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.
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
The backlog at
Good Article Reassessment
currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review.
If every participant of
WikiProject Good Articles
could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now
Featured Articles
.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is
WP:GAR
)
...that the current
nominations
system started on March 10, 2006?
...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA?
This WikiProject, and the
Good Article program
as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
One GA Requirement - The Lead Section
By
Geometry guy
In this issue, we will focus on one of the
guideline on lead sections
. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section
is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current
good articles
may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of
Wikipedia:Lead section
.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
This made me laugh. Thank you. --SSBohio 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
LOL I didn't think it would stick, until I just checked it today, seems quite a few people have handed them out! I had an idea for another, but some bugger has recently just made it, "the citation" one. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
My request for bureaucratship
Dear J-Man, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :) I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Now, I'm not sure what I did wrong exactly. I simply added the word 'kinetic' to the Trailer section, on the Tom Clancy's EndWar page, which doesn't fit what that mesage was about, at least in my belief. I'm more or less a noob to this stuff, so any clarification would be great. Thanks.
Just wondering why you responded to Jeepday's question regarding my recent small change to the Wisconsin Union site and whether it was "vandalism"... Are you an administrator? Would you, too, like to see all criticism of the Wisconsin Union go away..? I am curious because threats are not received lightly, and censorship is, of course, serious business. Thanks. (Tortugadillo (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
Re: What's this?
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. He changed the article to read "Puddle of Mudd is a American band from..." That is not grammatically correct. I changed it back to "Puddle of Mudd is an American band from..." He was vandalizing by deliberately introducing grammatical errors and I think it was appropriate to warn him. When I first saw the diff, I thought the same thing you did, but the word that shows in the article is "American", not "United States". J.delanoygabsadds 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, could you give me the HTML code you used for editing your sig please. Obviously I'm gonna change it, so don't worry about me copying it. I just can't be arsed to find out about all this different HTML code ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
How do I get a light blue colour in my sig? Ryan4314 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the
talk
) 23:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is true
As a concerned editor, I think you or another administrator should do your job and block a user who has done vandalism, Thegingerone.Kevin j (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Did Look At the Vandalism Page, and There is Nothing That Proves Me Wrong
Yes, Thegingerone has done vandalism on the Rudolph Valentino page. Read the users edits for yourself. Also, the IP address you may have seen earlier is from a publically shared computer, so don't think that if vandalism has been reported from the address that I am at faultKevin j (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's not a common concent dispute, it's POV Vandalism
I see you have not taken a good look at Rudolph Valentino page history. Yes, there has been POV vandalism in the content and it's time you knew.Kevin j (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hee hee, hence why I don't wanna be an admin Stan. Feel free to delete this if you think it will blow this guy's mind. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Can u give me a link to the guideline that says British-English should be used on British related articles? Ryan4314 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Pshhh, don't worry I've done it now! I got bored waiting for you, why aren't you on hand 24hrs a day to be my personal secretary!? Ryan4314 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard of this "life" thing, but I don't like it, drop it, now ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
my stupidity was all that edit was about, I corrected it within minutes; apologies. But it is important that the dating system is consiscent throughout the article. There is a need for AD to be linked with CE and BCE to likewise be linked with BC but after that they should all be the same. This one was still AD, are you going with AD BC being the norm. Edmund Patrick ( conferwork) 20:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
please take a look at [1], not the best of sites but does go into the historical A11 quite a bit. You are more knowledgeable about this subject, up to you whether to add as a ref; I will say statements nearly always need to be proved by an external source, e.g. referenced. Edmund Patrick ( conferwork) 20:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought the site may offer a different interpretation of this particular history, from reading the website and the article. It is a bit vague I agree only really useful if (when)! you get another reference, then if valid the two could show the reader that there are different opinions / history, for them to surmise. I will say that when I do the next review I will ask that on the first instance of AD a note is made to say that CE is the same thing and on the first instance of BC a link to BCE is made. This is an enclyclopedia and IMHO links like this should be made at least once. They could be in the form of a note (bracketted note) or something (maybe in reference form)? I also will add this lot to the talk page of the article so that others can see the discussion. And it is a good article well done for caring and nurturing it. Edmund Patrick ( conferwork) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
