and change the count manually. I can't see the instruction telling me to do so any more. Is this all done automatically now?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you guys have to be sick of seeing these updates by now. Again, when Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Lech Wałęsa was recently listed as GA. However, it doesn't seem to meet GA criteria and the nomination process also seems dubious. The article is poorly written with obvious typos, so it hasn't been even copy-edited; the coverage is scant for a bio of a person of this importance, lots of trivia instead; also POV issues (eg., "exemplified by his disastrous performance in the pre-election television debate, where he came off as incoherent and rude"). The article doesn't seem to have ever been listed on
WP:GAN and there was no real review either. Reviewer's only comment was, "This article is verifiable, well written, neutral, etc. I'm passing it as a GA." Apparently, the nomination was sent to the reviewer by email by a blocked editor who worked around the ban by writing the article on his userpage in Polish Wikipedia and
having someone copy-paste it to English Wikipedia. I'm not sure what to do with this case. —
Kpalion
(talk) 19:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm planning on eventually merging Tropical Depression Seven (2002) to another article with the consent of its author, but since it's a GA, I'm wondering how to delist it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this question is answered somewhere in the archives, but I don't really have time to look so I'm just going to ask the question. Why isn't the good article symbol displayed in the upper right corner of a good article the same way as the featured article star is displayed in the upper right corner of a featured article? Rreagan007 ( talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Now the sweeps are done, I was thinking this might be a good time to restart discussions on a little symbol on the article page. I am getting keener on this idea of showing the readership at large that these articles have been vetted. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Before embarking on such a discussion I think there are a few things we could do to make sure our own house is in order:
I vote for GA symbols on GA-awarded pages and GA articles on the mainspace. It's time to get symbols on the GA articles and to give them a mention somewhere on the mainspace. They've been vetted, they're ready for the limelight, and any attempt to draw attention to them can only be a good thing. Their quality is frequently fantastic. The silver star and gold star scheme (per Whitehourse above) sounds like a good idea too. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of something different to a star - one of the wikiprojects has what looks like a green seal with a stamped '+' on it, which I think is nice and low-key yet marks the article as having been, like, 'stamped' for approval and ready to 'go' (hence green). Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
Classicon|GA}}
to display it as Jezza shows; perhaps less obvious to newbies though. –
Whitehorse1 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Is everyone happy with starting an RfC then? Jhbuk ( talk) 18:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Browsing the list, I noticed that castles (ie. medieval military structures) are variously categorised: many (most?) under arts as "architecture"; some under history as "archeology", and a good number under war & military as "Weapons, military equipment and buildings". It would be more sensible to list these together in one place (or at least, encourage it). But which? Gwinva ( talk) 03:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal to promote wp:quote.
I do not know why candidates was notified, but they were so you should be notified as well. 174.3.107.176 ( talk) 10:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There a lot of FA/GAs around, and many of these can be used on the main page on selected anniversaries. Many FA/GAs can be, but at the moment, SA is not well-known and has no selection process; unlike DYK and ITN, you can just turn up and serve yourself. This is leading to lots of unsourced, messed-up articles getting on the main page. One admin Ragib ( talk · contribs) has been reverting an article he contributed to, Operation Searchlight, which has lots of references of officers involved in the war/battle, citing WP:OTHERCRAP. Anyone with a FA or GA with a relevant date, you can get yourself 5000 hits for the day, and the article can go on there each year, unlike TFA and DYK, and raise the standard of material on the front page as well to make Wikipedia less of a joke, there are many unused articles that are far better than unsourced and unvetted and self-addable start class articles going around on the front page YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
We may need to create Winter Sports (non ice hockey) subsection in the Sports and Recreation article. I see at least four names that could qualify. Apollo Ohno, Kimmie Meisner, Magdalena Neuner, and the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2009. Thoughts on this? Chris ( talk) 23:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've used AWB to generate a list of articles that are in Category:Wikipedia good articles but not on this page. Most if not all of them are simply not listed on WP:GA when they should be. I don't have time to add all these to the page myself so it'd be good if others could help me. Just click the show below, and I'd suggest we can work together, crossing them out as you go :) rst20xx ( talk) 04:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Unlisted GAs:
Whisky drinker | Talk to HJ 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
it would be appreciated if anybody could list it or has any ideas! Whisky drinker | Talk to HJ 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There are more:
Gimmetrow 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I just found that Kimberella was listed under two sections on this page. Perhaps someone can check whether there are more articles for which this is the case? Ucucha 20:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Does the existence of dead links within a Good article subject that article to delisting? I recently noticed that a Good article was delisted months ago because the reviewer noted that the article contained dead links within the article's references (7 links within 116 references). I was a bit surprised by this delisting, as online sourcing has never been a requirement, and wondered if this has changed. Do GA regulars agree that an article should not remain a GA if links rot? For the record, I am not a contributor to the article in question and have not contacted the reviewer; the overall situation is what interests me, not the specific one. -- auburnpilot talk 01:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. As people here tend to have an interest in the MoS, there's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a streamlining project. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch ( W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have made a proposal at WT:ASSESS that is somewhat related to the issue of the FA star (and the desire for a GA icon). It looks at a broader issue by focusing more on helping readers understand our assessment system, rather than just focusing on recognizing quality content. Feedback, positive or negative, is strongly encouraged. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached to use the template:
Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles, in the same manner of placement used as {{ featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work! :) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I realised that a bot is needed to upkeep the job of adding and removing {{good article}} to good articles, and in the latter case, former good articles. I've been doing a lot of work regarding this point, but there are thousands of GAs. Thanks Sp33dyphil ( Talk) ( Contributions) 07:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does the green icon [3] appear on SOME good articles and not others? It would make more sense if there was a bot or something that gave {{good article}} to every good article. InMooseWeTrust ( talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Risker has blocked User:Xtzou (a GA reviewer) as a sock of a blocked account. This is a problem for me as Xtzou was my GA Reviewer. Since he has been blocked as a sock, does that void my GA article's review? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
When a GA is nominated in the Miscellaneous category, the GA template places the article in this Category:GAN error category.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see the peer review here and the talk page itself. May be I am missing something, but this article is designated as "GA". Why does this bot here keeps removing it from the list? Thanks for any explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.236.229 ( talk) 03:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The "Astronomical observation and space exploration" and "Astronomy and astrophysics" categories have a significant overlap, and there is not category to accurately accommodate non-exploratory spaceflight, such as communications satellites, technology and microgravity research spacecraft, etc. There is also no category to accommodate rockets, and the (currently) single example of this is listed under "Air transport", which is far from ideal. I would therefore like to propose that the "Astronomical observation and space exploration" category be renamed "Rocketry and spaceflight", and cover all rockets spacecraft and spaceflights, with the astronomical observation part of the category being merged into the "Astronomy and astrophysics" category. I feel this would deal with the overlap, and provide more accurate descriptions for rockets and spacecraft. -- G W … 17:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Should the GA subcategory "Astronomical observation and space exploration" be split into a new subcategory for "Rocketry and spaceflight" and the existing "Astronomy and astrophysics" subcategory? And should this be listed under science or under engineering. -- G W … 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
"Harder to Breathe" is currently listed in the Albums section, when I believe it should be in the Songs section. I did not want to make the change myself in case there was a particular reason for its location. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I made an individual reassessment which is being opposed by a number of editors: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/The_Real_Global_Warming_Disaster/1. Should we default to removal from the GA list since my points listed at Talk:The_Real_Global_Warming_Disaster/GA3 are not being dealt with? ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There are currently a few extremely large third-level categories on this page (up to 467 [Road infrastructure] and 390 [Organisms]). I would like those to be split, as such large groups don't fulfill the purpose of the subcategorization, which is to make it easy to find related GAs. Are there any reasons not to split those? I think "Organisms" can be split into animals, fungi, plants, and others; the roads can perhaps be split by country, but someone more familiar with the subject may have better ideas. Ucucha 16:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
These are the other categories with more than 200 articles. I've listed some ideas for splits; feel free to add more.
There are only a few obvious subdivisions there; I think subdivisions by genre may be subjective and subdivisions by time period are bound to be arbitrary. On the other hand, there may be some small categories we can get rid of. For example, under "Biology and medicine", I don't see why "Books" and "Evolution and reproduction" need to be separate from "Biology" (nor, for that matter, why evolution and reproduction should necessarily go together). Ucucha 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I split "Road infrastructure" into 6 categories. They are Other (25), United States (3), Northeastern United States (271), Southern United States (36), Midwestern United States (63) and (Western United States (71). The Northeastern United States probably could stand a further subdivision. The next Census level divisions would be Mid-Atlantic states vs. New England states, but the bulk of that section is New York and New Jersey. Thoughts? Feel free to change the section titles, but the 3 "United States" cross the existing regional boundaries. Imzadi 1979 → 05:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Good_articles#Geography_and_places we currently have both an Asia subsection as well as a Middle East one (which has one entry). A number of Israel places are in the Asia one. Is it worth just having them all in one category, namely Asia? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
An article was marked GA by an accident - two years ago, I just reverted it: [5] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Good articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Some subsections, especially in the arts section have become really long. I propose splitting those in: "pre-2000" and "post-2000". Something similar could be done with the games section. The animals section seems to have a similar problem, so it could be split into "living" and "extinct". Any thoughts? Nergaal ( talk) 03:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The page Wikipedia:Good articles is 436 kilobytes large. This is quite unacceptable, especially as it's the main entry page for Good Articles. The list of GAs needs to be separated out, preferably with each of the main sections (Arts, Language and literature, etc) on its own subpage. Those subpages can then be transcluded onto the main list, so that the entire list can be viewed in one go for those as wants. But that list should not be transcluded onto the main GA page - it's much too big. Having had no prior involvement here I'm not going to be so Bold as to go ahead and do it, but it really needs to happen, ASAP. User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage can be used to link one or more random GAs on the main GA page on a rotating daily basis, if that floats anyone's boat (see here for an unrelated but similar use). Rd232 talk 10:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This was done a bit hasty in my opinion. I am fine with subpages, but but 10 subpages is a bit much.
