Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 10

After the renom, I found the article was failed without a review description. Is there a GAN subpage which I have overlooked? Please help. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The review is here, for what it's worth. --

talk

) 15:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my bad! Should have added the {{ArticleHistory}} template. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2)

talk · contribs

) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I would like a more workable review. I have left a message on his talk page. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A user kindly reviewed an article I had nominated for GA status

However, the user hasn't got back. It also appears that the user isn't a frequent and longstanding editor (his total contributions are 30). Since the user put the article on hold, there are only seven days for it to pass.

I was wondering what I should do in this position? It'd be great if someone else could also take a look at the article. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bless sins, I'll take a look at the article. Somno (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate it.Bless sins (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Review completed [4] and note left for Orca8767 [5]. Somno (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to what the procedure is for instances like this. The instructions don't really guide GA nominators as to what to do if their reviewer puts the article on hold then disappears. I had one do the same for me, and after almost two weeks I finally just withdrew the GA all together in fustration. Some more formal instructions would help. --

talk · contribs

) 23:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the original "reviewer" has passed the article without any of my suggestions being incorporated. I'm taking it to reassessment because it is far from a good article. Somno (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

According to

It's at Good Article Reassessment here [6]. Bit of a mess, this one! Somno (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Couple questions.

1. What's preferred -- {{GAOnHold}} or {{GAReview}} with the status parameter set to onhold?
2. Can either (both?) of those templates be edited to automatically link to the most recent GA review subpage?

Thanks! —Rob (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Re 1: it is not important; {{

WP:GAN/R

.

Re 2: no, this can't be done because there is no way for the template to know the name of the article. It would be possible to use a variant of {{la}} to list the latest review subpage amongst all the other links, but the search might add a little to GAN load time. Alternatively such a variant could have an optional page parameter to select the review subpage. Yet another alternative would be to replace the "# {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~" nomination syntax with something like {{subst:LGAN|ArticleName}} to substitute the nomination info, including the next free review page.

If it weren't for the GAN/R bot, I would probably suggest a redesign of the GAN page templates. An even better solution would be to autogenerate GAN, but this is still some way off. Geometry guy 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we get the operator of StatisticianBot (the bot that does the GAN stats) to update it? In this case, that would be Dvandersluis. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked, but he isn't very active any more. Geometry guy 09:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear all, found most of the process useful, workable and supportive. The subpage is a brilliant idea. One problem (why one and why me)! I placed a {{GAarchive}} on Talk:Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition/GA1 and it has also appeared on Talk:Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition the standard talk page and is repeated in Category:Good article reviews! What did I do wrong!!! Edmund Patrick – confer 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing. I believe it's supposed to do that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not a big fan of this {{GAarchive}} idea. Once a review is over, the article either gets passed or failed, and everyone knows it, so adding another template to the review subpage is a bit of a wasted effort. If you really want to use it, you have two options:

1. you could remove the transclusion of the review from the talk page and replace it by a link to the subpage (this is what User:Gwinva does);
2. you could replace "{{GAarchive|status=pass}}" by "<noinclude>{{GAarchive|status=pass}}</noinclude>" on the subpage.

Ultimately (soon) I think we should settle on a standard procedure for what to do with the subpage and the transclusion when the review is complete. For the time being there are several options.

(post ec) I didn't design the template, but it shouldn't do that, as this places both talk page and subpage into Category:Good article reviews. Geometry guy 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about yet another template but I think a note saying this is not for editing / changing etc is necessary. The fact that it adds to a Category:Good article reviews will I think be useful especially when others (both supporters and detractors) want to look at the programme. On another point; The copy of the GA has been removed from the article's talk page (which as far as I know is correct) but I will say I think the link in the GA template to the GA1 page needs to be made clearer, I knew what to look for others might not, when the need to find the review for whatever reason. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits to the GA review don't show up in the watchlist unless the subpage is specifically watched, that's inconvenient. Narayanese (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but why not watchlist the subpage? Advantage: changes to the review are separated from other edits to the talk page. Geometry guy 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This article contains a cleanup banner that says, "This section may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources." I have never seen that banner before, and I'm wondering if this warrants a quick fail (the banner has been in place since December 2007). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Eeek. Not sure if the tag itself is justified, but that article almost surely doesn't meet GA criteria anyway. I wouldn't object to a delist (though I imagine G-guy will tell us to go via GAR ;-)). giggy _(:O) 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently more confusing than I originally gave it credit for. I was looking at the article because it is currently listed at Good Article Nominations (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Education). I didn't even notice that it's been listed as a Good Article since May 10, 2006. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it from the GAN list for a start (diff), as it's already a GA. I'm going to get some sleep now, but if you don't feel up to filing a GAR/delisting I'll throw one up tomorrow. giggy _(:O) 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also a cleanup banner on the talk page (although that isn't where it belongs): "This article may be too long". Nikki311 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now at GAR: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Massachusetts Institute of Technology/1. giggy _(:O) 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a general question. Within the tropical cyclone wikiproject, there are local rules we follow regarding content of annual articles, such as 1981 Atlantic hurricane season. It has been mentioned that the lead might be a paragraph or two too short per the length of the article, which is 44 kb, which would imply a lead of 3-4 paragraphs. My question to the group is, if the same information is listed within an article three to four times per group agreement (which bulks up its size), and at least 10 kb of the article is made up of inline references, does MoS still apply for this rule about the length of the lead? Did MoS have this repetitive information structure and size of inline references in mind when it was developed for wikipedia articles? Thanks for any feedback you can provide. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's important to adhere completely 100% accurately to a minor intricacy of the MOS. The main issue is that the lead summarises every part of the article adequately, in two or three or four or however many paragraphs. It's not the number of paragraphs that counts, it's the content—just use your best editorial judgement and you'll probably be OK! giggy _(:O) 14:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. That's helpful. I can now think of a few more lines I can add to it without the article becoming too repetitive. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would understand the length guidelines in WP:LEAD based on prose length. The article in question has 16k of readable prose. Gimmetrow 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I saw this question elsewhere, but naturally I can't find it now ;) Is there any reason why the review page starts with a level two rather than a level three header? It seems to me L3 is more suitable for displaying things when the review is transcluded to the talk page... what were the thoughts on this? EyeSerene^talk 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews have traditionally appeared and should still appear in a separate section on the talk page, not a subsection of an existing section. Placing the level 2 header on the subpage guarantees this. If it were a level 3 header, the reviewer would have to add a level 2 header before the transclusion. leading to a set-up as follows:

==GA Review== (edit link goes to article talk page revealing only a template, not the review)

===GA Review=== (edit link goes to review subpage)

This is redundant and confusing, and there is no guarantee that it will be done consistently.

Finally, using a level 2 header makes level 3 available to break up the review into comments, responses, updates, second opinions etc. At peer review one of the most common mistakes is users adding level 3 headers to peer reviews, thus messing up the peer review page and the archives: editors are not used to levels 4 and 5. Sadly, peer review has to use level 3, because level 2 is needed for the main sections of the peer review page.

Is there actually any reason why level 3 is more suitable than level 2 for GA? I struggle to think of one :-) Geometry guy 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

None whatsoever, and I apologise for wasting your time with a stupid question. I was transcluding the review into a 'new section' instead of just sticking it at the bottom of the page, which of course meant two L2 headers followed each other. I came back here to strike my comment when I realised I was just being dense, but unfortunately not soon enough :P EyeSerene^talk 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a "feature" (drawback) of the system, and you're not being dense (and surely are not alone) in making this mistake. Also I'm finding some reviewers are using L2 headers to break up the review, which is unfortunate, but can probably be discouraged by tweaking the documentation. Geometry guy 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, and it's only a minor niggle. I'm so used to conducting reviews in a new talk-page section, it was just force of habit - I didn't even stop to think. I have to say, though, that I'm finding the new system really excellent, and having a permanent review link to a separate subpage is such a huge improvement I can't think why we do this ages ago ;) EyeSerene^talk 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the instructions on the page you see when you start a review (GAN/header, I think is the template) could be a bit more clear on what to add to the talk page. Perhaps the use of some selective bolding, at least... it's a bit confusing for now (or I thought so when I first started using subpages). giggy _(:O) 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the Good Article nomination and evaluation process is to be taken at all seriously in the larger community, then, as a first step, it should conduct its affairs in a consistent, orderly way; in the absence of such then one cannot conclude anything about this project other than that if fills up talk pages in a rather noisy way, for an irregularly conducted process cannot be evaluated by any metric whatsoever and it becomes unclear if the program is capable of distinguishing good articles from the run of the mill.

Noble Story removed Sphinx Head from nomination (see reference) because it is list-like, rather than prose like, in much of its composition.

1. However, I see no quick fail criteria permitting a summary failure of a list-like article.
2. Furthermore, in relation to published quick-fail criteria, Sphinx Head: appears to pass. It is not:
   1. completely lacking in reliable sources. A bit of measured reflection leads me to question the use of one reference, but that is a measured reflection. A quick glance of the article finds many citations in play from a number of references
   2. treat it's topic in a non-neutral way. Again, measured reflection may lead some editors to conclude that it deals with the topic in a sympathetic way, but that is not immediately obvious to this editor; it is a conclusion that follows only after some contemplation
   3. have any cleanup banners
   4. have an ongoing edit war, or
   5. cover a rapidly unfolding event with a definite terminating condition in the offing.
3. I'm aware that the article has a rather large, embedded list. Indeed, I've opined that it make the article read rather like a telephone directory. I'm also aware that the good article criteria has a clause excluding lists, portals and images from nomination. However:
   1. the exclusionary language has not actually been incorporated into the quick fail criteria. Perhaps it should be, but that is another discussion for another place. In any event, it is not the business of reviewers to add quick fail criteria on the fly. That is a matter of deliberation and consensus.
   2. for sake of argument, even if there were a sixth quick-fail criterion barring list-like composition, I would argue that the article could not be quickly failed on that point. It does start off with a decent bit of prose that is sufficiently developed to consider the article a prose piece, at least in part. Since this can be argued, and since I'm obliged to assume good faith regarding the nominators, I can only conclude that the nominators had read the exclusionary language but concluded that their article was more prose- than list-like.
4. Finally, small points perhaps, but necessary to note:
   Good Article nomination page
   . One gets the impression that the editor was working in haste and was growing a tad careless.

Since:

1. the article has been nominated in good faith, and
2. appears not to violate any of the five published quick-fail criteria

the only fair and equitable step to take is to reinstate the nomination and subject it to a standard nomination evaluation. Sadly, professional matters will draw me from Wikipedia for the balance of the day, but, in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary I plan to reinstate the article to the nomination list, and possibly even review the article, though such effort will in the wee (

I confess sadness at subjecting Noble Story to this sharp rebuke. Noble Story has been rightfully commended for the number and quality of his or her reviews and I admire the bits that I've seen of them. If this had been the work of a new or inexperienced reviewer I would have contained my remarks to the reviewer's talk page. Alas, this is one of our good practitioners, one that I admire, and one that I hold to higher standards. I hope that Noble Story continues to review with the care and thoroughness that he or she has demonstrated in the past. For the present case, I trust that the Back Log Demon has led Noble Story to a temporary lapse — a good faith effort to quicky remove 'obvious fails' from the nomination list. Be that as it may, I hope that I've made abundantly clear that even so-called 'obvious fails' have a right to be evaluated in accordance with the published process and only through the published process. I need not remind editors who have observed the various and sundry debates concerning the Good Article marque that there are those who hold the project in deep and profound contempt. Let us not hand that community a verifiable basis for their contempt. Yes, there is a backlog. To those alarmed by such, don't panic. If the Good Article nomination and evaluation process can be demonstrated to be erratic in its application, then there arises a proper and justifiable basis to shut the project down. That, of course, would neatly deal with the back log in a very short order. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've listed this at

Good article reassesment, since you're disputing the reviewer's decision. There's a link at the top of the article talk page to the reassessment discussion, or you can click here. EyeSerene^talk