I think the split was a bit overzealous, and I propose that instead have 4? subpages?
The supages would still keep the current major sections. Anyone pro or against? Nergaal ( talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The reason there's 10 subpages is that there were 10 categories, which kept the conversion simple. With the exception of Maths, the resulting pages seem fine to me, and 1 small subpage isn't a big problem. Rd232 talk 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Was anyone planning to notify me? This obviously breaks the script that updated WP:GA. There is no chance the script will be updated for end-of-month stats, and unless the pass rate drops dramatically, little chance it will be updated before the 10k GA milestone. The GA count was noted in edit summaries on WP:GA. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think that would work now, because WP:GA won't be edited much. Gimmetoo ( talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, so where's the bot code? (Seems to be non-public.) I'm surprised that bot operator (and coder?) Gimmetrow/Gimmetoo seems to think it's a big deal to update the code. On the face of it, whatever the bot was doing on 1 page just needs duplicating to each of the 10 subpages:
It sounds so easy I might even be willing to attempt it myself, despite never having coded a bot. What am I missing? Rd232 talk 10:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
For anyone interested or wanting to write a signpost article, first listing following [8] was [9]. Gimmetoo ( talk) 22:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
... for the new GA sustainability? Any ideas? Sasata ( talk) 15:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
South Park and Futurama are listed twice in Arts: under "Animation" and "Television and drama". Is this allowed? If not, what should be their proper categories? Jappalang ( talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Gimmetoo ( talk) 01:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss, at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposed_change_to_GAN_instructions_.3D_all_nominators_must_review. -- Cirt ( talk) 13:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like Gimmebot tots up the number of GAs in each sub-section, but doesn't produce an overall number. Could that be added to the list at WP:Good articles/Summary, so that what now says:
List of good articles, arranged by subject |
would then say:
List of good articles, arranged by subject |
Or perhaps, we should expand the summary box to include the major subcategories, like this:
List of good articles, arranged by subject
|
I think the expanded version might give readers a better idea of what they could expect to find in each category, and seeing how many articles are listed might encourage them to click the links.
What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the other approach that I considered was this:
Set in the same size columns, that would be the most compact option. But the table cell is centered, and I couldn't easily think of a way to get the head centered and the bullet list left justified in the same cell. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion ongoing (prompted by concerns over DYK copyvio) to include some recently promoted GAs to the DYK updates. The discussion has been going on both at the DYK talk page (where consensus is currently being assessed) and, previously, at the administrators' noticeboard. The proposal is getting quite a lot of support. I think this would be a wonderful opportunity to draw attention to the newly promoted GAs, and to the GA project in general. Perhaps we should prepare for the eventuality, maybe by making some mock-up hooks to show what it would look like? Lampman ( talk) 13:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have just listed Grammy Award for Best Disco Recording as a GA. However I couldn't find a suitable sub-topic for it (under 'Music'), so I created an 'Awards' one. Feel free to change this any way if you feel that it is wrong. Thanks, Adabow ( talk · contribs) 05:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The long-running discussion about including newly promoted good articles at WP:DYK has spawned yet another proposal that folk knowledgable about the GA process may want to take a look at. Several issues have arisen, including whether recent good articles are the type of new content that it's appropriate to showcase at DYK, whether the GA review process will save time by avoiding duplicaiton of DYK review, and if the two processes can be integrated somehow (e.g. a successful GA review leading to a suggested "hook" for DYK reviewers to look at). I haven't been an active GA reviewer for a while now, and I suspect input from someone who would understand if/how the GA review system would match (or could be changed to match) the needs of DYK would be helpful. TheGrappler ( talk) 02:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have a rule that a reviewer cannot review more than 5 articles from any given nominator. There are a few cases where pairings are developing and editors A and B are reviewing too many of each other's articles. This results in a less rigorous review, and the potential for a drifting away from community-wide standards. Ideally, a nominator would receive input from a different reviewer on each GA nomination. Racepacket ( talk) 17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear editors,
Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters ( check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.
Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.
For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The History section has two large 350+ article subsections in the "War and Military" tab ("Conflicts, battles and military exercises" and "Warships") to me the two sections are so large they are virtually unreadable. If no one objects, I'm going to split these sections into two smaller sections each. I planned to split "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" into "(before 1850)" and "(1850 to present)" sections, and "Warships" into a "Warships (Submarines)" and "Warships (Surface vessels)" section. Does anyone object? — Ed! (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks, I am seeking the number of Good Articles as of June 30, 2009 and as of June 30, 2010. But that number is apparently computed based on category membership: Template:GA number rather than updated by bot or manually. So I don't know any way to get these numbers. Any suggestions? Has this come up before? Thanks for any help, - Pete ( talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I have de-listed Insurgency in Ogaden without a GAR. The article contains copyright violations from start to finish and has had to be blanked. The violations were not picked up in the drive-by review that passed the article as a GA. -- MkativerataCCI ( talk) 19:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (embedded lists) in which editors assert (without, NB, examples or evidence) that GA reviewers are inappropriately insisting on the conversion of embedded lists into prose. They propose that the MoS guideline be changed to explicitly exempt their preferred types of lists.
I think it would be useful to have some experienced GA reviewers involved in this discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_function_for_GA_bot.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The Grayrigg derailment is listed twice: once under "Engineering failures and disasters" and once under "Rail transport". -- Eisfbnore talk 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
How can this article be reviewed for A-class status? (In contrast, the GA-status and FA-status procedures are well-documented.) Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 13:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Should tunnels be moved from "Rail transport" to "Rail bridges and stations"? It seems kind of intuitive to me to group tunnels and bridges, and if you're going to lump stations and bridges together, you might as well.
--
Gyrobo (
talk) 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
British Pakistanis has just been promoted to GA status without a review page being created. According to the editor who promoted the article, the review is implicit in the decision (see here). Is it correct that this is allowed? I've never come across this situation before. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You know, I haven't reviewed a good article for many moons. If this is the average treatment afforded to a reviewer, I won't be back. AGK [ • 13:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
GA processes have changed considerably since the project began. In the early days it was common for an article to be listed without a review, or even a nomination. Reviewers returning to the process after many years may be unfamiliar with the changes and may legitimately question them.
In broad terms, changes have been made not to raise the GA standard (the GA criteria are much the same as ever) nor to add process wonkery as a barrier to listing articles; they have been made to provide greater reliability and accountability, so that for every article listed as a GA it is easy to find out who listed it when, and any comments they made on the quality of the article.
So the answer to the question is yes, review pages are required for every GAN review. What goes on the review page is a matter for the reviewer: GA checklists are not required, and can be (as noted above) pointless. Reviewers should be guided by what will be most useful for editors revisiting the review page in the future. Even when passing an article which meets all the GA criteria, it is perfectly possible to leave a short and helpful review, such as:
When failing a nomination, it is more important to leave comments, so that article editors know why the article was failed and have specific things they can work on to improve the article. I hope that helps to explain — Geometry guy 15:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that, after a read through the article, I've requested that it be reassessed. Cordless Larry ( talk) 00:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to let the community know... due to unforeseen circumstances I will be unable to complete (or even properly start the review...)! Will someone please take over? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#On_citing_every_sentence I make a claim that modern day GAs require that all sentences (barring obvious case) require an inline citation. Some editors disagree. Perhaps some GA reviewers would like to chip in there? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Not familiar with the good article process but it seems strange that an article 1973 DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Learjet 24 crash was promoted while it has a proposed deletion tag on it. The proposed deletion was about the notability of the article put it appears this is not a criteria in the good article process. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Ankit Maity has signed up at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011 and Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress#Meta and is "actively" (most probably not the right word) carrying out GAN reviews. One was Talk:Kepler-9c/GA1, which he failed: the original nominator re-nominated it without comment at GAN and I "passed" it at Talk:Kepler-9c/GA2; another was Talk:SA-500D/GA1 which was "passed". I had intended to do a personal WP:GAR, but the original nominator submitted to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SA-500D/1 on the basis of an inadequate review before I got there. At certain stages at least two of the review pages were listed as GANs (for example, see [10]). A third review, Talk:Perl/GA2, is well on its way into bringing GAN into disrepute: I though it was going well, but I've seriously changed my mind. Finally, I see ( User talk:Ankit Maity#GA reviews) that HJ Mitchell has reverted more inadequate reviews. Can we dissuade this user from reviewing? Pyrotec ( talk) 20:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just easing back in to do some editing after a fairly long break, and someone (after making a rather 'knee-jerk' revert to me in a very minor article) tells me that GA's do not need refs in their intro's - and thus doesn't do the hunting work to go and source-check the reasons for my edit. The text I removed went way beyond the orignal source's meaning, which I find to be totally unsurprising given that no reference - whether from within the article or new - were required to be given. The sources I found after looking turned out to be pretty weak ones too.
Obviously, the massive problem here is that GA's (supposing they are good enough at ref-level at Review anyway) can change in size considerably over time. For someone with an actual work ethic to go and source-check the new stuff added to an introduction - which let's be honest is the classic place people add junk - will involve trawling the article looking to see where it was 'adapted' from, supposing of course it is even covered in the article in the first place.