16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that NobleStory looked at the article and considered it a list. Per

this, lists are not candidates for GA, instead Lists, portals, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, and featured picture status respectively. I think the article fails NPOV - I looked up the New York Times article and it refers to two societies at Cornell: "Sphinx Head" and "Quill and Dagger" and says "Election to these societies is on the basis of of prominence in student activities and is considered the highest non-scholastic honor within the reach of undergraduates." However, the quote as used in the article omits any reference to the other society (Quill and Dagger), clearly POV in favor of Sphink Head. I also think the article (which is just a list of the 63 newest members and a bit of background on the soceties) clearly implies this is the highest non-scholastic honor within Cornell (in 1929). Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. To prevent discussion fork, I'll reply at the Good Article Review page that EyeSerene established. Take care Gosgood (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would conclude from this that we need to deprecate quick-failing; it is already discouraged, and rightly so. Every nomination deserves a review, and now that we have the subpage system, every completed GAN action must have a permanent link to a review subpage explaining that action. I am not against articles being failed quickly: putting articles on hold is optional, and the further away an article is from meeting the criteria, the briefer the review can be. But a review there should be, nonetheless. Geometry guy 08:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now the quick-fail criteria says nothing about failing an article because it is a list. However, that is a valid reason to fail. So, I'm thinking a sentence about that should be added. Thoughts? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I "quick failed" a list once and then thought about it and removed the failed GA template from the talk page. To my mind, quick fail means that at some point the article may pass and become a GA. However, a list by its nature can never become a GA, so is it really fair to put a "failed GA candidate" template on its talk page when it can never become a GA?
  I do think it is worth adding to the "First things to look for" that lists and others that can never be GA can be removed from GAN. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could list it as a quick-fail criterion, but with instructions for the reviewer to leave a message on the talk page and not to use the failed GA template. Does that work? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Has the removal of a list from GAN ever been disputed? (Note, the above recent case is not an example of a list: it merely contains an embedded list.) If not, then perhaps we don't need to be making up rules for problems which don't occur. Geometry guy 08:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the above article is not a list? If I may ask, at what ratio of prose/list does an article have to be to considered a list? I think a lot of people would consider that article a list. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the above case (which I haven't observed so won't comment on yet) I agree with Ruhrfisch. Lists will never be GA so we should remove GAN templates (and tell editors why we did so, obviously). giggy _(:O) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about borderline cases, like TV season articles?

Smallville (season 1) is a featured article. Sceptre ^(talk

) 10:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that borderline cases like these can, in principle at least, be GAs. Geometry guy 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am reviewing Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany and on checking the images I found a licence I had not seen before. As the image is limited to wikipedia and not to be copied to commons is this fair use? All the other images are under this type of licence . Assistance gratefully received - you could make use of the review subpage if relevant. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, really. The use of the image on the English Wikipedia would be under a free license, and since it's being used in an English Wikipedia article, it doesn't need a fair use rationale here. It can't be uploaded to Commons simply because Commons doesn't accept images that aren't free both in the United States and in the country of origin, not because it's somehow an invalid license. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I once reviewed many articles. Now, due to the new system, and other changes to the GA process that I either do not understand or do not find to be conducive to performing the thorough reviews I was known for, I haven't reviewed for more than a month. One of the effects predicted by some when discussing a reform of GA has come about...you've driven away active reviewers. Good job. And best of luck bringing willing reviewers in to your equally bureaucratic new review system. It doesn't look like the backlog is any better from where I'm sitting.

It would help if you could show us what you are getting confused with. I was not intimately involved with the new system, but I didn't have a problem adjusting to the new way. What is the problem? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This subpage system stinks. It's confusing to people nominating, who are used to having it directly on the talk page, and I find it cumbersome. I think the creators of this, who saw adding another special step and type of page just to do a GA review was a decreasing of complexity and bureaucracy, are out of their mind. Neither does it increase transparency. All it does is make it easier to archive old and inactive reviews. I was extremely familiar with the old system, and other than the complex templating, it was a natural system of reviewing. This is the exact opposite: it creates some special new reviewing space, rather than using a space already set up for discussion about articles, the talk page.

Tucky

20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As always, I find myself agreeing with VanTucky that there is still too much bureaucracy at GA. In particular, I agree with his first message that GA is overly bureaucratic, and that the introduction of the subpage system does absolutely nothing to address this. I hope that this issue is being discussed by those editors in the reform working group (of which I am not currently a member).

However, the subpage system was never intended to reduce bureaucracy, nor was it pushed by me to that end. It was introduced to enhance accountability: the ideal is that every GA action has a permanent link to a review which justifies that action. You don't need to work at GAR for very long to realise how often this ideal is not achieved.

There was overwhelming pressure to implement a subpage system, and all feedback so far, apart from this thread, has been positive. New reviewers continue to join GA all the time. Since they are not wedded to the old system, they don't need to adapt: they take it as they find it. Reviews are transcluded onto the article talk page, so the talk page is still the place for review discussion.

The subpage system was introduced 2 weeks, not a month ago, so in the spirit of VanTucky's first message, I wish him good luck with his contributions elsewhere, and thank him for his past help at GAN. Geometry guy 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I joined this fine company only yesterday when I performed by first review. It was a little scary I must admit, but the process of how to perform the formalities was very clearly explained on this page, and I had no problem understanding it and complying to it. I do not know how it was before, and cannot compare, but for me the subpage system was natural; just like XfD, peer reviews and other processes have them, I was actually expecting to find it here to. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There is an apparent confusion in what you appear to be saying between bureaucracy, complexity and accountability IMO. The idea of the review subpage – which I believe to be a good one – was to increase accountability. The price paid was a very small increase in complexity, but no increase in bureaucracy. A price worth paying? I think so.

I continue to oppose a shift towards multi-reviewer systems, on the other hand, because they would indeed add to the bureaucracy, but for what benefit? To satisfy those editors who will always consider GA to be an inferior version of FA until they manage inevitably and imperceptibly to merge with GA with FA? That's a lose-lose situation for everyone. --

talk

) 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did my first review under the new system (and my eighth GA review overall). I found it to be about as easy as the old system with the advantage that the review is now a permanent link (something I am highly in favor of). What is confusing is all the work after the review - I passed

Skye and had to make comments on the GA subpage, on the nominator's talk page, change the GA template at the top of the article talk page, remove the nom from GAN, and update the GA list. Reviewers do not have to do this much "paperwork" at FAC or PR or FLC. I found it easier to fix a cut and paste page move today (an admin task I have done about as often as GA reviews). Just my thoughts, Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's of course at least partly due to the fact that FA and FL have nominated directors who carry out all of the closing paperwork. I'd be very much against the idea of a GA director. I do agree though that closing is a real PITA, with too many steps. --

talk

) 23:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, all the things you have to do to close it was not introduced by the subpage idea; it was always a part of it (or recently, anyway).

However, the easiness of the FA process is that there is a bot that does automatic archiving of FAs once they're done, adds it to the ArticleHistory, and generally makes things a lot easier. It'd be nice if someone could come up with a bot like that for the GA process (actually, I was thinking of doing that, if I can gain the technical knowledge). Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, and something we may well want to address soon, once we have a system in place we're all happy with (per the discussions Gguy referred to above).

@VanTucky: I personally will be very sorry to see such a high-quality reviewer leave the project, but you must do what you feel is best, and I too wish you all the best. EyeSerene^talk 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably on a complete tangent, but one probably appropriate to put under this heading. I've created a review for Ron Hamence but the review isn't transcluded on the Talk page. I think it was originally but has now disappeared. Anyone know why? Peanut4 (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Scrap that. I've sorted it. But do reviewers really need to add an extra line to the talk page? Shouldn't the process do it automatically? Peanut4 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes, as there is no bot operating here, only templates, and I can't see a way to do that using templates. Geometry guy 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I've only done two reviews under the new system. But can't remember having to add that extra line in the first time. Peanut4 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot my main point. D'oh. Shouldn't the review process say to put the template line on the talk page to tranclude the review? Peanut4 (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It does, doesn't it? Geometry guy 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I'll go hang my head in shame. Peanut4 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries :-) Actually, if you or anyone else can find ways to clarify (concisely) the instructions either here (at WP:Good article nominations/guidelines) or at Template:GAN/editintro, please do. This is a wiki after all :-) Geometry guy 17:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello all - I'm a novice GA reviewer, and I'd appreciate feedback on my most recent reviews:

Your reviews are fantastic. Seriously, they are some of the best I've seen. bibliomaniac15 03:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, always check web links to make sure they work and always read the notes/references to make sure all sources come from a reliable place. I only took a quick scan but I'll ashume you did that. Much better than me after my first attempt. Gush, it makes me teary eyed. If I had the time I would do a review right now. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me! That's the sort of review I'd love if I nominated an article. I also worry whether I'm too pedantic about prose when reviewing... I don't expect "engaging, even brilliant" prose, but I think clarity and correctness is extremely important for GA. Somno (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm his GAN mentor ;-)). SI, that's great. Much better than the section above this one. Please keep it up. giggy _(:O) 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed this editors actions on GAN. He is wasting reviewers free time, I hate to say it that bluntly. He nominates articles, articles he doesn't even work on and NEVER does any of the work while on hold. This results in the article failing and leaves the reviewer pissed off quite frankly. This needs to stop, it boarders on disruptive. He has been told its not good multiple times. He nominated the Loose (album) a while back. The reviewer did a nice job summing up what needed doing. On an article of that size the reviewer must have lost about 1 hour or more of their free time. I was so annoyed that the nominater hadn't done any of the work that I decided to do it despite never working on the article previously. Months on and I see that he is still doing it. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 9#Placing GAN on hold (backlog), Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 9#Kaypoh and drive-by noms. Any new thoughts? giggy _(:O) 11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Number of concurrent nominations (Archive 8) He is aware of the backlog problem and…
• User_talk:Kaypoh#GA nomination … the complicity of multiple nominations with backlogs.
• His contribution history shows, of late, that he reviews and copyedits articles prior to nomination. To me, the edits ([7], [8], [9]) on Marilena from P7 shows that Kaypoh knows how to consolidate prose. He seems to be of a mind to prep an article, nominate it, and then move onto other tasks. With his moving on to other tasks, Kaypoh raises an interesting question. Suppose that a nominating editor just doesn't like the kind of interleaved editing session with a reviewer that many of us have come to expect of nominators. Is it necessary to codify such an interactive session as an evaluation requirement? If a reviewer leaves a well-reasoned blueprint for improving the article, does it really matter that the nominator chooses not to be the implementor? I'm rather inclined to think not. The reviewer's criticism, if it forms a well-crafted blueprint, is the useful output of a Good Article evaluation. Producing such an artifact would certainly not be a waste of the reviewer's time. This being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then anyone can take up such a well-made blueprint and run with it. I would think that a reviewer would find it a source of pride to author an article review that is of sufficient clarity and detail that anyone could work with it and that it requires no dependencies or tacit understandings between the reviewer and a particular nominator. I think that it would simplify the Good Article evaluation process if we reviewers would write our reviews with sufficient generality so that anyone could work with them.
• Kaypoh raises another interesting question. Is there a minimum effort that a nominator must invest in an article before "gaining" the right to nominate it? I believe, at present, that we ask a nominator to recognize that an article is good before nominating it. Are there concrete preparations that a nominator must make to ensure that his or her certification of the article has merit? I've suggested to another editor that, prior to enqueuing an article, a nominator should self-review the candidate in accordance with the good article criteria and take any necessary steps to bring it up to GA standards before nominating the candidate. Such a rule may minimize dead-on-arrival candidates but may discourage nominators from participating. It's not clear to me if a 'nominator's requirement' rule is needed, or what it should exact of the nominator. That said, I would like to see better-prepared articles nominated. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not only with this particular editor, although I agree that he/she is consistently not "playing fair", as it were. I ran into a similar scenario while reviewing (and consequently failing) Gary Oldman for GAC; although I provided an in depth review, placed the article on hold for a week, and contacted the nominator, zilch was done and I received no reply. In fact, I was outright ignored. It's incredibly irritating that my time, and the time of various other reviewers, must be wasted on these halfway noms; if a nominator is only willing to go halfway, then what are we even doing providing these reviews? I say we make it absolutely clear in the instructions that the nominator should expect to take part in the reviewing process, meaning that they respond to questions/suggestions/comments to the best of their ability and work to improve the nominated article if it does not fully meet the criteria after an initial review. I don't like the idea of "banning" certain users from nominating, but in the case of "repeat offenders", open discouragement may help alleviate the problem. María (habla conmigo) 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On following the link above I read this User_talk:Kaypoh#Your nomination of Nhat Hanh for GA review, and thought here is another issue that Kaypoh has raised. One possible result from this is the article has a history of a failed GA, when actually at least one editor did not want it nominated in the first place.Edmund Patrick – confer 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Gosgood, you have raised some interesting points that I never thought about. I can see there are some good qualities to what the editor is doing, so thankyou for explaining that. However GA review isn't a fairy tail where we have all the time in the world. The fact of the matter is we have a backlog, this editor is unnessarily adding to that. Regarding your statement here:

Suppose that a nominating editor just doesn't like the kind of interleaved editing session with a reviewer that many of us have come to expect of nominators. Is it necessary to codify such an interactive session as an evaluation requirement? If a reviewer leaves a well-reasoned blueprint for improving the article, does it really matter that the nominator chooses not to be the implementor? I'm rather inclined to think not. The reviewer's criticism, if it forms a well-crafted blueprint, is the useful output of a Good Article evaluation. Producing such an artifact would certainly not be a waste of the reviewer's time.