What is going on? It seems I've returned to find the place even more hard work than it was before! I can't see anything positive here, only negatives. Cite-less introductions do not look at all like what I always understood a 'Wikipedia article' to be - ie a source-based resource, and not an originally written one. Ref-less intro's look like they were written from scratch, and in many cases now of course they will be. Matt Lewis ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 02:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
GA criteria 6(a) requires each image used in the article to be "tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content." I have been nominating and reviewing articles with the assumption that is our only GA concern — if they are clear of copyright concerns they pass 6(a). Another reviewer is arguing that Wikipedia:Image use policy should also be enforced and any image which does not have complete information on its image page should be removed from the article. This is particularly difficult with images that were uploaded years ago by editors who are no longer active. How should the GA review handle an image has a valid copyright template or fair use rationale, but is less than complete on the other details, such as the date and location of a photo? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 11:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There are more Credo accounts available, and we've been asked to draw up a list of names and criteria to make sure the accounts go to content contributors. I've opened a discussion about parameters here, which I'm hoping won't get too bogged down. Any input about whether these are reasonable would be appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking of splitting "Chemicals and elements" and "Stars, galaxies and extrasolar objects". Any thoughts? Nergaal ( talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page also include who decides what becomes a GA and who decides which GAs get delisted? Anytime I see articles being delisted, I see one individual's name, stating his disapproval, which makes it look like the delisting process is an individual's decision. I think this article could be much improved by addressing this question. Thank you-- Tallard ( talk) 17:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Please forgive the spam (I'm also posting about this to WT:DYK and WP:FA), but there's a new tool that I think reviewers may find useful in helping determine if copyright issues exist in articles: Duplication Detector. It compares an article with another page, including PDFs. It has little bells and whistles, such as permitting you to omit quotations or eliminate numbers. And it lists its output by priority. Mind you, it can't catch some close paraphrasing, since it relies on strings of duplicated text and the default setting of 2 words in tandem will generally need to be adjusted (I myself use 4 or 5, depending). Too, it can't eliminate uncreative content, such as job titles. Human evaluation is still need there.
There is also a template that goes with it, {{
dupdet}}, if you'd like to link to its findings. For an example of this in action on a real issue, {{dupdet|Andrei Silard|http://arh.pub.ro/mcristea/Silardcv.htm}}
produces {{
dupdet|Andrei Silard|
http://arh.pub.ro/mcristea/Silardcv.htm}}
. This example is not likely to be with us long (unless permission is provided). :) --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Is that in the intro really useful? (WP:GA" redirects here. For the country of Georgia WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country). For the U.S. state of Georgia WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state).) -- Catalaalatac ( talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Having contributed to something like 20 GA, I have a little experience with the reviewing process. Till now, all my experiences were quite positive. Recently, however, I've had a rather confusing and not very helpful experience: Talk:Karl Marx/GA1. First, the review was speedied ( [12]). I was surprised by the brievity of this review, on an article that is rather complex (compare to Talk:Max Weber/GA1). Next, another editor reverted the reviewer classification of the article as the GA ( [13]). A short discussion occurred at Talk:Karl Marx/GA1, which, frankly, still perplexes me (what "fact"s...?!). I asked the reviewer about what's going on, he posted in the discussion "Is this on hold or something?" (not a question that one would expect from the reviewer, who should be in control of the review...). No reply was given to him, and three days later, the reviewer decided to overturn his original speedy pass with a speedy fail ( [14]). To my question about why was it failed (I was waiting all the time for constructive criticism that I could address...) I got another enigmatic reply from the reviewer, "All the above". This would almost be hilarious, if this was some kind of comedy. I've cursorily reviewed several other reviews by Rcsprinter123 ( talk · contribs) and while also short, there was at least some meaningful discussion, so I am assuming that he just had a bad day (or series of days) as far as the Karl Marx review is concerned. As it is, I am very disappointed with a review and I'd ask for some serious reviewer to revisit this article, hopefully reopening the review and providing a proper commentary. Please note I am not disappointed because the review was failed, I am disappointed because the review was not helpful (not in its initial speedy pass, not in the (lack of) input that followed, nor in the final speedy fail). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Age limits aren't really going to work. What about stipulating that a GA pass/fail needs 2 reviewers, unless the nominator agrees with the assessment? Rd232 talk 03:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The picture of the revelation should be removed because it shows Muhammad (PHUB). This is extremely offensive to Muslims.
94.193.153.50 ( talk) 11:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Not done Wikipedia is not censored, and no person or group has the right to dictate that certain content cannot be included because they don't like it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the criteria for getting recognition for having made a significant contribution to a Good article? AshLin ( talk) 02:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}}
Reference [88] is no longer valid. Please remove the information
71.236.110.5 (
talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Is it possible this reviewer was a little hasty in passing the article for GA Talk:Portal_2#GA_Review? Can someone give it a quick look please to see if everything was a clear cut as the reviewer stated.
I appreciate that the reviewer is not a novice Wikieditor but it seems that there were no issues raised, even though I have noted a few on the talk page from the copyedit request that may have caused concern to a more experienced GA reviewer.
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 19:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
What happened with Slender smooth hound to produce a redlink here?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Request_for_reviewers_for_educational_assignments_GANs. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Would somebuddy please tell this bot to stop making edits like this? Ø and Å are separate characters with their own right in the Norwegian alphabet and are not diacritical versions of O and A. See User talk:Gyrobo/Archive 4#Alphabetical order for more information. -- Eisfbnore talk 20:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations, under 300 at last. We should now be aiming for at least 1in 100.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to bring space debris to FA. However, the comments so far have always started off non-specific, "it's good, but not FA". I have been chided for bringing the article to FA without having these problems fixed first, and that I should do GA and PR before going to FA, so as not to waste their time. This suggestion (made twice now by different people) suggests that GA nomination can be used as an improvement process (as opposed to FA). Is this the case? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at DYK talk about whether GAs should be represented in DYKs on the main page. Your views, whether for or against, would be welcome. Tony (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
A lively discussion is occurring at DYK talk on the challenges of auditing for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. This involves all quality assurance processes at WP. Tony (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Where are GA reviews archived? I would like to review the one that was done for a specific article, but there is no link to it from the article talk page. How do I find it? Thanks in advance. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It worked yesterday. I was so excited to find it, I bookmarked it. Lo and behold, it's broken today. And it's not that I improperly bookmarked it, either. I followed the link from the good articles page and still got 404'd.
Can Wikipedia actually code a random good or featured article function into the site? It'd be so nice to stumble onto interesting, well-written articles rather than stubs about Soviet townships and subspecies of finches — no offense to those users who find these topics interesting. -- StringRay ( talk) 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC) i love you you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.139.36 ( talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
May I inquire into which category of article one would place biographies of people. I am presently interested in the article on Osama bin Laden, and don't understand where it might fit in after some editing has been done. Carmaskid ( talk) 04:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the beginning of the 2nd para, the word 'presently' is unnecessary:
"Currently, of the 3,783,815 Wikipedia articles, presently 13,113 are categorized as good articles"
62.31.182.95 ( talk) 22:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't IC in a Sunflower be in the "Visual novels, cartoons and manga" and not just the "Works" section? I have no idea how to change that... Bobnorwal ( talk) 15:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Wikipedia’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf
Concludes with a fair bit of evidence that good articles is not doing a very good job of improving articles wikipedians have decided are important or those that people actually read.© Geni 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have been adding some new articles recently and I find the over abundance of most of these categories to be a little annoying. Is there a way we can split some of these up into smaller sub categories? My suggestions:
Ideas? Suggestions? -- Tea with toast (話) 02:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
tao li is wrongly listed as li, tao. for chinese, surnames come first. her surname is tao, not li.