We already have a process for this sort of activity. Its called peer review. If the editor wants feedback on an article to give the "future generation" help/advise take it to peer review, not here. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(← outdent) When I review an article, I take as my remit the

Good article criteria

, my remit still calls on me to furnish constructive criticism, perhaps given in the context of the gap from the Good to Featured article standards. In any case, if I assume the role of a good article reviewer, then that is the deliverable which I am entrusted to convey to the community. I regard the nominator as the representative of that community. There is a peer review process; it appears that the responsibility with which I have been charged has no dependency on that process. As a consequence, I have no option to delegate my review responsibility to it. I have the overriding responsibility to ignore all rules when they get in the way of writing the encyclopedia; I don't think this guideline is so dysfunctional that I am obliged to invoke that overriding responsiblity. That is my understanding of the responsibility of a Good Article reviewer. Pray, have I left anything of significance out?

I find

wet trout. Messy inputs are a part of real life. One has to observe them from a neutral point of view (what a coincidence!), document their behaviour in a passionless way, and then — and only then — design a process that is adaptive to the observed, real-life, human behaviour, and not the fairy-tale case where people always behave the way you'd like them to. The discussion of such a process, by the way, may very well be taking place on the reform page. If not, it should start there. Take care. Gosgood (talk

) 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To start, there would have to be some criteria for who was "grandfathered" in as an established reviewer (perhaps anyone who ever received top 5 in the GA reviewer of the month or anyone who had done 5 reviews that were not disputed). Perhaps there could be a page where GA reviewers listed their names and five reviews they had done (linked). If a certain number of other editors active in GA reviews supported, they would be "established".

Once a pool of established reviewers was set up in some way, they could act as mentors to new reviewers. While this would take some time and effort to set up, it might be worth it to establish some way of knowing reviewers were "approved".

This is an idea I had last night and it still seems reasonable, so I thought I would throw it out for others to shoot holes in or hopefull improve it. The basic idea is to have a list of approved GA reviewers who would be the only ones allowed to do a review. Quality control would be of reviewers and not each individual review. The goal is to improve the overall quality of GA reviews and avoid apparent gamesmanship and drive by reviews. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My major concern with this would be that it seemingly goes against the whole spirit of "anyone can participate". If any process needed experienced and certified individuals to read and judge articles, it would be FAC and not GAC. While I like the idea of encouraging more training and mentoring, especially for new participants, I fear many potential reviewers would be turned off the process if some kind of authentication process was added to the mix. Think of the children backlog! María (habla conmigo) 13:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Let's not forget that we have a process reform page where this idea — and others — are being considered. Please visit there. I'm personally favourable to the open review process fielded by Gwinva. I think she's struck a good balance between oversight and the "anyone can participate" spirit. Plus, I think, she has even simplified the overall process flow, so fewer tags and fewer review states are required (but I haven't done my homework on that). Take care. Gosgood (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely opposed to this idea. It would certainly reduce the number of poor, quick reviews. I agree, though, that the extent of the increased bureaucracy would discourage new reviewers who may turn out to be experienced reviewers eventually. What if we let everbody review articles, and if they fail to do it correctly, they must go to a coaching of sorts to learn how to do it correctly? I have been recognized as one of the top five reviewers, so my opinion on this individual proposal might be biased. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I still suggest that final passes be processed through a clearing house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we would end up too close to

your stomping grounds. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While any system will have flaws, I think we have to determine what our priorities are. The highest priority in my view is establishing and maintaining high standards for GAs. After that, it's providing an open forum for anyone to edit and evaluate those GAs. I think having a certification of GA reviewers is a good idea, but of course, things can go wrong. My fear is that it may turn into something to achieve without any substance, almost like the pseudo-hazing that goes on at RfA. An alternative idea is to have apprentice GA reviewers, whose fist 5 to 10 reviews should be approved by someone who has a significant amount of GA reviews, GAs, or FAs in their experience. If an experienced reviewer notices a new editor mark an article for review, or pass an article, s/he can observe the review and take the newcomer under his/her wing, so to speak. --Moni3 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Without a clearing house, nothing else put in place will be enforceable. Whatever is put in place, you need a final check to make sure it's happened because, like it or not, the current GA system is gameable by those who seek awards on the path to RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, Sandy. It's as if you don't have faith that people with a common goal can work effeciently toward that goal. Or even that they agree on the goal. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure they can ... but respect for GA will increase if there is a way of knowing when something fishy is happening, other than by chance from a talk page post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I had not thought through all of the implications of my "simple proposal", but Sandy is correct (as usual). Even a system of accredited reviewers would need someone checking all of the new GAs to make sure no unapproved reviewers (or reviews) slipped through, in short, a clearing hosue. I agree with Sandy, whatever the changes in GA, to ensure the quality of all reviews, there must be some sort of clearing house. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What if there is the initial reviewer, and then people can !vote on whether they think the article should pass? Or better yet, (I've thought about this for a while), what about one or two GA directors that would just ensure that all passes were done correctly? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting is too much "process" (that definitely puts you in FAC territory :-); I'd say a panel of six to twelve directors, which is exactly what I mean by a clearing house. When an editor passes a GA, it's posted to a central clearing house, where someone on that panel checks and does the final talk page updating of the pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to like this idea. I don't know that we have 12 editors who are dedicated enough to the process to be a director of sorts, however. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Four to eight might do the trick. This idea came to me because of the number of articlehistory errors introduced on talk pages by "anyone can pass" GA passes. If only four to eight editors can do the final final pass, that would kill two birds with one stone (checking each GA pass, and making sure the bookkeeping is done correctly). But two GA directors wouldn't be enough, because of the volume of GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it is being discussed at the WPGA reform pages, but I think the simplist solution is to require two successful reviews to pass. That would maintain the simplicity of the GA process, while also helping to limit attempts at gaming the system. If we are going to start electing directors and what not, why not just formally make GA a step in the FA process? Resolute 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if you'll look at the sample of issues being discussed, you'll see that two can game the system just as easily as one. (And, there would still be bookkeeping errors in the passes.) Making it part of the FA process is a big leap forward; why not first get a system that works, and cross that bridge when you come to it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we just have a group of volunteers as a task force dedicated to watching the GA page and checking each and every pass as it comes in? That wouldn't change the system at all, it would just organize something that is already a natural occurrence. I'll volunteer.v You could put a message on the GA review saying it's been double checked. That would prevent overlap, unless, of course, we want overlap. Wrad (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(after three edit conflicts, I should have learned by now not to post after Wrad :-) How would you know who has checked what, to avoid duplication of effort, and to know that all volunteers checking the same thing, possibly missing one? In other words, back to a clearing house, to make your idea work efficiently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to start a straw poll... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the reform page, so I'm not sure it's time for a poll yet. Why not first try to get that silly awards center finally MfD'd and see if that doesn't eliminate some problems ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The AWC has survived a number of MfDs already, and given the number of people that contribute to Wikipedia solely to receive barnstars there, I doubt we'll ever be able to get rid of it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What's this awards center y'all speak of? And why haven't I gotten copious amounts of them? Have I been giving away my time for free all this time? I expect to get paid richly for all I do... uh... for FAC, really. (I've been slacking at GA recently)... --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Sharkface217/Awards Center. That, and checklist admin coaching, are enticing editors to pass GAs on their path to backlogging FAC with ill-prepared noms on their path to RfA by checklist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The tragedy, of course, is that you don't even need GAs/FAs on your resume to get the mop - I was passed unanimously without either one. Whence comes this idea that there's a mandatory RFA checklist?

talk

) 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a notion bred by admin coaching, and furthered by the crowd that frequents RfA. (Some of them actually have checklists including participation at GA and FA processes.) And lest anyone has any doubts, most of these GAN/FAC issues are because of editors on what they perceive to be the path to RfA. Invariably, when a really bad GA pass shows up at FAC, an RfA is right behind it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I hope someone doesn't MfD that thing right now; it needs to be done right this time, and work is underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been in favor of a central station for awhile now to eyeball recent passes, so whatever we get along those lines is fine by me. (And sorry for the ec's!) Wrad (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see a place for some kind of "random" sampling of passes, as a QC check, but I would not be in favour of every listing having to be double checked. --

talk

) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus. Just an idea, but what's wrong with delegating a l33t group to watchlist Wikipedia:Good articles/recent and check for duds? That could be our "clearing house". María (habla conmigo) 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's like politically correct screening of grannies at airports; I can't imagine why a random process should waste time reviewing, for example, an Awadewit GA pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(OUT) I agree with Sandy, a screening process is needed as seen by recent events. However it would have to be done properly and shouldn't turn into the FA process. Only one "screener" need check the review. If 6 checkers all start commenting on 1 article, you get six times the number of complaints until eventually the article is closer to FA than GA. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy as well. It's rather unlikely that anyone would waste their time reviewing an Awadewit pass. That why I put "random" in quotes. In software testing, for instance, where it's impossible to test everything, you have to determine where the greatest number of errors are likely to occur and target that. Recent events seem to suggest that a significant number of GA errors occur when new reviwers undertake prodigious numbers of reviews in a short space of time. That's the kind of checking I'm suggesting. --

talk

) 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The way that the

peer review backlog works to avoid two reviewers working on the same article might be adaptable here. For a clearing house you could just have a page to list articles that have had a GA review that needs to be checked. Probably want to have standard format for the information: name of the article, nominator, then have the reviewer's signature with the date stamp. Have a group of approved editors who do the final check and when they pick an article, just have them put  Doing... (the {{doing}} template) next to the article first, then actually review it. This avoids two people checking the same article. My guess is that some articles would get a fairly quick check (like Sandy's Awadewit example) and others might get more scrutiny. As suggested above, the checker would be the one to put the GA info on the talk page, do the article history, etc. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

20:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much process. I was suggesting a sampling system, not one in which every article gets checked. --

talk

) 20:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of all articles being screened. Anything that improves the reputation of the GA process as a serious accomplishment is good for me. It will be time consuming but I think it would be a net positive. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be a waste of time and limited resources to check every article. --

talk

) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The check would be left to the discretion of the reviewer - if the check was "Awadewit passed this, off to the article's talk page to put on the green symbol and update article history", fine. I suspect for most articles it would be reading the GA review comments and looking at the article itself and doing some spot checks. I think moaning about why GA gets little or no respect and then not doing anything about it would be a much bigger waste of time and resources. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but that is ridiculous. Screening every article for a good review??? That sounds a lot like big brother stripping people's rights of doing something. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but it seems like the truth. I will agree to a GAN "board of directors" - but I refuse to listen to someone saying that my reviews are not up to standard or something like that. I will be willing to look into certain other proposals, like working on the mentoring process a little more. I'm sure others will agree with me on this, and I suggest looking into a better proposal.^Mitch32^contribs 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mitch, who were you aiming that comment at? The indents here are wacky. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I'm just thinking of it as a quick glance at the article to see if it really meets GA. I'm only counting on it to fix the obvious ones. I'm not seeing copyediting or any sort of thorough checkup of any kind as part of this process. Just a quick glance usually taking two minutes and never more than five to make sure that nobody's trying to pull a fast one on us. I hope this is what others see this as. Wrad (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your indenting (Mitch) makes it appear that you're replying to me, someone who agrees with you that checking every GA pass would be a waste of time and limited resources. ;-) --

talk

) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, change of heart, I agree. It would be a complete waste of time checking reviews made by people who have a history of getting it right. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad, a review would be few minutes at most. Trusted reviewers could get a pass, but every article goes through the system to make it fair. As for indenting, instead of an edit conflict, Mitch and my edits appeared at the same time when I saved mine. Take care, I am opinioned out here ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair to who? It's not an exam, it's a quality control measure. Is it fair to every widget that comes off a production line that it's not tested? --

talk

) 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think a good compromise is to just make a task force of people to watch stuff as it comes through and check it unofficially. Wrad (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Now would a good reforming do well, which would propose a few new ideas, kill off a few old, and make the review process even better. I'm also up to the idea of a watchlist spam for recruiting GAN Reviews, and boosting up the mentor process. I'm gonna use an example. When my RFA was going on in December 2007, i was criticized for having template problems. If we can build off prior experience, I'm sure we can come up with something. Now what ideas should we propose?^Mitch32^contribs 21:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I don't know if you've been following, but there is already a reform page... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after looking that over, I change my thing above to this: I agree with some of the proposals there, but I do see some problems. One, the help out before working on your own seems like a very strong idea to it. It would benefit the reviews when they start in the future. I do feel a tutorial for reviewers would be necessary and maybe get a practice article in before going full time? It would help boost their confidence and get less bish-bashing. Also maybe look into a adopt-a-reviewer process for newbies?

Second, the minimal period for GA reviews, especially for someone like me (who has done them quickly a lot (both reviews and editing for passes)), is a big problem. Someone like me has a big schedule of plans on his hands and like things done and quick. Not to sound selfish, but others may say something that sounds the same as that. If reviews take 3-5 days before passing, its sort of ridiculous. Maybe this would break the big brother thing I mentioned above, but I would say that it is certainly not worth waiting on GA reviews, especially if there's like 1, 2, or 3 things that are a problem with the article that can be solved simpler. Is there another way to look at this?

Most of the other consensus look good to me. However, I don't think some of these work. The best thing to do is someone write good review criterion and a tutorial for new editors to the process.^Mitch32^contribs 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an even simpler proposal. Nobody should be allowed to review a GA until they've written one. --

Then, we would be faced with the question of how much an editor has to contribute to an articl before they can take credit for it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is perhaps even deeper than that, since I have in the past taken great exception to editors claiming credit for articles that they were at best minor contributors to. Nevertheless, I think it's absurd for someone who has no idea what's involved in writing a GA to be allowed to pass judgement. --

talk

) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that doesn't seem like a good idea. What if someone isn't interested in writing a Good Article? Maybe they're a coypeditor or an AN/I contributor and don't have the writing skills like most others do. What would happen to them? It sounds sort of unfair.^Mitch32^contribs 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds no more unfair to me than expecting a driving test examiner to actually be able to drive him/herself. --

talk

) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus has an interesting point actually, its not about fairness, life isn't fair and neither is wikipedia. Its a very interesting option. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. I'm up to 4 proposals - the have a GA before reviewing, mentoring a newbie, tutorial for newbies and a good criterion. The others are in my opinion, big no-nos. How should we implement these upon consensus?^Mitch32^contribs 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just chucking my 2p in. How about, either every GA undergoes a PR first; two reviews for every GA; or a holding page for every GA pass, whereby a senior editor can veto a GA. I'd opt for the third of the three, which would be more weed out the obvious erroneous passes, rather than go over every GA with a fine toothcomb. Peanut4 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeez. How about we all just throw the towel in and abandon the GA project if that's what it's going to turn into? --

talk

) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be so flippant. You could say why my ideas aren't any good without just making throwaway comments. Personally, I don't see why I should bother getting a full review for my own GANs, or giving a full review for articles which are already of a decent standard, when some articles pass GA and are desperately lacking GAN. I prefer my third option, because all it needs is for a small group of editors to pass on the majority of GANs, and fail one or two which really shouldn't be passed. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since it is counter-productive to carry on these discussions in two places, can I recommend people read Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Reform and make their suggestions and proposals on the process reform discussion page, where we are attempting to address and discuss all these issues in a consistent and constructive order. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Grey, stormy clouds thinking. Solve all the RfA, GA awards in one complete sweep. Set up a bot that randomly chooses an editor and awards them a randomly chosen barnstar, say at 42 minutes past the hour, every hour. Lots of structures undermined in one go. Sorted; and like Moni3 I didn't even know the Awards Center existed. Ho Hum! Edmund Patrick – confer 07:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the recent events described above, and in the interests of full disclosure I want to make it clear that I was approached by one of the editors mentioned above asking me to review Anahim hotspot. When I looked at the GAN list I saw that it had been waiting to be reviewed for some time, so I thought there was nothing unusual about the request. There was another article that had been waiting longer however, so I thought it only fair to review that one first.

I then reviewed the Anahim hotspot, and I was subsequently puzzled as to why I seemed to be being pressured into listing it as a GA even though I'd made it clear what I felt needed to be done to it, and that it wasn't yet ready. I've had another look at the article this evening and I'm very happy with it now, and I intend to list it as a GA. I think the main editors have done a fantastic job in the last week or so, but I'm concerned that their efforts may be tainted unless others take a look. So that's what I'm asking for here, a few more reviewers to take a look and see what they think. --

Malleus, its not like you to forget to sign? :-)— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments like this have left me quite bemused. Imperative the article should pass? Why? --

talk

) 21:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he miss worded what he was trying to say. Maybe he was saying that its imperative that the lead be expanded if the article is to become GA. Im sure different grammer or something would have made that clearer. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I know Miss Worded. Does she live anywhere near Miss Deed? --

talk

) 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dont be a jerk. I opposed your RfA for this very reason ... REMEMBER!!! — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Takes one to know one, or so I've been told. ;-) I am quite even handed in my disdain for your opinion either there or here. --

talk

) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriouly, Im not here to have bitching episode with you. If you want to make fun of my english my talk page is available. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't need a whole talk page just to do that. Seriously, chill out. You know what I think of you, and I've got a pretty fair impression of what you think of me. Let it go now. --

talk

) 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I never saw an issue, I thought we were having a constructive discussion on GA. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, guys! Stop this shiat right here. This is getting out of hand. If you still want to tear each other apart, do it on your own talk pages, please. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We've taken our blood pressure pills, this ended 4 hours ago, lets not re-stir it. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Malleus (et. al), I took a look at Anahim hotspot and it looks fine to me. giggy _(:O) 07:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --

talk

) 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this template included in several GA nominees lately, and I'm wondering how it should be dealt with. I'm assuming that it's not considered a cleanup template and is therefore not grounds for a quick-fail. I suppose my biggest question is if the template reflects a lack of stability in the article. For example, current nominees

I think its a case by case issue, on a quick peak I would say that the template will affect one article more than the other. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems more like just an information template, similar to the 'recent death' one; I wouldn't think it's immediately grounds for a quick-fail, no. On a more serious note, I think it would be a good idea if reviewers got away from the idea of "quick-failing". The purpose of GA is to focus on article improvement, and simply quick-failing an article because it falls far short of the

criteria seems horribly counterproductive to the goal of improving articles. Reviewers should be more specific and provide more detailed reviews, in an effort to guide article editors towards improving their articles towards GA status (and even FA, if that's the direction they ultimately want the article to go). Failing an article with a quick one or two sentences doesn't help. Dr. Cash (talk

) 16:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that; I don't think I've ever quick-failed an article. To perhaps be a little cynical, I've always thought that quick-failing was just a way of getting the number of reviewed articles up, so as to be eligible for a GA reviewer of the month award. I'll get me coat. :-) --

talk

) 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Some people seem to think that GAN is little more than a peer review. I disagree. If people are completely unwilling to take 2 minutes to read the GA criteria before nominating an article, I'm not convinced that it's our place to spend hours giving them feedback that should have been common sense before nominating the article. The quick-fail process exists for a reason, and telling reviewers that they can't use it doesn't make sense. If an article clearly meets the criteria for a quick-failc (eg. a cleanup banner was present for several months before the nomination), I see absolutely no problem with quick-failing the article.

With that said, many editors seem to confuse a "quick-fail" with a "fail". It is possible to review an article, decide that it needs major improvements in order to meet several of the GA criteria, and fail the nomination. This is, unfortunately, referred to as a "quick-fail" by many editors. It is very different, however, as detailed notes should be left in order to give the nominator feedback on how to prepare the article for a future nomination. Nothing in the review process dictates that every nomination is entitled to a hold. If it's not reasonable to expect that the problems could be sorted out in a week, the established procedure supports the right of the reviewer to fail the nomination.

I have tried a new system, and I was pretty happy with it. An article was nominated that I didn't feel was close to meeting the GA criteria. I gave it a pre-review with obvious but specific changes that needed to be made, said that I would do a more detailed review of the prose if the initial changes were made, and put the nomination on hold for 8 days. Although progress had been made, it still didn't meet the GA criteria. At that point, I failed the nomination with some additional feedback for improvement. I felt that this gave the nominator a chance to prove that the article was within a week of being ready and also helped them see what was needed before the article was ready to nominate.

As for the GA reviewer of the month comment, it is my understanding that quick-fails wouldn't be given much consideration toward that award. Because the quality of the reviews is said to be more important than the quantity, I don't see that quick-failing articles would get an editor much closer to being named GA reviewer of the month. And, since this discussion has taken a turn that I hadn't intended, I feel obligated to defend myself by repeating that I wasn't looking to quick-fail these articles. I was simply wondering what the policy was, but I had no intention of acting on it. I've lost almost all interest in reviewing articles, so I'll leave it to other editors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw this on a talk page I regularly watch, which led also to this and this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the article partly because Meldshal asked me to do so and partly because I wanted to know how to improve the article. Perhaps this was a lapse of judgement on my part, as I honestly didn't think the article had enough referencing along with other problems. Perhaps we should delist it or have a more in depth review. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I delisted it, but I left it as a GA nominee so that a more thorough review could be performed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was simply going to delist it without puting it back up for review. Two entire sections are unreferenced, and the article is too short to be comprehensive. It's a quick fail candidate, imo, but I'll essentially leave it for a second reviewer. Resolute 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not speaking up before this. I saw Mary Meader pass, which it should not have with a source used 33 times. I also saw that Hell's Gate National Park was passed, and it should not have been. A national park article should be much more comprehensive. I've had GAs passed by editors who really didn't seem to know what they're doing. It's really not worth it. I'd much rather feel as if I achieved something. If you continue to review GA's Meldshal, I suggest making your criteria much more stringent. --Moni3 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the criteria is fine as it is. The problem is the lack of quality reviewers, and the surplus of reviewers who pass articles that really shouldn't be. The original purpose of GA was to recognize articles that are not or not likely to reach featured, so raising the GA bar would further blur the GA/FA line. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think theres a BIG difference between GA and FA. I have 6 GA's and not a single FA yet :-(. For me at least the jump is still noticeable. Im quite supprised by the links provided. It doesn't look good and cheapens a process I have a lot of respect for. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed currently a substantial difference, but with the ongoing discussion at

WT:WIAFA regarding lowering (IMO) the FA standards, and this discussion to raise the GA standards, there might not be in time. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

02:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe what Moni meant is not that the GA criteria isn't stringent enough, but that Meldshal's personal criteria for assessing GACs is lacking, which, having left my comments at Hell's Gate National Park's talk page, I have to agree with. That article is nowhere near GAC standards and yet it passed with (seemingly) flying colors. The process wonkery stated above by Sandy is, in my opinion, highly immoral. María (habla conmigo) 02:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is, in fact, what I meant. I did the initial GA review for Mary Meader. When it sat for 7 days without action, it failed. The first comment from Meldshal in their review was to rectify the repeated use of The New York Times source, but it was retracted. It's my personal observation that that's from lack of confidence, and being challenged by an enthusiastic nominator. The encouragement to nominate articles to be specifically reviewed is very troubling, however. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't approve of what those diffs seem to imply, but this is hopefully just a mistake due to a lack of familiarity with the GA process. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is clearly no mistake. This is gaming a system set up on good faith. I run into articles every day, many times when they arrive at FAC completely unprepared, that were victims of either a nominator "collecting" GAs for awards or a reviewer "collecting" GA reviews for some purpose I do not understand. Sharkface's award center gave me some insight into the problem but, like Star Wars Episodes 1–3, I have decided to ignore it for the sake of my own sanity. This is a deliberate process in which an editor posts about an article being ready (fishing for other interested parties), then asks an editor to nominate it, making it clear that they intend to review the article themselves. The result is severely deficient articles carrying GA status which at some point emboldens either the original nominator or some unwitting editor to try bringing it to FAC, which, as others have pointed out, is leagues away from GA in terms of quality. I've caught other editors doing this and literally had to threaten an RFC to get them to stop. --Laser brain (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just plain wrong and a threat to the whole process. It should be discouraged in the strongest possible way. Wrad (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nipping it in the bud might be facilitated by following User:Sharkface217/Awards Center and admin coaching; two factors that are detrimental to both GAN and FAC, as editors on a checklist path to RfA try to gather awards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(← outdent)