security and intelligence division, is it a ga or not??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.13 ( talk) 04:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Are IP editors allowed to work on and submit good articles? -- 74.110.23.234 ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
At the end of November I listed about 30 articles that were not on any of the WP:GA pages. At the end of this month, there were nearly 50. I listed about half, and have created WP:GA/U for the other unsorted articles. Please take care of them. Reviewers need to finish the listing process. If an article is not listed on the various GA pages, then the listing process is not complete, and it doesn't get included in the count for WP:GA/S. Gimmetoo ( talk) 04:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm part of the X-Files Project, and there are several X-Files episodes in the queue waiting to be reviewed. If I haven't contributed to a certain episode, per the rationale to be a view (but I'm still a member of the project) can I still review it, or is this a conflict of interest?-- Gen. Quon ( talk) 14:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking about creating a subcategory for Family Guy (~90 GA's) and South Park (~30 GA's). What do you guys think? -- Maitch ( talk) 10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Could we change "Doctor Who" to "Doctor Who universe" which would incorporate Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures? I think there's only 4 GAs ( Day One (Torchwood), Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (Torchwood), Cyberwoman, and Invasion of the Bane), but at least they'll all be in one place. Glimmer721 talk 23:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Why are video games listed under "Everyday life" rather than "Arts"? unless ( talk) 19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps categorizing the albums (as done for the singles) by the year they were released? Till I Go Home ( talk) 10:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
May an article pass as a GA without images? See Commons, about which I see:
Wikipedia:Good articles/History is a huge 126KB page which is hard to sort through, thanks much in part to the 1,800+ Military History articles which are arranged in 300, 400 and 500-article lists which desperately need to be subdivided. The Warships subsection alone is larger than all of the Philosophy and religion and Mathematics pages combined. I'd like to suggest we give MILHIST a separate page of its own so its articles can be better subdivided. Thoughts? — Ed! (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the topic listed for the GA banners on some talk pages of GA articles are inaccurate and point to the wrong page in the list--especially since "Theatre, film and drama" split from "Arts". Is it possible that a bot could correct this? Glimmer721 talk 19:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a reminder that 1000 free accounts are available from the internet research database HighBeam Research. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Here's the link to the project page: WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Sign-up! And, please tell your Wikipedia-friends about the opportunity! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have had a few articles passed for GA. So today I decided to do a GA review. I read the article carefully, made lots of notes and felt that I was well up to getting the process under way. I clicked on "follow this link", read the resulting text several times, and eventually gave up as I didn't have a clue about how to proceed. No wonder there's a backlog. Can anyone point me to a step-by-step guide. Tigerboy1966 16:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I've worked on most of Rihanna's articles, and I've noticed that non-single and 2010 singles releases from Loud (Rihanna album) are listed in 2010, but singles from the album released in 2011 are in the 2011 section. Shouldn't they all be in 2010 as they were recorded in 2010 and the album was released in 2010? Aaron • You Da One 10:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the Angel Bakeries recently passed GA and the bot updated its status on the talk page. What about the GA icon on the page itself? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
There are several articles about X-Files episodes in the backlog and the one I've scanned is quite short, amounting to some 17k only. The GA guidelines say the concept was introduced to cater for short articles which presumably cannot be accepted at FA level but is there a minimum below which a GA candidate would fail because it is too short? -- Brian ( talk) 18:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm noticing that Whoniverse is listed on Wikipedia:Good articles/recent but piped as universe, though it doesn't seem to have been through any GA process ever. Does anyone know how it got there? Chris857 ( talk) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Could we make the Random Good Article of the Day more attractive in some way? At the moment it looks a little lost at the bottom of the page... some way of drawing attention to it would be good. I must admit I never even noticed it until today, but I think it is a good idea. Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Borilla is an animal species from Venus. He landed upon Earth in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.237.161.239 ( talk) 06:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange). If you have any questions, you can leave me a note on my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It is very strange in my view to divide "cases and domestic law" from "constitutional and international law." Domestic vs. international makes sense, but the additional modifiers do not. First, international courts decide cases. (Although I am unaware if any articles about such are currently GA.) Second, nearly all constitutional law is domestic law. This is because, with exceptions of things like the so-called " EU constitution," constitutions are national in scope. Some of these cases in the former category interpret national constitutions. And some of the constitutional cases in the latter category concern the law of only one country. Savidan 22:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I have added dance to Theatre, musical theatre and opera. I am not sure if any bots need to be notified. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. At Wikipedia:Good articles/Theatre, film and drama, there seems to be some errors. Under the "episodes" sub-section, it appears editors have added groups called "TV show series" above the same TV show's episode groups. For example, there is "Grey's Anatomy series"; with the main article and several of its seasons and characters included, and then there is "Grey's Anatomy episodes"; with its episodes listed. There are also some Grey's Anatomy characters listed in the proper section, which makes the whole list inconsistent. Another example is "Lost series"; with several characters listed, and then "Lost' episodes'"; with the show's episodes listed. This should not be grouped this way, because it is an episode sub-section, so why would characters and seasons be included? I do not remember it being listed this way in the past, so maybe an editor recently changed it? It is a bit puzzling, and I hope to hear the opinions of other users. TRLIJC19 ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:
In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up! Ocaasi t | c 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've opened a section here about adding to the MoS that infoboxes are optional, in case anyone would like to comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose changing the "Theatre, film and drama" section to "Theatre, film and television," to make the category more clear (and to match the same category at Wikipedia:Release Version). Right now "Theatre" and "drama" are redundant, and the section ignores television's prevalence in the section. Subsequently, I propose new subsections of "Theatre," "Film," "Television," and "Radio and other." If there is consensus, I would make these changes here and at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and would coordinate with User:Chris G to make sure changes don't disrupt the GA bot. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? Thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 04:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
(adjusting indent) How about "Media and drama" for the main section, with "Film," "Television," "Theatre, dance and opera," and "Radio and other media" "Other media" as subsections? Just "Drama" isn't as clear, as one doesn't normally categorize film, for example, as drama. --
Wikipedical (
talk) 07:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Calling a vote for unclassified article.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that a wee bit ballsy? Who are we to say that everybody must agree that an article is "good"? Imho, the mouseover for the GA icon should read "This article has been classified as good" or something along those lines. Just a thought. -- 87.78.0.140 ( talk) 12:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
should the album section in Wikipedia:Good articles/Music be split into pre-1990s and contemporary like the songs section below? Regards.-- Kürbis ( ✔) 08:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that Calakmul is listed under "Archaeology and archaeologists" and also under "North American history" - all the other Maya archaeological sites that I have brought to GA are just listed under the former, so I suspect it strayed into North Am. history section by accident. Simon Burchell ( talk) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The GA review for the Saga (comic book) was prematurely closed not based on any of the issues raised, but in retaliation for a comment I made that reviewer, Malleus Fatuorum, took offense to. Every correction or suggestion that the Malleus Fatuorum raised prior to then, I implemented. In cases where I required clarification of Malleus Fatuorum's point, I requested it. In instances where I did not know how to address the issue, I requested suggestions. In cases where I disagreed with the issue raised, or where I felt his statement was incorrect, I presented polite arguments for this, such as citing dictionary entries when Malleus Fatuorum disagreed with the proper use of a given word. (I assume this is permitted, and that reviewers are not to be taken as infallible gospel, right?) However, I leveled one bit of constructive criticism on October 23 toward the reviewer, albeit worded with a bit of levity (at least, that's what I was going for; I may have failed in that regard). Malleus Fatuorum pointed out this passage in the article: "The first issue was widely acclaimed in publications such as including Publishers Weekly...", and commented, "Which do you want? 'Such as' or 'including'?" I thought that this was unnecessary, since the reviewer could have simply fixed this himself, not because he was under any obligation to, but because he had already demonstrated a willingness to make a large series of edits to the article, so bringing up this error seemed to me to waste more effort than merely fixing itself. The reviewer responded with an October 23, 23:08 message, "...if you're not happy with the way I've conducted this review than I'll be quite happy to fail it..." This was rather petty, but what is more egregious is that on October 25, just twenty-eight hours later, Malleus Fatuorum retaliated to my comment by closing the review, stating that I had "no intention of addressing" the most recent issues, and later stated on his talk page that I was "consistently and aggressively uncooperative right from the start" of the review. This is false, and a check of both the article's edit history and the GA Review page will show that I engaged in constructive exchanges with the reviewer. To close the review for such reasons is inexcusable, and a clear abuse of his power as GA Reviewer. Nightscream ( talk) 14:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
To be fair Nightscream you picked the worst possible time to confront him over it. He has a lot on his plate at the moment. No offence but if you were up for a wiki ban you might not want to continue the review either.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is well deserving of its GA status. However, Bentworth's most famous resident insists on adding clutter and multiple photos in the left to lead and adding some strange paragraph structures. Against GA guidelines, please watch and help protect the quality of this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:03, 26 October 2012 (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. |
Following this discussion on what to do when an article's GA status is brought into question at FAC, I have set up Category:Good articles in need of review to provide a mechanism for drawing GA editors' attention to problematic articles. The category is automatically listed by a bot, and changes can be watchlisted here. At the moment this list is transcluded onto the good article reassessment page.
To add an article, just place its talk page in the category. This feature is experimental, and comments and suggestions are most welcome. In particular, it is not intended as a substitute for community reassessment or GA Sweeps: it is preferable to open an individual reassessment or request a community reassessment rather than ask others to do it instead!
The intention is that GAs which are unsuccessful at FAC and have obvious weaknesses be added to the category for review by the GA process. However, it could also be useful for drawing attention to good article nominations which are passed without an adequate review. Geometry guy 11:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have delisted the following medical article as they were not broad enough in scope. I hope I have the syntax correct:
Do the number of good article automatically adjust themselves or is this something that must be done manually? -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Wondering if this should be classified under organism rather than health and medicine? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
In section "History," subsection "War and Military," sub-subsection "Weapons and military equipment," I think there is a disproportinante number of ships in the section. May I suggest creating a "ships" sub-subsection in "War and Military?" - Ed! (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Featured_articles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Featured_articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Featured_articles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ruslik_ Zero 13:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a note that Zithan ( talk · contribs), sockpuppet of crat/admin/OS Nichalp ( talk · contribs) (now impeached by arbcom) nominated four articles that he wrote for business clients for GAN in return for money, and two passed. His most recent article is currently up at AFD as a whitewash/spam YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Marketing performance measurement and management is another article by Zithan ( talk · contribs). See Talk:Marketing performance measurement and management/GA1. It also had a peer review. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Marketing performance measurement and management/archive1.It seems to have an agenda in that it sources certain articles, but I am not qualified to evaluate this article. — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I just promoted this article and somehow the GA status does not show on the article page, can't see what I have done wrong? I have purged my browser several times. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure where this should be listed; could a GA regular address this please? I'm not sure where on the transport section it belongs. Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Have just passed Mark Steel's in Town - a radio comedy series, but not drama. I placed it in the actors, performers category, but surely there should be a radio category, also comedy? Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The GA Sweeps process is continuing to move at a good pace, as June's total of swept articles reached 290! We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. If everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when it was first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. I am again inviting any experienced GAN/GAR reviewers to consider reviewing some articles. If you're interested please read the instructions here. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia.Could editors of wikipedia please do something about that embarrassing feel-good article about the Eastern European Dictator (Joseph Broz-the former Yugoslavia). He is portrayed as some sort of pop star and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. This article is embarrassing considering he was responsible for war crimes,mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this? Sir Floyd ( talk) 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I just tested whether LivingBot would add a new WP:GA to Wikipedia:Good articles/recent if I did not ensure it was added myself. It seems that the bot is not working properly as it did not add Aces and eights (blackjack).-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it because of sweeps? It looks like we added about 135 articles this month, which is the least since Nov 2007, not counting the last two months which are even lower. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 11:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Sweeps' effect on GA growth is twofold: 1.) Some of the most prolific GA reviewers have been deeply involved in sweeps lately, which takes effort away from reviewing new GANs. 2.) Since May, the sweeps effort has really picked up pace (though it's slowing off again now). With 2-400 articles reviewed a month, and some 33-50% of these delisted, this is naturally going to affect the net growth of the number of GAs. This means that under normal circumstances, you could probably add some 1-200 articles to the monthly growth, so the number isn't really all that depressing.
Still, the backlog is getting serious now, and might be staring to have a demoralising effect on editors. A backlog drive would be helpful, but there is little point in doing this before the sweeps effort is done. The good news is that there are only some 450 articles left to review, of the original 2,800 (there were almost 1,500 in April). With some help from experienced reviewers, and a final push, we could probably get this done in one or two months. Lampman ( talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps has over 400 articles left to review. If you have not contributed to Sweeps yet, now is your chance to help review the remaining articles so that existing Sweeps reviewers can return to fully focus on GAN (instead of splitting between the two as some reviewers have done). Choose whichever articles you are interested in as there are articles available on a variety of topics and of varying lengths. Awards are available at the conclusion of the drive for excellent reviews. If you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I just passed this article, which was nominated under the "sports and recreation" subheading. There doesn't seem to be a heading appropriate to it on this page under "everyday life." Should it go under "Arts" and "architecture?" Alex finds herself awake at night ( Talk · What keeps her up) 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I just passed Aki Toyosaki. Does it belong under "Performers, groups, composers and other music people" or under "Actors, models, performers and celebrities"? Good raise 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know why originally the GAs were mostly transportation articles? [1] Just curious. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I've written an essay on how to handle deletion discussions of good and featured articles. Your input and edits are welcome. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
(1) Khoo Kheng-Hor -- Article was listed as a GA in August 2008, but the article itself appears to be completely orphaned. Is this a problem with regard to it's GA status?
(2) William Monahan -- Article was listed as a GA in March 2007, and has since been promoted and demoted from FA status. Is the original GA listing still valid, or should the project assessments be changed to B-Class? PC78 ( talk) 16:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Following on from that, I'll ask a third question that I didn't think needed a new section.
(3) Does the fact that the subject of an article is about an ongoing event preclude it from becoming a good article? There's no edit war or content dispute in the article I'm considering nominating, it's just that new content will (uncontroversially) be added as 2009 and 2010 progress. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife ( talk) 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
At what point does a new subsection for GA's emerge? WP:CYCLING now has ten Good Articles, up from the four it had for the first three or so years of its existence. This is comparable to other subsections in the "Everyday life" category, and quite a bit more than "Sports mascots and supporters" and "Poker." So can we have "Cycling" as a separate subsection? They're only "Miscellaneous sport" right now because there isn't a cycling section. Alex finds herself awake at night ( Talk · What keeps her up) 06:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The article for comic-book and comic-strip artist Al Williamson just achieved Good Article status. What is the protocol for adding it to the page, and to the "Recently added" list? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Nasty case here. A GA nom. has been approved by an account that turns out to be a sock of a banned user. By rights, the nom. should be redone IMHO. The sock didn't give any feedback anyway at Talk:Rex Shelley/GA1. The last time I nominated a GA, I got grilled like crazy so a one-line pass seems inappropriate. Thoughts? Wknight94 talk 22:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
--
Caspian blue 17:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the idea of putting an icon on a page (similar to the FA icon) to mark it as a good article has been discussed in here before. But I had this thought that it would be a nice addition to give those pages a small merit badge. I.e. a circular icon with a symbol representing the broad category. Thus you could have, say, the common atom symbol with three twirling electrons for chemistry. (Although the icon would be small, so maybe a flask would work better?) That can then be linked back to the GA page. It would provide an indicator that the page has achieved some level of recognition for its quality, as well possibly encourage more GA volunteers. What do you think?— RJH ( talk) 21:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Be aware that there have apparently been several discussions about this, one of which is here. I started to wade into this one time as well, but backed off after seeing the massive discussion. Proceed with caution. Acdixon ( talk • contribs • count) 21:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a question at WP:VPP that it would be good if someone involved here would weigh in on. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Can a delisted featured article still be a good article?.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 05:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear colleagues
This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.
On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I just found an article, Wallachia, where the article had been downgraded to B-class on its talk page in October 2007 but not at wp:GA, is there any automated way of reconciling the wp:Good Articles list to talk page project designations? Tom B ( talk) 20:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I just passed the article Sociology as GA. When I came to update WP:Good articles, I found no section to correspond with the Sociology section of WP:GAN so I was bold and added one. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. When Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added this category to the military history section to accommodate the Red Tail Project which I've just promoted.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Whenever a good article is approved for listing, it will now be posted on Twitter by @wikiarticles. @ harej 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Last time I passed a GA, I had to go and change the count manually. I can't see the instruction telling me to do so any more. Is this all done automatically now?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you guys have to be sick of seeing these updates by now. Again, when Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 02:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Lech Wałęsa was recently listed as GA. However, it doesn't seem to meet GA criteria and the nomination process also seems dubious. The article is poorly written with obvious typos, so it hasn't been even copy-edited; the coverage is scant for a bio of a person of this importance, lots of trivia instead; also POV issues (eg., "exemplified by his disastrous performance in the pre-election television debate, where he came off as incoherent and rude"). The article doesn't seem to have ever been listed on
WP:GAN and there was no real review either. Reviewer's only comment was, "This article is verifiable, well written, neutral, etc. I'm passing it as a GA." Apparently, the nomination was sent to the reviewer by email by a blocked editor who worked around the ban by writing the article on his userpage in Polish Wikipedia and
having someone copy-paste it to English Wikipedia. I'm not sure what to do with this case. —
Kpalion
(talk) 19:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm planning on eventually merging Tropical Depression Seven (2002) to another article with the consent of its author, but since it's a GA, I'm wondering how to delist it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this question is answered somewhere in the archives, but I don't really have time to look so I'm just going to ask the question. Why isn't the good article symbol displayed in the upper right corner of a good article the same way as the featured article star is displayed in the upper right corner of a featured article? Rreagan007 ( talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Now the sweeps are done, I was thinking this might be a good time to restart discussions on a little symbol on the article page. I am getting keener on this idea of showing the readership at large that these articles have been vetted. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Before embarking on such a discussion I think there are a few things we could do to make sure our own house is in order:
I vote for GA symbols on GA-awarded pages and GA articles on the mainspace. It's time to get symbols on the GA articles and to give them a mention somewhere on the mainspace. They've been vetted, they're ready for the limelight, and any attempt to draw attention to them can only be a good thing. Their quality is frequently fantastic. The silver star and gold star scheme (per Whitehourse above) sounds like a good idea too. :bloodofox: ( talk) 17:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of something different to a star - one of the wikiprojects has what looks like a green seal with a stamped '+' on it, which I think is nice and low-key yet marks the article as having been, like, 'stamped' for approval and ready to 'go' (hence green). Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
Classicon|GA}}
to display it as Jezza shows; perhaps less obvious to newbies though. –
Whitehorse1 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Is everyone happy with starting an RfC then? Jhbuk ( talk) 18:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Browsing the list, I noticed that castles (ie. medieval military structures) are variously categorised: many (most?) under arts as "architecture"; some under history as "archeology", and a good number under war & military as "Weapons, military equipment and buildings". It would be more sensible to list these together in one place (or at least, encourage it). But which? Gwinva ( talk) 03:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal to promote wp:quote.
I do not know why candidates was notified, but they were so you should be notified as well. 174.3.107.176 ( talk) 10:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There a lot of FA/GAs around, and many of these can be used on the main page on selected anniversaries. Many FA/GAs can be, but at the moment, SA is not well-known and has no selection process; unlike DYK and ITN, you can just turn up and serve yourself. This is leading to lots of unsourced, messed-up articles getting on the main page. One admin Ragib ( talk · contribs) has been reverting an article he contributed to, Operation Searchlight, which has lots of references of officers involved in the war/battle, citing WP:OTHERCRAP. Anyone with a FA or GA with a relevant date, you can get yourself 5000 hits for the day, and the article can go on there each year, unlike TFA and DYK, and raise the standard of material on the front page as well to make Wikipedia less of a joke, there are many unused articles that are far better than unsourced and unvetted and self-addable start class articles going around on the front page YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
We may need to create Winter Sports (non ice hockey) subsection in the Sports and Recreation article. I see at least four names that could qualify. Apollo Ohno, Kimmie Meisner, Magdalena Neuner, and the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2009. Thoughts on this? Chris ( talk) 23:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've used AWB to generate a list of articles that are in Category:Wikipedia good articles but not on this page. Most if not all of them are simply not listed on WP:GA when they should be. I don't have time to add all these to the page myself so it'd be good if others could help me. Just click the show below, and I'd suggest we can work together, crossing them out as you go :) rst20xx ( talk) 04:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Unlisted GAs:
Whisky drinker | Talk to HJ 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
it would be appreciated if anybody could list it or has any ideas! Whisky drinker | Talk to HJ 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There are more:
Gimmetrow 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I just found that Kimberella was listed under two sections on this page. Perhaps someone can check whether there are more articles for which this is the case? Ucucha 20:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Does the existence of dead links within a Good article subject that article to delisting? I recently noticed that a Good article was delisted months ago because the reviewer noted that the article contained dead links within the article's references (7 links within 116 references). I was a bit surprised by this delisting, as online sourcing has never been a requirement, and wondered if this has changed. Do GA regulars agree that an article should not remain a GA if links rot? For the record, I am not a contributor to the article in question and have not contacted the reviewer; the overall situation is what interests me, not the specific one. -- auburnpilot talk 01:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. As people here tend to have an interest in the MoS, there's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a streamlining project. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch ( W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have made a proposal at WT:ASSESS that is somewhat related to the issue of the FA star (and the desire for a GA icon). It looks at a broader issue by focusing more on helping readers understand our assessment system, rather than just focusing on recognizing quality content. Feedback, positive or negative, is strongly encouraged. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached to use the template:
Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles, in the same manner of placement used as {{ featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work! :) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I realised that a bot is needed to upkeep the job of adding and removing {{good article}} to good articles, and in the latter case, former good articles. I've been doing a lot of work regarding this point, but there are thousands of GAs. Thanks Sp33dyphil ( Talk) ( Contributions) 07:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Why does the green icon [3] appear on SOME good articles and not others? It would make more sense if there was a bot or something that gave {{good article}} to every good article. InMooseWeTrust ( talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Risker has blocked User:Xtzou (a GA reviewer) as a sock of a blocked account. This is a problem for me as Xtzou was my GA Reviewer. Since he has been blocked as a sock, does that void my GA article's review? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
When a GA is nominated in the Miscellaneous category, the GA template places the article in this Category:GAN error category.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Please see the peer review here and the talk page itself. May be I am missing something, but this article is designated as "GA". Why does this bot here keeps removing it from the list? Thanks for any explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.236.229 ( talk) 03:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The "Astronomical observation and space exploration" and "Astronomy and astrophysics" categories have a significant overlap, and there is not category to accurately accommodate non-exploratory spaceflight, such as communications satellites, technology and microgravity research spacecraft, etc. There is also no category to accommodate rockets, and the (currently) single example of this is listed under "Air transport", which is far from ideal. I would therefore like to propose that the "Astronomical observation and space exploration" category be renamed "Rocketry and spaceflight", and cover all rockets spacecraft and spaceflights, with the astronomical observation part of the category being merged into the "Astronomy and astrophysics" category. I feel this would deal with the overlap, and provide more accurate descriptions for rockets and spacecraft. -- G W … 17:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Should the GA subcategory "Astronomical observation and space exploration" be split into a new subcategory for "Rocketry and spaceflight" and the existing "Astronomy and astrophysics" subcategory? And should this be listed under science or under engineering. -- G W … 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
"Harder to Breathe" is currently listed in the Albums section, when I believe it should be in the Songs section. I did not want to make the change myself in case there was a particular reason for its location. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I made an individual reassessment which is being opposed by a number of editors: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/The_Real_Global_Warming_Disaster/1. Should we default to removal from the GA list since my points listed at Talk:The_Real_Global_Warming_Disaster/GA3 are not being dealt with? ScienceApologist ( talk) 13:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There are currently a few extremely large third-level categories on this page (up to 467 [Road infrastructure] and 390 [Organisms]). I would like those to be split, as such large groups don't fulfill the purpose of the subcategorization, which is to make it easy to find related GAs. Are there any reasons not to split those? I think "Organisms" can be split into animals, fungi, plants, and others; the roads can perhaps be split by country, but someone more familiar with the subject may have better ideas. Ucucha 16:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
These are the other categories with more than 200 articles. I've listed some ideas for splits; feel free to add more.