Meldshal42 expresses the intent to make people rejoice, that he or she likes to review and is not out to cheat articles

, but when I look at a review like this:

• Talk:1992 Nicaragua earthquake#GA Review

and compare it to a review like this:

• Talk:Mechanical engineering/GA1

I am struck with how, regardless of his efforts,

The League of Copyeditors, it does not take very long after project has become moribund for somebody to kindly and lovingly put a bullet through its head, so that the project is in misery no longer. Then hey, presto! no more Good Article awards! They'd just be stupid green trinkets anyway, cluttering talk pages. Take care. Gosgood (talk

) 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to all users because I didn't realize that it was kind of unfair. Please, let me review the articles fairly. ~~

(talk)

10:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to review articles fairly. To confirm that you are doing so, please post a new section here, or contact one of the

GAN mentors, before posting a review on an article's talk page, so someone more experienced can confirm that you are "review[ing] the articles fairly". Thanks and good luck. giggy _(:O

) 10:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I did spot one editor sign up at the Award's Center to do 10 GA reviews. Within just a couple of minutes he/she had passed one GAN. It may well have been a pass, and the Award may have been set up in good faith, but I think there are some people who go to the Award Center to pick up awards without making quality edits. There are countless number of editors who do far better work for no reward. Peanut4 (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that I am more to blame than Meldshal. 1556 Shanxi was most certainly not a good article and I was only listing because I wanted specific concerns, not an all-out pass. I personally thought that everything that needed to be said was said in all my GAs that Meldshal passed, though I agree they were all on the short side. I do not participate in the Award Center and I wrote these articles for to embetter Wikipedia. Meldshal's reviews should've been a bit more thorough, I suppose. P.S. I bought the Mary Meader Book, but I think using it would give too much detail to Meader's flight and thus the article would not be NPOV, so I decided not to use it. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As do I. ~~

(talk)

19:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank god, see

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart - Considering this community decision, would it be wise to suggest a ban on using this chart or its website on GA articles (personally I think it shouldn't be allowed on any article but that will be hard to enforce). Following this I removed the chart and the website from all my GA articles. IMHO it isn't reliable enough to be used in GA articles. Currently the source is used in some 1000+ articles, including many GA's Im guessing. Im sorry in advance if this has already been brought up. I think there should be a spam filter or something to block its usage. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be better if I take this thread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles instead? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

An article's notability is distinct from its reliability. giggy _(:O) 09:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the consensus for that deletion was built on both notability and reliability, a lot of people wanted the article deleted because they didn't believe it to be reliable. The fact that the closing argument links to Wikipedia:Verifiability says it all. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The closing argument is wrong - articles shouldn't be AfD'd for reliability (see our

deletion policy) (eg. Stormfront (website) is unreliable but notable)(and musicOMH is non-notable but reliable). giggy _(:O

) 09:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thats hilarious, but oddly thats how most people voted when they got the article deleted. There was indeed a consensus that the chart and website are rubbish. Should we therefore view it in the same light? Is the United world chart a reliable source? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there was a consensus that the chart is not notable. That doesn't mean it's rubbish or unreliable. There's a very big difference. giggy _(:O) 09:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This search shows plenty of reliable folks who are using and trusting the UWC. None of them assert notability (eg. "...CD actually hit the shops, it reached number one in the UK album chart, the United World Chart and the US Billboard 200..."), but they do show it's used as a reliable source by others. I'm still looking for further info to assure it meets WP:V's requirements. giggy _(:O) 09:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the European certification board doesn't recognize it as legitimate. It has little or no external notable references. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I also find this comment from the vote interesting;

We can state that it is not an official chart, because it is not recognized by the

It seems that the site is German made and the German wikipedia doesnt accept it, that should ring some alarm bells surely. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

One of my nominations,

Done. The 5 tags up with progress on none of them was a definite red flag. Wizardman 01:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have nine nominations currently at GAN. What's the prize that you're going for? --

talk

) 01:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No prize, just help building up

Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes - and this one is going to FAC sooner or later.^Mitch32^contribs

01:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. So you have made significant contributions to all nine of these articles? --

talk

) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, while some of them may be drive-by nominations, he always addresses the issues that are found, and all but one of his nominations has passed. Thus he is only doing the project good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We are each entitled to our opinions Julian. Mine is probably not too difficult to discern. --

talk

) 01:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand (and almost agree with) your opinion, and as Mitch and I are on-wiki friends, my opinion is largely biased. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's always been my opinion that the quickest way to get your articles reviewed is to do lots of reviews yourself. giggy _(:O) 02:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, but I have such a busy schedule on Wiki with WP:NY State Routes, I end up not being able to do other things. With C-class now in, I'll be even busier.^Mitch32^contribs 02:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So, let's see if I'm understanding this. You're a busy person who can still find the time to nominate nine articles for GA, and according to your wikifriend Juliancolton respond to the issues raised during those reviews. But you can't find the time to review even one article yourself? --

talk

) 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally, that sort of thing really bothers me, too. However, I've seen Mitch review many articles in the past, and he does always address the GA concerns. He wouldn't currently have nine articles nominated, if the reviews were done in a timely manner...maybe Mitch had more time 40 days ago. Let's assume good faith here. And...Mitch and I are not wiki-friends, so I'm not biased at all. :) Nikki311 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I promised one tomorrow to the backlog at Transport only because there's another there at 40 days. Also, there are times where I will spend an afternoon reviewing. :D ^Mitch32^contribs 02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, we are making this far bigger of a deal than it needs to be. Mitchazenia, while it would be good if you could cut down on the nominations, at least until the backlog subsides, you are doing the project good with all of your successful GA nominations. It would also be good if you could review more articles, but as I understand you are busy writing articles and nominating them, I fully understand why you have cut back on your reviews. In fact, Mitch used to be an avid reviewer, and has reviewed more GAs than most of us here. His nominating articles is not causing any harm, and all this discussion is doing is discouraging a user from contributing to the encyclopedia. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right; but the user who is being discouraged is me, not your friend Mitch. --

talk

) 02:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how, but if you are, it is certainly not in my or any others' intention to discourage you. And even if I didn't know Mitchazenia well, I would still have the same opinion on this issues. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"I'm becoming very annoyed that its gone 40 days without doing anything." If your mate Mitch was really the ace reviewer that you claim him to be, he might have remembered that this is a volunteer project. See what I mean? --

talk

) 02:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

While I did say he has a large quantity of reviews, I respect he is not the best reviewer. And while this is indeed a volunteer project, 40 days is an exceptionally long period of time. Also, the Transport articles sit there for up to months at a time due to lack of interest, while the Geography articles are nominated for several days at most, thus the GA process is faulty and requires a more efficient process. I suppose that is a bit unrelated, however. Moreover, the main point of his comment was to request feedback on the stale review templates. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Will you stop turning this into an episode? Its getting annoying that you're trying to make some look bad and discourage them, specifically me, to GA reviewing. I don't like a big brother society and I want it to stay that way.^Mitch32^contribs 02:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Probably best if everyone drops this. Mitch; go do some reviews. :-) Malleus; go do some reviews. :-) Problem solved. giggy _(:O) 03:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I was going to say that I'll stop when I damn well feel like it. But your more measured counsel has persuaded that I should leave this discussion now. If only I had your patience giggy. --
  talk
  ) 03:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• We are acception your participation in this discussion, but as we determined this is going nowhere, I don't see why we can't just archive this thread. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to GA nominators and reviewers that for some time now, the autoformatting of dates

There are four advantages in not linking dates:

1. Inconsistent raw formatting within an article is obvious to editors and thus less likely to escape our attention. (The autoformatting mechanism conceals the inconsistencies from us, the very people who are most likely to enforce consistency, but the raw formats are displayed in bright blue to almost all readers, who are not registered and logged in. The rules for the choice of format in an article are in MOSNUM,
   here
   ); they are easily summarised as (a) be consistent within an article; (b) take account of national ties to a topic; and (c) retain the existing format unless there's a good reason not to.
2. There are fewer bright-blue splotches in the text, which makes it slightly easier to read and improves its appearance.
3. The following issues concerning the dysfunctional aspects of the autoformatting mechanism do not arise:
   • piped links to date elements ([[20 June|20]], [[20 June]] [[1997 in South African sport|1997]]) (several forms of piped links break the date formatting function);
   • links to date ranges in the same calendar month e.g. December 13–17 or the night of 30/31 May – the autoformatting mechanism will damage such dates (30/May 31);
   • links to date elements on
     disambiguation pages
     ;
   • links to date elements in article and section headings; and
   • links to date elements in quotations (unless the original text was wikilinked).
4. As a minor advantage, edit windows are slightly easier to read and edit.

It may be that WikiMedia can be persuaded to invest resources in revamping the mechanism to avoid or mitigate these problems, but this is unlikely to occur in the short to medium terms. Tony (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been failed, but I am unable to find GA/1 or any report. It is possible that it is something I am doing wrong. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for what this edit summary promises. The subpage should probably have been created first, but we're still within a few minutes after the failing. -- Jao (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it is just that from nothing an article has failed, no first impressions, 1st reviews etc. Thanks I will wait. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

read it now and a reasonable review it is (I am assuming a quick fail here). Just all done in a different order that I am used to. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Should there be something about using the "Template:ArticleHistory" on this page? Snowman (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes: "Don't use it unless you know what you are doing". ArticleHistory is largely managed by a bot. It is unnecessary for GA editors to learn the arcane rules of ArticleHistory. Editors who are familiar with it are welcome to use it, but they should always check for the red error category at the end of the page, or they will soon feel the Wrath of Sandy. Geometry guy 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They sure will! I speak from experience. ;-( --

talk

) 22:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking back over a few years of article histories, it seems to me that the bot has missed a lot of details in the histories. In these situations it appears that the bot is not going to rewrite the article history and the only method is manual. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The new subpage system should help in that respect. Geometry guy 22:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

By design, the bot made no attempt to re-create multiple listings and delistings of GA. That would have been a gargantuan task, mostly needing manual intervention because of incomplete templates and missing edit summaries. Yes, please watch for the red error category at the bottom of the page if you build an {{

articlehistory}}. Also, GimmeBot is on vacation this week, so templates will be converted next week. Here is a Dispatch about articlehistory. Signed, The Wrath of ... SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That is building an incomplete articlehistory (no oldid) that flies under the radar of the error category; it would be better to let GimmeBot do it correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The other problem with that approach is that, unless you have Dr pda's articlehistory script, you could be building an AH that leaves out previous events, and those are harder to fix after the fact. Best to just leave the GA templates and let the Bot update them to ah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It might help if an indexing or automated search made archived pages easier to find. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually GimmeBot can generate an oldid from a correct date, so don't bother with oldid's: 5 tildes will record the current date in a bot-friendly format. But otherwise I agree with Sandy: just use GA templates (with dates), and leave ArticleHistory for the bot to handle. Geometry guy 14:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that the article Meher Baba is stated as being a GA article. When I asked in talk to be given the wikinlink to the GA nomination discussion, I got this Talk:Meher_Baba/Archive_3#GA. It seems that the article did not pass a GA nomination. Can someone take a second look? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Back then, something like that would have been "acceptable". Regardless, the article isn't GA quality so I've taken it to GAR. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Meher Baba/1. giggy _(:O) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the headings in {{subst:PGAN}}, {{subst:FGAN}} and {{subst:GANOH}} from 2 to 3 level. I think the third level is more appropriate now. Ruslik (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, especially now that we're using subpages. giggy _(:O) 08:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you do when a GA nom has been on hold for almost a month? For example,

Depends. If people are working on it, there's

no harm in letting it go. If not, then ping the reviewer, and if they aren't interested (etc.), fail it. giggy _(:O

) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed (I haven't been to GAN in a while) that a few articles have been On Hold for weeks. Weeks I tells ya!

talk

) 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has a few minutes, I would really appreciate a second reviewer looking over this article. I addressed all of the concerns from the first review, but I would like the article to be passed by someone outside WikiProject:Professional wrestling. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done —giggy 08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How long is the backlog here, typically? I'm usually seeing nominations that have been here for a month; personally, I think that anything that's been here longer than that has been here a bit too long. If we can cut down vigorously on the backlog, then eventually there will be no more backlog if new nominations are given a review as soon as they come in. The work required would be the same as it is now. (Assuming that the average time for the oldest nomination is a month, over the past year, then that would mean that generally, the rate of nominations is the same as the rate of reviews. So if this rate continues, which it can easily be done, then eventually we would have absolutely no backlog.) Otherwise, the backlog will only increase...

Err, yes, quite. What's your point exactly? --

talk

) 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is we should just put energy into first cutting down the backlog so the oldest nomination is perhaps, 7 days at the most, then the entire list will be kept shorter. Although, I suppose this has been suggested before, and perhaps even put into action. But, it just dawned on me that it's getting pretty ridiculous when yesterday, we had a few nominations that have been here for two months.

talk

) 01:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to put in as much effort as you're able to if you think it will make any difference.

talk

) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize the pointlessness, but bear with me here ;)

talk

) 02:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to keep the backlog to X days old is far easier said than done. I see you've been trying hard to review as many articles as I can, and I, as well as other editors dedicated to the GA process try as hard as we can, but there just are not that many quality reviewers that havn't burned out. Also, just what GAN doesn't need is rushed reviews, so making old nominations appear in red would most likely lead to questionable passes. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Anyways, I'm just throwing out ideas, as

talk

) 02:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, appointing director(s) will help...we have many promising candidates...they can monitor the GA process and improve the quality and quantity of GAs in general. I don't want to shout it aloud but its time...for the e-word or !e...KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a box at the top, you're welcome to contact the bot's operator if you want to try and get it to operate differently (something like FLC would be good, IMO). —giggy 08:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Which part would you like to be like FLC? I don't know what way I want the bot to operate since this is all still under discussion. I wasn't suggesting a GAN director, by the way, but if some people like the idea, then perhaps it's worth a discussion.

talk

) 08:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"

WP:FLC has a list at the top of nominations that have been there for more than 10 days" <-- I'd like that. Others may not, though, but IMO it would be useful. So let's discuss it! (No objections in principle to a GA director role.) —giggy

08:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In reference to Giggy's first comment, reviewer's who want to focus on the backlog can watchlist

WP:GAN/R to receive a daily automatic update on the current backlog and the oldest unreviewed items. Geometry guy

08:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) So then basically you'd want to expand the current backlog list to not hold a set number of items, but instead, to hold items that are older than a certain period of time? Also, depending on the responsibilities of a GAN director and the time commitments of directors, I think that the number of directors could range from 1–3 or so number of directors.

talk

) 08:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A longer backlog list would be good, but I don't see the point of GAN directors. What would they do? Anyone actively interested in GA can monitor the GAN process and make comments here. Unless of course, the idea is to give directors whips and the authority to chastise reviewers whose performance is substandard... in which case, count me in... :-) Actually, better not. Geometry guy 10:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest the backlog list is dropping quite a bit at the moment. No reason to rest on laurels though. Peanut4 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been some progress - good work! - but definitely no reason to rest while nominators are still waiting a month! It would be nice to see the backlog under 100 again. I've updated the graph anyway, and floated it right here for information. Geometry guy 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay, we're finally chopping away at the backlog! Unfortunately, I'll be gone for a few weeks soon, so the backlog might go right back up without me reviewing! :) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What the heck?! There are all extremely useful pages – I can't believe I didn't stumble on them sooner! Anyways, they look great. One question, though, what happened in August 2007 in the graph? Did GAN actually chop the backlog down to nothing? Also, according to What Links Here,

talk

) 18:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

August 2007 was the end of the most recent

backlog elimination drive

. As you can see, it was quite effective at eliminating the backlog temporarily, but there was a rapid bounce-back, presumably because nominators were encouraged by the short queue, while reviewers took a break!

The link to GAN/R was subtly concealed in the backlog template: I've clarified it a bit. The presentation of the GAN page could be improved: FAC is much better in this respect. I suggest, however, waiting for output from the GA reform workshop first. Meanwhile, take note that Juliancolton is away, so other reviewers should redouble their efforts. Geometry guy 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already come to replace him :p

talk

) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, during

this drive The Rambling Man and Blnguyen both did more than 50 reviews. That was incredible. Good luck beating them, Gary. ;-) —Giggy

02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But remember, it's not the quantity of reviews that count, but the quality. In short, don't pass 50 articles in an hour... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello reviewers! I created the article Tan Teck Meng recently and as far as I know it meets the criteria for good articles (and I must say I am extremely proud of it *grin*). The only thing is that I don't have on hand the secondary sources needed to prove notability, if anyone chooses to challenge the topic's notability, because I am currently overseas in a country where English libraries are hard to find (if they exist at all).

I will have access to those sources in a few weeks when I am back in my home country, but can I submit the article for nomination in the meantime? i.e., does temporary lack of proof of notability disqualify an article from beginning the nomination process?-

Strictly speaking, if it cannot be proven to be notable now, then it technically should be sent to

talk

) 17:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, I shall speedily get those proofs. :) -

talk

) 15:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a note for all reviewers who review his GANs.

As of June 28, 2008, I will be taking over the GANs that he nominated. Any onhold cleanup will be done by me and he has given me permission to accept credit for helping him out.

I am only bringing this up because I'll be in the same situation on July 19-July 30, so I will be unable to have anyone pass mine by onhold.

Anyway, I hope you understand. Thanks.Mitch32^(UP) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be feasable to split the Nominations section into separate pages and then link them into the article? Fot example the #Arts could be moved to /Good article nominations/Arts and then put something like {{

It was all minor issues, which are all repaired now (and would be mostly corrected by a reviewer without even asking). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, to me, the article still needs some work. Format the references per

talk

) 17:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"The dispute is about that this article should clearly indicate that the APA style and the example style presented below cannot currently be followed using Wikipedia citation templates and that the example style differs considerably from the APA style (in more ways than indicated below)."

I think you guys are clearly inventing stuff to fail this article. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are. There are plenty of issues pointed out at

Talk:Beslan school hostage crisis/GA1. Naerii is a good reviewer who wouldn't fail an article just for the heck of it. —Giggy

12:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

At this moment in time I am not criticising the review, (I have not read the article yet) but to start a GA at 11:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)and pass it as a GA at 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC) is impressive, and not a speed I can in anyway keep up with. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty good article to be fair, so probably a fairly easy one to judge. --

talk

) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Only just finished reading it myself, and I agree a reasonable article, lead could be a better match to the article, (that's me being picky) as I said I am impressed with the time / speed. Edmund Patrick – confer 14:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If only both parties of every review was as quick, then these nominations would be in and out in no time at all :)

talk

) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Eye, and then we would need to create a backlog just to feed the machine! Edmund Patrick – confer 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a small glitch: the review says that "an editor has indicated a willingness to review the article" when there isn't. I just added a comment to the top of the good article review, so it thinks that I (the nominator) am reviewing my own article. That's not the case, and nobody has stepped up yet.

I know someone will get to it when they get to it, but just making sure this doesn't slip through the cracks. Randomran (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a technical glitch. It correctly thinks that a review has been made because the subpage has been created. If you want, you could change page=1 to page=2 on the talk page for the GA template so that it uses a new subpage. I don't suggest creating the subpage before an actual review has been made. Personally, if any comments are to be given to a potential reviewer, then I would recommend placing it at

talk

) 02:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding another review page is not a good idea, so I've moved your comments to the article talk page and deleted the review subpage. Geometry guy 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Obviously I just didn't use the page as intended. Glad you deleted the page, and looking forward to the review when things aren't so backlogged. Randomran (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry I thought we were moving away from quick fails. Gary King's review of the article is correct but no opportunity was given to the editors to correct what was in the review. I thought one points out the failings and give editors an opportunity to meet them, and only after that fail them. Otherwise there would / will be no backlog. 20.08 nominate 20.53 fail. Sorted. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think more time should have been given to the user who nominated the article? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was not a "quick fail". This nomination was "failed". A "quick fail" implies that no review was performed because the article met the quick-fail criteria. A "fail" implies that the article was reviewed but the reviewer decided that substantial improvements are still needed. Personally, I believe that nominators should ensure that the article is fully referenced before nominating it. I have, however, come up with an alternative that I believe was fair to both parties. When I saw an article that needed substantial improvements, I did a quick scan of the article and picked out about nine things that needed to be done. I then put the article on hold for a week and said that I would do a full review of the article if the nine items were completed. I feel that this is a good compromise, as it encourages the nominator to continue working on the article while not requiring a reviewer to put a lot of effort into a review when the nominator did not bother to check the criteria before nominating the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan is correct (IMO, obviously) - there's a difference between "on hold" (where time is given to address comments) and an outright fail; this was the latter. More info here. —Giggy 01:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies I was not criticising the review but the fact that the editors were not given any time to attempt to get the article to GA. If the review (along the lines of GaryColemanFan above) started with something like, "Dear editors, you have an incredible amount to do to get to GA. Below is my first impressions. I have put the article on hold for 7 days when I will review it again. You might still fail or you might find a list equally long of things that need to be done" Long winded but something friendly and supportive. I do agree that one would hope that proposers for GAs at least see if the article begins to match the criteria in some way. Maybe they could be reminded more forcefully on the nomimations page? Edmund Patrick – confer 08:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the "long standing unreviewed" articles. I've looked at it and

Thank you for your note. If you want to have a go at reviewing, feel free! The criteria are

GA mentors

to take a look and make suggestions before it goes 'live'.

Regarding articles you think may not meet the GA criteria, you are welcome to nominate them for community reassessment on the

WP:GAR page, where they'll get the attention of multiple GA reveiwers. The nomination instructions are at the top of the page there. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk

10:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Article's been on hold for two months, with neither reviewer apparently finishing it. If I had time I'd do it, but I can't, can someone follow-up on the reviews for it? Wizardman 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no wonder it's been on hold for so long – the reviewer asked for a second opinion but never stated this on

talk

) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good work Gary. I just pinged the reviewer and then saw this comment. —Giggy 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Although, Milk should have just prodded the reviewer. Ideally, all of these reviews should only involve the nominator and the reviewer :)

talk

) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I asked for a second opinion on a specific question on the talk page and I got an answer. I just forgot to remove the tag. I've looked through the article several times and my concerns have never been completely addressed. I've tried to leave it open so people can keep fixing it, but I guess I can just fail it, and if anyone has a concern, they can submit the article to reassessment. I'll do that for the sake of speed.User:calbear22 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if they haven't fixed what you wanted in two months, that's basically a very strong argument to fail the article. Wizardman 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Speaking as one of the article's main contributors, there is a misunderstanding here. Once calbear22 requested a 2nd opinion of another reviewer, we were awaiting the 2nd reviewer's input, primarily to resolve questions about prose over which we disagree. The other fixes were relatively minor (inline cite tweaks, etc.), so I for one was waiting for the 2nd reviewer to come on board. Then <poof> the article is failed without benefit of any 2nd reviewer. JGHowes ^talk - 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me start right off the bat by saying that en-dashes are one of the least important issues on Wikipedia, and I don't want to be talking about them. Okay, now that I've got that off my chest, I just want people to be happy and pass their FAC's, and there is not much chance of getting through FAC unless you replace your hyphens in

Coward! :-) Seriously, thanks for raising the issue, but this is a wiki, so being bold, having a thick skin, and being willing to make (and admit) mistakes is encouraged. Geometry guy 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And politics is the art of getting other people to be bold instead. Thanks! - Dan

talk)(mistakes

) 02:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, non-admins can move a page over an existing one if it's just a redirect with nothing else in the history. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm shocked that a respected editor is belittling the en-dash in such a cavalier fashion. It's well known that,^{[citation needed]} without proper attention paid to the en-dash (and it's bigger cousin the em-dash), Wikipedia would fall apart within a week. It's shocking, and I'm shocked. EyeSerene^talk 10:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene speaks sense, as usual (?!?!). I think you should just move the article, leave a good rationale on the talk page and put a wikibreak template up straight afterwards (but keep editing) and ensure you can justify it. —Giggy 11:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup (getting back to the point!), though it might help to avoid an outcry if you post around to inform of the impending move first. The MoS is pretty unequivocal about using endashes in headers, and I agree the article should be moved. EyeSerene^talk 11:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, guys, you appear not to be paying attention :-) The article was moved by yours truly yesterday at 21:51 UTC, hence the above reply. I am this very moment waiting in terror for the 7 WikiProjects of the Apocalypse to come beating at my door, outraged at the audacity of my page move.