There are only a few obvious subdivisions there; I think subdivisions by genre may be subjective and subdivisions by time period are bound to be arbitrary. On the other hand, there may be some small categories we can get rid of. For example, under "Biology and medicine", I don't see why "Books" and "Evolution and reproduction" need to be separate from "Biology" (nor, for that matter, why evolution and reproduction should necessarily go together). Ucucha 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I split "Road infrastructure" into 6 categories. They are Other (25), United States (3), Northeastern United States (271), Southern United States (36), Midwestern United States (63) and (Western United States (71). The Northeastern United States probably could stand a further subdivision. The next Census level divisions would be Mid-Atlantic states vs. New England states, but the bulk of that section is New York and New Jersey. Thoughts? Feel free to change the section titles, but the 3 "United States" cross the existing regional boundaries. Imzadi 1979 → 05:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Good_articles#Geography_and_places we currently have both an Asia subsection as well as a Middle East one (which has one entry). A number of Israel places are in the Asia one. Is it worth just having them all in one category, namely Asia? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 04:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
An article was marked GA by an accident - two years ago, I just reverted it: [5] -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Good articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Some subsections, especially in the arts section have become really long. I propose splitting those in: "pre-2000" and "post-2000". Something similar could be done with the games section. The animals section seems to have a similar problem, so it could be split into "living" and "extinct". Any thoughts? Nergaal ( talk) 03:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The page Wikipedia:Good articles is 436 kilobytes large. This is quite unacceptable, especially as it's the main entry page for Good Articles. The list of GAs needs to be separated out, preferably with each of the main sections (Arts, Language and literature, etc) on its own subpage. Those subpages can then be transcluded onto the main list, so that the entire list can be viewed in one go for those as wants. But that list should not be transcluded onto the main GA page - it's much too big. Having had no prior involvement here I'm not going to be so Bold as to go ahead and do it, but it really needs to happen, ASAP. User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage can be used to link one or more random GAs on the main GA page on a rotating daily basis, if that floats anyone's boat (see here for an unrelated but similar use). Rd232 talk 10:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This was done a bit hasty in my opinion. I am fine with subpages, but but 10 subpages is a bit much.
I think the split was a bit overzealous, and I propose that instead have 4? subpages?
The supages would still keep the current major sections. Anyone pro or against? Nergaal ( talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The reason there's 10 subpages is that there were 10 categories, which kept the conversion simple. With the exception of Maths, the resulting pages seem fine to me, and 1 small subpage isn't a big problem. Rd232 talk 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Was anyone planning to notify me? This obviously breaks the script that updated WP:GA. There is no chance the script will be updated for end-of-month stats, and unless the pass rate drops dramatically, little chance it will be updated before the 10k GA milestone. The GA count was noted in edit summaries on WP:GA. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think that would work now, because WP:GA won't be edited much. Gimmetoo ( talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, so where's the bot code? (Seems to be non-public.) I'm surprised that bot operator (and coder?) Gimmetrow/Gimmetoo seems to think it's a big deal to update the code. On the face of it, whatever the bot was doing on 1 page just needs duplicating to each of the 10 subpages:
It sounds so easy I might even be willing to attempt it myself, despite never having coded a bot. What am I missing? Rd232 talk 10:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
For anyone interested or wanting to write a signpost article, first listing following [8] was [9]. Gimmetoo ( talk) 22:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
... for the new GA sustainability? Any ideas? Sasata ( talk) 15:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
South Park and Futurama are listed twice in Arts: under "Animation" and "Television and drama". Is this allowed? If not, what should be their proper categories? Jappalang ( talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Gimmetoo ( talk) 01:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Please discuss, at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposed_change_to_GAN_instructions_.3D_all_nominators_must_review. -- Cirt ( talk) 13:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It looks like Gimmebot tots up the number of GAs in each sub-section, but doesn't produce an overall number. Could that be added to the list at WP:Good articles/Summary, so that what now says:
List of good articles, arranged by subject |
would then say:
List of good articles, arranged by subject |
Or perhaps, we should expand the summary box to include the major subcategories, like this:
List of good articles, arranged by subject
|
I think the expanded version might give readers a better idea of what they could expect to find in each category, and seeing how many articles are listed might encourage them to click the links.
What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the other approach that I considered was this:
Set in the same size columns, that would be the most compact option. But the table cell is centered, and I couldn't easily think of a way to get the head centered and the bullet list left justified in the same cell. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion ongoing (prompted by concerns over DYK copyvio) to include some recently promoted GAs to the DYK updates. The discussion has been going on both at the DYK talk page (where consensus is currently being assessed) and, previously, at the administrators' noticeboard. The proposal is getting quite a lot of support. I think this would be a wonderful opportunity to draw attention to the newly promoted GAs, and to the GA project in general. Perhaps we should prepare for the eventuality, maybe by making some mock-up hooks to show what it would look like? Lampman ( talk) 13:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have just listed Grammy Award for Best Disco Recording as a GA. However I couldn't find a suitable sub-topic for it (under 'Music'), so I created an 'Awards' one. Feel free to change this any way if you feel that it is wrong. Thanks, Adabow ( talk · contribs) 05:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The long-running discussion about including newly promoted good articles at WP:DYK has spawned yet another proposal that folk knowledgable about the GA process may want to take a look at. Several issues have arisen, including whether recent good articles are the type of new content that it's appropriate to showcase at DYK, whether the GA review process will save time by avoiding duplicaiton of DYK review, and if the two processes can be integrated somehow (e.g. a successful GA review leading to a suggested "hook" for DYK reviewers to look at). I haven't been an active GA reviewer for a while now, and I suspect input from someone who would understand if/how the GA review system would match (or could be changed to match) the needs of DYK would be helpful. TheGrappler ( talk) 02:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have a rule that a reviewer cannot review more than 5 articles from any given nominator. There are a few cases where pairings are developing and editors A and B are reviewing too many of each other's articles. This results in a less rigorous review, and the potential for a drifting away from community-wide standards. Ideally, a nominator would receive input from a different reviewer on each GA nomination. Racepacket ( talk) 17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear editors,
Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters ( check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.
Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.
For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The History section has two large 350+ article subsections in the "War and Military" tab ("Conflicts, battles and military exercises" and "Warships") to me the two sections are so large they are virtually unreadable. If no one objects, I'm going to split these sections into two smaller sections each. I planned to split "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" into "(before 1850)" and "(1850 to present)" sections, and "Warships" into a "Warships (Submarines)" and "Warships (Surface vessels)" section. Does anyone object? — Ed! (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks, I am seeking the number of Good Articles as of June 30, 2009 and as of June 30, 2010. But that number is apparently computed based on category membership: Template:GA number rather than updated by bot or manually. So I don't know any way to get these numbers. Any suggestions? Has this come up before? Thanks for any help, - Pete ( talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
FYI, I have de-listed Insurgency in Ogaden without a GAR. The article contains copyright violations from start to finish and has had to be blanked. The violations were not picked up in the drive-by review that passed the article as a GA. -- MkativerataCCI ( talk) 19:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (embedded lists) in which editors assert (without, NB, examples or evidence) that GA reviewers are inappropriately insisting on the conversion of embedded lists into prose. They propose that the MoS guideline be changed to explicitly exempt their preferred types of lists.
I think it would be useful to have some experienced GA reviewers involved in this discussion. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_function_for_GA_bot.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The Grayrigg derailment is listed twice: once under "Engineering failures and disasters" and once under "Rail transport". -- Eisfbnore talk 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
How can this article be reviewed for A-class status? (In contrast, the GA-status and FA-status procedures are well-documented.) Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 13:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Should tunnels be moved from "Rail transport" to "Rail bridges and stations"? It seems kind of intuitive to me to group tunnels and bridges, and if you're going to lump stations and bridges together, you might as well.
--
Gyrobo (
talk) 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
British Pakistanis has just been promoted to GA status without a review page being created. According to the editor who promoted the article, the review is implicit in the decision (see here). Is it correct that this is allowed? I've never come across this situation before. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You know, I haven't reviewed a good article for many moons. If this is the average treatment afforded to a reviewer, I won't be back. AGK [ • 13:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
GA processes have changed considerably since the project began. In the early days it was common for an article to be listed without a review, or even a nomination. Reviewers returning to the process after many years may be unfamiliar with the changes and may legitimately question them.