Trembling with fear, I will of course plead innocence and point them to this thread. Geometry guy 11:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bleh, your comment above didn't directly state that you have moved the page. We're GA - we expect simple straightforward prose, remember!? —Giggy 11:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Um... er.... naturally, I always pay attention... if only people would mark threads with 'resolved' or something, I wouldn't end up making such a fool of myself :-( EyeSerene^talk 11:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I'm C-Class when it comes to my prose :-) But, just to rub it in, there should be another clue on your watchlist right now. Geometry guy 12:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> OK, I'm pwned. Time to go and find something else to do. Maybe some of those WikiProjects haven't noticed the page move yet? It's only good manners to draw their attention to it... EyeSerene^talk 12:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Skims thread briefly Who did you want blocked as a page-move vandal? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene. —Giggy 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't surprise me, given some of the blocks I've seen :) EyeSerene^talk 08:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The July 2008 GAN Newsletter is ready for consumption. Enjoy! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 9 - July 2008 June issue | August issue Project News There are currently 4,468 Good Articles listed at WP:GA . The backlog at WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: 2006 Gator Bowl, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Music of Final Fantasy XI, Geography of Newfoundland and Labrador, Exelon Pavilions, Napoleon I of France, Otto Julius Zobel, and Billy Pierce. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (22), Theatre, film and drama (13), Music (12), Literature (11), and Transport (10). The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 23 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of June, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 61 were found to continue to meet the WP:GAR ). We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month For the first time, we actually have TWO GAN Reviewers of the Month (probably because of the intense quantity of good reviews during the past 30 days). So, I am pleased to announce that, based the assessments made by CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay . Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Epicadam (talk · contribs ) Giggy (talk · contribs) talk · contribs ) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) JonCatalan (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Skinny87 (talk · contribs) Tpbradbury (talk · contribs) Also, with 10 nominations, TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of April: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) Dureo (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Legoktm (talk · contribs) Naerii (talk · contribs) Resolute (talk · contribs) Tinucherian (talk · contribs) 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! GA Criterion #4 - Article Neutrality So, you've completed your review of an article, and it meets the first three criteria: it is "well written", "verifiable", and "broad". But what about criterion #4? How do you judge whether an article meets the neutral point of view is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia , so one would think that means it's somewhat important, right? Most articles will probably be relatively easy to judge. For example, an article on a simple biological organism, like a conflict of interest , rather than attempting a one-sided review. Perhaps the first thing to look for when examining an article's neutrality, is to make sure that all aspects and important points of the article are covered. This actually overlaps somewhat with the "broadness" criteria (#3), and to help with this, it might help to check some of the guidelines that have been organized by several of the Pro-choice viewpoints? Or is it seriously slanted in one direction over the other? Another major thing to look out for is the presence of any obvious edit wars, both in the article's history itself, as well as in the article's talk pages. While lots of recent page reversions in the edit history is reason enough to fail an article on criterion #5 (stability) alone, some more subtle clues to help judge the article's neutrality can be found by reading back through some of the past discussions on the talk page (especially the very heated ones). Have these talk page discussion issues been resolved, or are they still fighting about them today? Hopefully, this helps to clarify some of the better ways to review one of the more tricky criteria at WP:WIAGA . Good luck! Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Featured Articles (2,123)? ... that, per criterion 6 of the Good Article criteria , that the mere presence of images is actually not required for an article to be promoted? It is recommended, but not explicitly required. ... that there are six criteria items listed featured articles ? From the Editor Apologies for the slight belatedness of the July newsletter, partially attributable to the ArticleHistory }} template. Please remember to include this link, as this is very important in assuring the accountability of the GA review process! Anyway, I hope everyone enjoyed the extra three-day holiday, and congratulations to our two GAN Reviewers of the Month! Now, GET BACK TO WORK! ;-) Dr. Cash (talk ) 02:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Madame X (album) (talk | history | start review) • Gedling Town F.C. (talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) (talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) (talk | history | start review) • Jude Law (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Muhammad in Islam • Field Spaniel • Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion • Louie Caporusso • Northallerton • Task forces: GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

Well done guys keep it up and keep the backlog down!! I find it interesting to note that both of the Reviewers of the Month are members of

WP:PW - is this the first time that we've had two reviewers of the month from the same WikiProject? D.M.N. (talk

) 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time we've had two reviewers of the month; usually, I select just one. But in this case, both reviewers came out even. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi people, I just did a review on the controversial subject that it Heather Mills. I did my preliminary review here Talk:Heather Mills (yes its transcluded too). It's been a while since I last did a review so I'm a little rusty, was this ok? I intend to re-look at it in full again when all is finished while on hold. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. You did a fairly thorough review, so that's good. What exactly do you have a question about?

talk

) 05:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it's actually about two weeks, but anyway, here's the stats: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen

1. talk · contribs
   )
2. GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs)
3. Eustress (talk · contribs
   )
4. Nikki311 (talk · contribs)
5. Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs)

Additionally, it's also worth noting that, during the same period, the top two nominators were:

1. Mitchazenia (talk · contribs)
2. Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)

I'm just adding a comment here so this gets auto-archived.

talk

) 07:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue | July issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA . The backlog at WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria , and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs ) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs ) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) talk · contribs ) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) 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! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{ ArticleHistory }} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Featured Articles ? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs ). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Madame X (album) (talk | history | start review) • Gedling Town F.C. (talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) (talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) (talk | history | start review) • Jude Law (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Muhammad in Islam • Field Spaniel • Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion • Louie Caporusso • Northallerton • Task forces: GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

I'm just adding a comment here so this gets auto-archived.

talk

) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We've

That's good news, and it is also good to read in the newsletter that the editor believes that quality has improved too.

Meanwhile at

Good article reassessment, the backlog has grown quite large again, with 23 articles now listed. Could I ask reviewers to take a look at the articles listed there and add their comments. The older nominations are at the top. Geometry guy

20:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On the plus side, you're not at 6200 (see [10]) :P. I dunno what your backlog was a while ago, but it sounds like getting it down to 83 was an accomplishment. So be proud of that.

PotW

} 06:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, 100 is definitely do-able, so I think it should be acceptable that I am saddened when the backlog is more than 100 :)

talk

) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

While hanging round on the nom page, waiting for an article to be reviewed, I thought I'd try and help out the backlog by doing a review myself. As I'd done a couple of Geography ones in the past, I thought I'd try something new and picked

Nominator has agreed to withdraw the nom--

Seahamlass

15:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre (talk · contribs) has delisted Max Mosley see here citing the length of the "Orgy allegations" compared to the rest of the article. I think this delist is a little unfair as the orgy allegation case is currently going on and therefore clean-up isn't likely to take place until after the case. Also, the delister only cites the length of the orgy allegations as the problem and says its unlikely to be list, despite editors being active on the article (see the discussion directly above the delist notice on the talkpage). I think the decision should be reversed, or at least sent to to GAR instead, thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you could add "stability" onto that list. I was really concerned with the writing, length, and instability of that particular section, feeling it to be not up to GA standards. Because a GAR would've ended as a delist, I didn't see why process should be followed for the sake of process. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think grammar is what's "unappropriate" [sic] here. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I think that it should be relisted. The article needs a bit of tidying, and I could see it being promoted to GA with just a bit of copy editing and such. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It should not have been delisted. If it was GA material when it was passed, then at this point it should go to

talk

) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Should not have been *speedy* delisted. Delisting per stability is a tricky beast as an article can't stay stable/instable for ever, and it's unfair to pounce on an article as soon as it becomes unstable so as to delist (not suggesting Sceptre did, just saying). I think we should wait for the orgy stuff to die down, then renominate or take to GAR with the aim of having it passed as a GA (I'd suggest a renomination). —Giggy 02:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your opinions guys. :) D.M.N. (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see this earlier. I've also listed at GAR as an inappropriate delist. If Sceptre had taken the time to ask, I've been working up a much shorter version of that section in my sandbox. Just needs the refs adding. 4u1e (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to GAR. D.M.N. (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a good opportunity to draw attention to the

revised process for reassessing articles which has been put in place after the introduction of review subpages. I will start a new section. In short, delisting, just like listing or failing a GAN, should be accompanied by a review on a permanently linked subpage. This should help to prevent occurences such as this. Geometry guy

12:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why the article should be delisted. If one section is bad, ask the editors to fix it. I think this is just a bit of a waste of time. Instead of taking it here to where everyone could see, you could have just fixed the article, then asked

(talk to me)

21:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I only brought it here to get other opinions, I'm struggling to see how I'm at fault. D.M.N. (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not at fault, DMN. I hope that everyone will take a closer look at Geometry guy's comments above and below on the revised process for reassessing articles. Majoreditor (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sincere apologies to all. — KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment of good articles by individual editors is something which is strongly encouraged. It is more efficient than a community GAR discussion, and also (like a GAN review) essentially takes place on the article talk page, which brings it closer to article editors. The introduction of review subpages has provided greater transparency and accountability for reviews of good article nominations. The need for such accountability applies equally to the reassessment or delisting of good articles. To facilitate this, I've modified the GAR process template to help editors reassess articles well.

All you have to do is add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save: you will see two bold links, one to start an individual reassessment, the other other to start a community reassessment. Follow the first one: it will take you to a GA review subpage just like a GAN review, and the rest of the process is just like the review of a good article nomination.

Make sure you give other editors time to respond. Failing to do this when an article has active editors almost always generates a dispute, which is a waste of the reviewing community's time. All GA assessment activities, from GAN to GAR, need a permanently linked review explaining whether the article meets the criteria or not, and giving suggestions for improvements.

See

Just one other point. Be sure to transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:''ArticleName''/GA''n''}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Has there ever been any consideration given to having sections of

{{Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Art and architecture}}

{{Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Music}}

{{Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Theatre, film and drama}}

That way, a reviewer interested in a particular section could watchlist just that page, and not have to wade through all the entries in all the categories. Any thoughts? Too complicated? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but ultimately I don't like it because it encourages people to only review articles in a narrow topic. If I like video games so I only watchlist "Video game" nominations, then I will be "missing out" on other nominations that may actually interest me but I am not aware of. I think the goal here is to get people to review articles that are not necessarily within their topic of interest.

talk

) 01:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Date linking has now been made optional in the Manual of Style (see

on first thought I'd say not as some articles had every possible date wikilinked, whilst others had none. But like a lot of things sometimes the baby is thrown out with the bath - water! Edmund Patrick – confer 18:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's on an article-by-article basis. If the article already has all dates linked, why ask them to unlink them all?

talk

) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider the newest MOS decision to be subjective at best; some people don't like seeing a sea of blue, while others do. I happen to be one of the latter, but I'm currently advocating the linking of notable full dates. I don't think there should be anything in the GA criteria about it unless it's just plain wrong: "6th Oct. 1987", for example, would make my head explode during a review. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are talking about has essentially been policy for a while. The date example you gave should be expanded to 6 October 1987 or October 6, 1987 depending on preference. Only full dates need to be linked; dates like January 2008 are strongly discouraged from being linked.