In broad terms, changes have been made not to raise the GA standard (the GA criteria are much the same as ever) nor to add process wonkery as a barrier to listing articles; they have been made to provide greater reliability and accountability, so that for every article listed as a GA it is easy to find out who listed it when, and any comments they made on the quality of the article.
So the answer to the question is yes, review pages are required for every GAN review. What goes on the review page is a matter for the reviewer: GA checklists are not required, and can be (as noted above) pointless. Reviewers should be guided by what will be most useful for editors revisiting the review page in the future. Even when passing an article which meets all the GA criteria, it is perfectly possible to leave a short and helpful review, such as:
When failing a nomination, it is more important to leave comments, so that article editors know why the article was failed and have specific things they can work on to improve the article. I hope that helps to explain — Geometry guy 15:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that, after a read through the article, I've requested that it be reassessed. Cordless Larry ( talk) 00:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to let the community know... due to unforeseen circumstances I will be unable to complete (or even properly start the review...)! Will someone please take over? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#On_citing_every_sentence I make a claim that modern day GAs require that all sentences (barring obvious case) require an inline citation. Some editors disagree. Perhaps some GA reviewers would like to chip in there? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Not familiar with the good article process but it seems strange that an article 1973 DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Learjet 24 crash was promoted while it has a proposed deletion tag on it. The proposed deletion was about the notability of the article put it appears this is not a criteria in the good article process. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Ankit Maity has signed up at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011 and Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress#Meta and is "actively" (most probably not the right word) carrying out GAN reviews. One was Talk:Kepler-9c/GA1, which he failed: the original nominator re-nominated it without comment at GAN and I "passed" it at Talk:Kepler-9c/GA2; another was Talk:SA-500D/GA1 which was "passed". I had intended to do a personal WP:GAR, but the original nominator submitted to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SA-500D/1 on the basis of an inadequate review before I got there. At certain stages at least two of the review pages were listed as GANs (for example, see [10]). A third review, Talk:Perl/GA2, is well on its way into bringing GAN into disrepute: I though it was going well, but I've seriously changed my mind. Finally, I see ( User talk:Ankit Maity#GA reviews) that HJ Mitchell has reverted more inadequate reviews. Can we dissuade this user from reviewing? Pyrotec ( talk) 20:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just easing back in to do some editing after a fairly long break, and someone (after making a rather 'knee-jerk' revert to me in a very minor article) tells me that GA's do not need refs in their intro's - and thus doesn't do the hunting work to go and source-check the reasons for my edit. The text I removed went way beyond the orignal source's meaning, which I find to be totally unsurprising given that no reference - whether from within the article or new - were required to be given. The sources I found after looking turned out to be pretty weak ones too.
Obviously, the massive problem here is that GA's (supposing they are good enough at ref-level at Review anyway) can change in size considerably over time. For someone with an actual work ethic to go and source-check the new stuff added to an introduction - which let's be honest is the classic place people add junk - will involve trawling the article looking to see where it was 'adapted' from, supposing of course it is even covered in the article in the first place.
What is going on? It seems I've returned to find the place even more hard work than it was before! I can't see anything positive here, only negatives. Cite-less introductions do not look at all like what I always understood a 'Wikipedia article' to be - ie a source-based resource, and not an originally written one. Ref-less intro's look like they were written from scratch, and in many cases now of course they will be. Matt Lewis ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books} 02:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
GA criteria 6(a) requires each image used in the article to be "tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content." I have been nominating and reviewing articles with the assumption that is our only GA concern — if they are clear of copyright concerns they pass 6(a). Another reviewer is arguing that Wikipedia:Image use policy should also be enforced and any image which does not have complete information on its image page should be removed from the article. This is particularly difficult with images that were uploaded years ago by editors who are no longer active. How should the GA review handle an image has a valid copyright template or fair use rationale, but is less than complete on the other details, such as the date and location of a photo? Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 11:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There are more Credo accounts available, and we've been asked to draw up a list of names and criteria to make sure the accounts go to content contributors. I've opened a discussion about parameters here, which I'm hoping won't get too bogged down. Any input about whether these are reasonable would be appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking of splitting "Chemicals and elements" and "Stars, galaxies and extrasolar objects". Any thoughts? Nergaal ( talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page also include who decides what becomes a GA and who decides which GAs get delisted? Anytime I see articles being delisted, I see one individual's name, stating his disapproval, which makes it look like the delisting process is an individual's decision. I think this article could be much improved by addressing this question. Thank you-- Tallard ( talk) 17:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Please forgive the spam (I'm also posting about this to WT:DYK and WP:FA), but there's a new tool that I think reviewers may find useful in helping determine if copyright issues exist in articles: Duplication Detector. It compares an article with another page, including PDFs. It has little bells and whistles, such as permitting you to omit quotations or eliminate numbers. And it lists its output by priority. Mind you, it can't catch some close paraphrasing, since it relies on strings of duplicated text and the default setting of 2 words in tandem will generally need to be adjusted (I myself use 4 or 5, depending). Too, it can't eliminate uncreative content, such as job titles. Human evaluation is still need there.
There is also a template that goes with it, {{
dupdet}}, if you'd like to link to its findings. For an example of this in action on a real issue, {{dupdet|Andrei Silard|http://arh.pub.ro/mcristea/Silardcv.htm}}
produces {{
dupdet|Andrei Silard|
http://arh.pub.ro/mcristea/Silardcv.htm}}
. This example is not likely to be with us long (unless permission is provided). :) --
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Is that in the intro really useful? (WP:GA" redirects here. For the country of Georgia WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country). For the U.S. state of Georgia WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state).) -- Catalaalatac ( talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Having contributed to something like 20 GA, I have a little experience with the reviewing process. Till now, all my experiences were quite positive. Recently, however, I've had a rather confusing and not very helpful experience: Talk:Karl Marx/GA1. First, the review was speedied ( [12]). I was surprised by the brievity of this review, on an article that is rather complex (compare to Talk:Max Weber/GA1). Next, another editor reverted the reviewer classification of the article as the GA ( [13]). A short discussion occurred at Talk:Karl Marx/GA1, which, frankly, still perplexes me (what "fact"s...?!). I asked the reviewer about what's going on, he posted in the discussion "Is this on hold or something?" (not a question that one would expect from the reviewer, who should be in control of the review...). No reply was given to him, and three days later, the reviewer decided to overturn his original speedy pass with a speedy fail ( [14]). To my question about why was it failed (I was waiting all the time for constructive criticism that I could address...) I got another enigmatic reply from the reviewer, "All the above". This would almost be hilarious, if this was some kind of comedy. I've cursorily reviewed several other reviews by Rcsprinter123 ( talk · contribs) and while also short, there was at least some meaningful discussion, so I am assuming that he just had a bad day (or series of days) as far as the Karl Marx review is concerned. As it is, I am very disappointed with a review and I'd ask for some serious reviewer to revisit this article, hopefully reopening the review and providing a proper commentary. Please note I am not disappointed because the review was failed, I am disappointed because the review was not helpful (not in its initial speedy pass, not in the (lack of) input that followed, nor in the final speedy fail). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Age limits aren't really going to work. What about stipulating that a GA pass/fail needs 2 reviewers, unless the nominator agrees with the assessment? Rd232 talk 03:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The picture of the revelation should be removed because it shows Muhammad (PHUB). This is extremely offensive to Muslims.
94.193.153.50 ( talk) 11:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Not done Wikipedia is not censored, and no person or group has the right to dictate that certain content cannot be included because they don't like it. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the criteria for getting recognition for having made a significant contribution to a Good article? AshLin ( talk) 02:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}}
Reference [88] is no longer valid. Please remove the information
71.236.110.5 (
talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Is it possible this reviewer was a little hasty in passing the article for GA Talk:Portal_2#GA_Review? Can someone give it a quick look please to see if everything was a clear cut as the reviewer stated.
I appreciate that the reviewer is not a novice Wikieditor but it seems that there were no issues raised, even though I have noted a few on the talk page from the copyedit request that may have caused concern to a more experienced GA reviewer.
Thanks Chaosdruid ( talk) 19:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
What happened with Slender smooth hound to produce a redlink here?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Request_for_reviewers_for_educational_assignments_GANs. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Would somebuddy please tell this bot to stop making edits like this? Ø and Å are separate characters with their own right in the Norwegian alphabet and are not diacritical versions of O and A. See User talk:Gyrobo/Archive 4#Alphabetical order for more information. -- Eisfbnore talk 20:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations, under 300 at last. We should now be aiming for at least 1in 100.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to bring space debris to FA. However, the comments so far have always started off non-specific, "it's good, but not FA". I have been chided for bringing the article to FA without having these problems fixed first, and that I should do GA and PR before going to FA, so as not to waste their time. This suggestion (made twice now by different people) suggests that GA nomination can be used as an improvement process (as opposed to FA). Is this the case? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at DYK talk about whether GAs should be represented in DYKs on the main page. Your views, whether for or against, would be welcome. Tony (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
A lively discussion is occurring at DYK talk on the challenges of auditing for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. This involves all quality assurance processes at WP. Tony (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Where are GA reviews archived? I would like to review the one that was done for a specific article, but there is no link to it from the article talk page. How do I find it? Thanks in advance. Griswaldo ( talk) 12:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It worked yesterday. I was so excited to find it, I bookmarked it. Lo and behold, it's broken today. And it's not that I improperly bookmarked it, either. I followed the link from the good articles page and still got 404'd.
Can Wikipedia actually code a random good or featured article function into the site? It'd be so nice to stumble onto interesting, well-written articles rather than stubs about Soviet townships and subspecies of finches — no offense to those users who find these topics interesting. -- StringRay ( talk) 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC) i love you you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.139.36 ( talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
May I inquire into which category of article one would place biographies of people. I am presently interested in the article on Osama bin Laden, and don't understand where it might fit in after some editing has been done. Carmaskid ( talk) 04:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the beginning of the 2nd para, the word 'presently' is unnecessary:
"Currently, of the 3,783,815 Wikipedia articles, presently 13,113 are categorized as good articles"
62.31.182.95 ( talk) 22:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't IC in a Sunflower be in the "Visual novels, cartoons and manga" and not just the "Works" section? I have no idea how to change that... Bobnorwal ( talk) 15:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
File:Wikipedia’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf
Concludes with a fair bit of evidence that good articles is not doing a very good job of improving articles wikipedians have decided are important or those that people actually read.© Geni 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I have been adding some new articles recently and I find the over abundance of most of these categories to be a little annoying. Is there a way we can split some of these up into smaller sub categories? My suggestions:
Ideas? Suggestions? -- Tea with toast (話) 02:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
tao li is wrongly listed as li, tao. for chinese, surnames come first. her surname is tao, not li.
security and intelligence division, is it a ga or not??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.13 ( talk) 04:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Are IP editors allowed to work on and submit good articles? -- 74.110.23.234 ( talk) 04:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
At the end of November I listed about 30 articles that were not on any of the WP:GA pages. At the end of this month, there were nearly 50. I listed about half, and have created WP:GA/U for the other unsorted articles. Please take care of them. Reviewers need to finish the listing process. If an article is not listed on the various GA pages, then the listing process is not complete, and it doesn't get included in the count for WP:GA/S. Gimmetoo ( talk) 04:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm part of the X-Files Project, and there are several X-Files episodes in the queue waiting to be reviewed. If I haven't contributed to a certain episode, per the rationale to be a view (but I'm still a member of the project) can I still review it, or is this a conflict of interest?-- Gen. Quon ( talk) 14:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking about creating a subcategory for Family Guy (~90 GA's) and South Park (~30 GA's). What do you guys think? -- Maitch ( talk) 10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Could we change "Doctor Who" to "Doctor Who universe" which would incorporate Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures? I think there's only 4 GAs ( Day One (Torchwood), Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (Torchwood), Cyberwoman, and Invasion of the Bane), but at least they'll all be in one place. Glimmer721 talk 23:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Why are video games listed under "Everyday life" rather than "Arts"? unless ( talk) 19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps categorizing the albums (as done for the singles) by the year they were released? Till I Go Home ( talk) 10:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
May an article pass as a GA without images? See Commons, about which I see:
Wikipedia:Good articles/History is a huge 126KB page which is hard to sort through, thanks much in part to the 1,800+ Military History articles which are arranged in 300, 400 and 500-article lists which desperately need to be subdivided. The Warships subsection alone is larger than all of the Philosophy and religion and Mathematics pages combined. I'd like to suggest we give MILHIST a separate page of its own so its articles can be better subdivided. Thoughts? — Ed! (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the topic listed for the GA banners on some talk pages of GA articles are inaccurate and point to the wrong page in the list--especially since "Theatre, film and drama" split from "Arts". Is it possible that a bot could correct this? Glimmer721 talk 19:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a reminder that 1000 free accounts are available from the internet research database HighBeam Research. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Here's the link to the project page: WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Sign-up! And, please tell your Wikipedia-friends about the opportunity! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have had a few articles passed for GA. So today I decided to do a GA review. I read the article carefully, made lots of notes and felt that I was well up to getting the process under way. I clicked on "follow this link", read the resulting text several times, and eventually gave up as I didn't have a clue about how to proceed. No wonder there's a backlog. Can anyone point me to a step-by-step guide. Tigerboy1966 16:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I've worked on most of Rihanna's articles, and I've noticed that non-single and 2010 singles releases from Loud (Rihanna album) are listed in 2010, but singles from the album released in 2011 are in the 2011 section. Shouldn't they all be in 2010 as they were recorded in 2010 and the album was released in 2010? Aaron • You Da One 10:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the Angel Bakeries recently passed GA and the bot updated its status on the talk page. What about the GA icon on the page itself? Thanks, Yoninah ( talk) 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
There are several articles about X-Files episodes in the backlog and the one I've scanned is quite short, amounting to some 17k only. The GA guidelines say the concept was introduced to cater for short articles which presumably cannot be accepted at FA level but is there a minimum below which a GA candidate would fail because it is too short? -- Brian ( talk) 18:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm noticing that Whoniverse is listed on Wikipedia:Good articles/recent but piped as universe, though it doesn't seem to have been through any GA process ever. Does anyone know how it got there? Chris857 ( talk) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Could we make the Random Good Article of the Day more attractive in some way? At the moment it looks a little lost at the bottom of the page... some way of drawing attention to it would be good. I must admit I never even noticed it until today, but I think it is a good idea. Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Borilla is an animal species from Venus. He landed upon Earth in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.237.161.239 ( talk) 06:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange). If you have any questions, you can leave me a note on my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It is very strange in my view to divide "cases and domestic law" from "constitutional and international law." Domestic vs. international makes sense, but the additional modifiers do not. First, international courts decide cases. (Although I am unaware if any articles about such are currently GA.) Second, nearly all constitutional law is domestic law. This is because, with exceptions of things like the so-called " EU constitution," constitutions are national in scope. Some of these cases in the former category interpret national constitutions. And some of the constitutional cases in the latter category concern the law of only one country. Savidan 22:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I have added dance to Theatre, musical theatre and opera. I am not sure if any bots need to be notified. Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. At Wikipedia:Good articles/Theatre, film and drama, there seems to be some errors. Under the "episodes" sub-section, it appears editors have added groups called "TV show series" above the same TV show's episode groups. For example, there is "Grey's Anatomy series"; with the main article and several of its seasons and characters included, and then there is "Grey's Anatomy episodes"; with its episodes listed. There are also some Grey's Anatomy characters listed in the proper section, which makes the whole list inconsistent. Another example is "Lost series"; with several characters listed, and then "Lost' episodes'"; with the show's episodes listed. This should not be grouped this way, because it is an episode sub-section, so why would characters and seasons be included? I do not remember it being listed this way in the past, so maybe an editor recently changed it? It is a bit puzzling, and I hope to hear the opinions of other users. TRLIJC19 ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:
In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up! Ocaasi t | c 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've opened a section here about adding to the MoS that infoboxes are optional, in case anyone would like to comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose changing the "Theatre, film and drama" section to "Theatre, film and television," to make the category more clear (and to match the same category at Wikipedia:Release Version). Right now "Theatre" and "drama" are redundant, and the section ignores television's prevalence in the section. Subsequently, I propose new subsections of "Theatre," "Film," "Television," and "Radio and other." If there is consensus, I would make these changes here and at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and would coordinate with User:Chris G to make sure changes don't disrupt the GA bot. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? Thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 04:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
(adjusting indent) How about "Media and drama" for the main section, with "Film," "Television," "Theatre, dance and opera," and "Radio and other media" "Other media" as subsections? Just "Drama" isn't as clear, as one doesn't normally categorize film, for example, as drama. --
Wikipedical (
talk) 07:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Calling a vote for unclassified article.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that a wee bit ballsy? Who are we to say that everybody must agree that an article is "good"? Imho, the mouseover for the GA icon should read "This article has been classified as good" or something along those lines. Just a thought. -- 87.78.0.140 ( talk) 12:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
should the album section in Wikipedia:Good articles/Music be split into pre-1990s and contemporary like the songs section below? Regards.-- Kürbis ( ✔) 08:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that Calakmul is listed under "Archaeology and archaeologists" and also under "North American history" - all the other Maya archaeological sites that I have brought to GA are just listed under the former, so I suspect it strayed into North Am. history section by accident. Simon Burchell ( talk) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The GA review for the Saga (comic book) was prematurely closed not based on any of the issues raised, but in retaliation for a comment I made that reviewer, Malleus Fatuorum, took offense to. Every correction or suggestion that the Malleus Fatuorum raised prior to then, I implemented. In cases where I required clarification of Malleus Fatuorum's point, I requested it. In instances where I did not know how to address the issue, I requested suggestions. In cases where I disagreed with the issue raised, or where I felt his statement was incorrect, I presented polite arguments for this, such as citing dictionary entries when Malleus Fatuorum disagreed with the proper use of a given word. (I assume this is permitted, and that reviewers are not to be taken as infallible gospel, right?) However, I leveled one bit of constructive criticism on October 23 toward the reviewer, albeit worded with a bit of levity (at least, that's what I was going for; I may have failed in that regard). Malleus Fatuorum pointed out this passage in the article: "The first issue was widely acclaimed in publications such as including Publishers Weekly...", and commented, "Which do you want? 'Such as' or 'including'?" I thought that this was unnecessary, since the reviewer could have simply fixed this himself, not because he was under any obligation to, but because he had already demonstrated a willingness to make a large series of edits to the article, so bringing up this error seemed to me to waste more effort than merely fixing itself. The reviewer responded with an October 23, 23:08 message, "...if you're not happy with the way I've conducted this review than I'll be quite happy to fail it..." This was rather petty, but what is more egregious is that on October 25, just twenty-eight hours later, Malleus Fatuorum retaliated to my comment by closing the review, stating that I had "no intention of addressing" the most recent issues, and later stated on his talk page that I was "consistently and aggressively uncooperative right from the start" of the review. This is false, and a check of both the article's edit history and the GA Review page will show that I engaged in constructive exchanges with the reviewer. To close the review for such reasons is inexcusable, and a clear abuse of his power as GA Reviewer. Nightscream ( talk) 14:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
To be fair Nightscream you picked the worst possible time to confront him over it. He has a lot on his plate at the moment. No offence but if you were up for a wiki ban you might not want to continue the review either.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is well deserving of its GA status. However, Bentworth's most famous resident insists on adding clutter and multiple photos in the left to lead and adding some strange paragraph structures. Against GA guidelines, please watch and help protect the quality of this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)