talk

) 18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware. My point is that we do not have to add anything further to the GA criteria regarding linked dates. María (habla conmigo) 18:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, does anyone know where consensus was reached to change the policy on linking dates? Many editors are claiming that dates should no longer be linked, but the Manual of Style doesn't seem to say this. I'm wondering about where this was discussed so that I can figure out what is actually going on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's

talk

) 19:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion over this. The present position is that autoformatted dates are neither encouraged or discouraged by the MoS, so it's certainly not true to say that they should no longer be linked. There is, however, a strong move to eliminate autoformatting from FACs. But nobody should be saying that dates should no longer be linked; it's just being informally discouraged for the moment. --

talk

) 19:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a GA specific guideline is unnecessary. The MOS now gives no weight either way. In a review, we should really only concern ourselves with consistency. So long as either all dates or no dates are linked, things are fine. I do agree with the above that linking dates seems to be discouraged at FAC, however. One of my current FAC's had them all removed to "allow high value links to breathe". Resolute 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As did one I'm involved with, so there's certainly a head of steam behind the idea. The deeper issue though is that autoformatting actually hides inconsistent date formatting from the reviewer, but not, sadly, from the unregistered user. To be certain of MoS compliancy a reviewer ought to be logged out when reading an article which has autoformatted dates. Perhaps that ought to be drawn to reviewers' attention? --

talk

) 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually set no specific format for thaat very reason, so I can see any inconsistencies. Peanut4 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. I've just unset my date preference as well. --

talk

) 20:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The date preferences are the only thing that protect me from inconsistent date formatting, though! "

talk

) 04:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea Peanut, I've just disabled date autoformatting. We should not penalise for non-linked dates now, though obviously we should point out stuff like "6th Oct. 1987" still. —Giggy 06:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, good solution. I agree the only thing we should insist on is consistent date formatting. EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have the article

• Are the episodes not a reliable source for what happens in the episodes ... ? Naerii 16:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Ohhh wait, this thing was released ages ago. So I guess there's probably not an easy way to find that out. The GA criteria specifically says "comprehensiveness" and if you've included all the information that there is available on the topic then there's no reason why it shouldn't become GA. GA was originally created for articles that for one reason or another (like this one) were unlikely to become FA, after all. Naerii 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

First, some background. Following concerns about the reliability and credibility of

The current process has many strengths: collaboration between article reviewers and editors is encouraged, the review is personal, and when a good reviewer works with an inexperienced editor, this informs the editor about the process. Since nomination and review are carried out by individuals, the process can scale to meet growing demand, can minimize bureaucracy and can potentially achieve a fast turnover of articles. The process also has weaknesses. One of the most significant, and the one that attracts much criticism, is a lack of accountability. When the current system is applied well, this doesn't matter, but there are few controls in place to prevent it being applied poorly, or being deliberately abused.

A number of measures were considered and rejected by the working party (discussion here) to address this issue. These included requiring: more than one reviewer per review; voting on reviews; approved reviewers; standardised review templates; specialist reviewers; and review approval by appointees. Although many of these proposals might indeed help to address the concerns, it was felt that they would all diminish the strengths we already have, and may harm the good article process more than they would help it.

One measure, however, emerged with a clear consensus as meeting the need for reform without compromising the strengths of the process. This is set out below to invite inspection and comments from the community of reviewers.

Open review proposal

It is proposed that:

1. An article review is opened by an experienced reviewer, who then becomes the 'lead' reviewer for that assessment.

2. The review remains open for a minimum period (say three days), during which time any other interested editor can leave comments or join in with the review. However, there is no requirement for extra reviewers to comment.

3. After the minimum period, the review may be closed or extended at the lead reviewer's discretion, in line with the GA criteria.

4. New or inexperienced reviewers are strongly encouraged to start out by joining in with a few 'live' reviews, where they can see how the process operates and what makes a good GA assessment, before taking on the lead role themselves.

5. Where a lead reviewer is unfamiliar with the article subject (for example, for technical or academic articles), advice should be sought from a subject expert (perhaps the article editors or the relevant WikiProject).

6. Quick fails and passes are deprecated. No opened review should be closed until a reviewer has left constructive feedback. In the case of a GA fail, this should be some guidance as to how to improve the article; for a GA pass, suggestions should be made for further improvement.

7. Articles that are obviously unsuitable for assessment can be administratively removed from the nominations list by an experienced reviewer, with no recorded action taken other than a brief explanation for the removal on the article talk page.

8. Review status can be tracked, perhaps on the

GAN

page, where information about the review (such as the nomination date, opening date, reviewer name etc) along with a link to the article and review sub-page will be listed. It is eventually hoped that this will be bot-generated, but the technical details need more work.

Comments

Please add your thoughts below. This is not intended to be a poll, but an opportunity for constructive feedback (so no voting please!) EyeSerene^talk 10:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

1) Who is an experienced or lead reviewer?

The term is used vaguely; it's not intended to be very specific and eliminate people specifically. But it is intended more as a guideline to encourage newer reviewers to take part in existing reviews to "learn the ropes" before initiating reviews on their own. We're not actually proposing any heirarchy or anything within the GA reviewer ranks, if that's what you mean. The only thing "lead" reviewer means is the one that initiates the review. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

2) I am against any time limits, because they are unnecessary (your proposals 2 and 3).

There are no time limits. Reviews may stay open as long as necessary. The new system would call for reviews to stay open for a minimum time period (three days is suggested, but this could be changed). We want to essentially deprecate the practice of "quick-failing", so that every article gets attention. Although there still is a possibility for an article to be 'administratively removed' if it blatantly doesn't meet the criteria (major NPOV or stability issues, for example); but just as in 1, above, we want to discourage the newer, inexperienced reviewers from doing this. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

3) Proposal 4 is not a real proposal, because they (other reviewers) are already (strongly) encouraged.

4) A second opinion can be requested now, so I don't see anything new in your proposal 5 (except undefined lead reviewer).

5) It is counter productive to abolish quick pass/fails, because summary judgements are always a necessary part of any assessement process. They save time and prevent overburdening of the reviewers. The really good articles don't need lengthy reviews. If one needs a general feedback there are other options: peer review or internal reviews in some projects.

6) You obviuosly relize that quick fails are necessary, so you propose (proposal 7) to reintroduce them through a back door: articles unsuitable for assessment can be administratively removed from the nominations list by an experienced reviewer. However I don't see a definition of unsuitable. Is it really different from the quick fail criteria?

Again, see above. The practice of "quick-failing" is detrimental to the GA process and needs to be removed. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Quick fail spares reviewers from unnecessary work. GA review generally is not a place where articles are significantly improved (however this happens sometimes). This is a place, where they assessed. I consider this a bad habit to nominate an article that is obviously not ready. Ruslik (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

7) The last proposal is purely technical, and should be discussed separately.

Ruslik (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Significantly, no-one proposed leaving the current system as it stands. Some degree of change is clearly required, and we believe this proposal can address our quality issues in the most productive (and least obtrusive) way. It should eliminate drive-by reviews and provide opportunities for new reviewers to get to grips with reviewing, without impacting significantly on the way we are used to operating. Support was pretty evenly divided on retaining/removing quick-fails: replacing them with an administrative removal from the nominations list would seem to be a workable compromise, and actually means less work than quick-failing an article. The nomination would be simply removed, not GA-failed, and a note left on its talk page as to why; no other recorded action would be taken. The strongest argument for this, in my view, is that if we're not going to fully review an article (per the current quick-fail process), we shouldn't then be failing it. This may indeed mean the criteria are changed - it's one of the areas that needs discussion. EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really following the reasoning that concludes that renaming "quick fails" to "unsuitable for assessment" and neglecting to leave a template is going to improve the consistency and quality of GA reviewing. It's the exact same thing and people are going to treat it in the exact same way. Removing them from the nominations list and changing the talkpage template requires the same amount of work as quick failing, and is in fact worse because no feedback is left. Just a silent "no". In effect, you're just removing any perceived obligation by someone who is quick-failing to leave feedback. That's all the effect of this proposal is. Changing the name of it is not going to do anything but cause confusion ("So did my article fail GA or not? What's up with it? What do you mean, it was 'administratively removed from the list'? Wth?"). I think this is a pretty poor idea that will only serve to (a) confuse reviewees and (b) add another layer of bureaucracy-speak to the GA process. Naerii 04:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is that if an article is administratively removed from the noms, constructive feedback must be left on its talk page as to why. The only real difference is that we would not record the action as a GA fail. Essentially we'd just be saying 'this article is not yet ready for GA review, because...'

The above proposals are intended to answer our quality control issues - our current system works well when operated by good reviewers, but it isn't particularly transparent, and when abused or applied badly it's difficult to catch and reflects poorly on the entire project. Quick-fail is one of those areas we get regular complaints about, and there are various ways to address that: we could remove QFs altogether; supervise them more closely; or replace them with something else. The first option was preferred by many, but it was felt we still need some mechanism for removing articles that are obviously unready for review. The second requires a degree of oversight we probably don't have the manpower or the desire for, leaving the third... which admittedly still has the potential for abuse or inappropriate application, but at least won't result in unsafe fails. EyeSerene^talk 08:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So in essence, "administratively removing it from the list" is exactly the same as failing it (not quick-failing it)? You have to leave a review, you just don't get to say it's failed. It reminds me of those jokes about schools that don't tell students they've "failed", they've just "not passed". Semantics. Won't change a thing. Naerii 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a sort of quick-fail without the fail, yes. As I said above, I don't think we should actually be failing articles we don't properly review. We should, however, leave the nominator some idea of what they need to improve before we will review their article. If you can think of a better way to eliminate unsafe, drive-by, and/or one-line quick-fails (which is the point of this part of the proposal), we're open to suggestions ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be some confusion as to what characterizes a "quick fail". I ran into this problem after reviewing and ultimately failing

12 basic principles of animation for GAN; the major contributor questioned my "quick failing", which they defined as failing an article without first placing it on hold. After I corrected them, they posed the problem at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing good articles, which no one has answered as of yet. I'm all for clearing up this confusion with clearer instructions. María (habla conmigo

) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the key points that needs to be addressed here is that most people who say "quick-fail" use the term incorrectly. A "quick-failed" article is not reviewed. A problem (fatal flaw, if you will) such as cleanup banners, obvious instability, a dozen "citation needed" tags, etc., is pointed out with the explanation that the article is not ready to be reviewed. A "fail", which is much more common, occurs when a review is performed and the reviewer believes that serious concerns exist (eg. complete absence of discussion of one or more aspects of the topic, multiple sections completely unreferenced, etc.) that could not be fixed within one week. The nomination is then failed and usually misnamed a "quick-fail". I think we should be careful in discussing "quick-fails" to distinguish between the two, as they are very different. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In some ways, the two are not that different: the reviewer does not believe that the article will pass within a week and does not put the article on hold for improvements. They may be administratively different, but functionally they are very similar. A separate term for "fail without hold" articles might be appropriate.

talk

) 15:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They are very different. A "quick-fail" can be done without reading a single word of the prose. A "fail" should not be used unless the reviewer has read every word of the prose. I think we need to clarify what we are trying to eliminate. It is actual "quick-fails"? Is it "fails", which are often improperly called "quick-fails"? Is it both? I believe the proper way to deal with each is very different. "Quick-fails" need to stay; it is a waste of everyone's time to encourage editors to nominate articles with obvious problems like "Unreferenced" banners. Reviewing them would be a huge mistake, as we need to say that there is a minimum standard for nominations; if we don't, GAN could easily lose its focus. If reviewers have to take unreferenced stubs and walk editors through the steps to expand and source articles, this will only hurt editors waiting for qualified nominations to be reviewed. We need to be able to say that some articles just aren't at a point where they can be reviewed. If the concern is "fails" (ie. "fails without hold"), I believe the reviewer should be able to set minimum requirements for the review to proceed. For example, if an article (that does not meet the "quick-fail criteria") with many obvious problems is nominated, a reviewer should be able to identify several key areas that must be fixed within a week in order for the review to proceed. For example, if three sections of a 30K article are unreferenced, they must be sourced within a week. The nomination is then put on hold. If the changes are not made, the nomination fails; if it is done, a thorough review takes place and the article is either passed or put on hold once more. This proposal allows for constructive feedback and the opportunity for the nominator to continue to improve the article. It also saves reviewers the time of reviewing articles that are nominated prematurely when the nominator doesn't intend to devote the necessary time to fixing the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The above proposal does not address fails (or passes), other than submitting that both should remain open for a minimum period to ensure a full review. Quick-fails (as both you and I use the term) are what seem to be the sticking point here. As you say, currently an article can be quick-failed without even reading a word of the prose. In other words, it isn't fully reviewed... so should we in all conscience then be failing it? It is not suggested that we review such articles, just remove them from the noms list with a note as to why on their talk page. It's quick, simple, and hopefully avoids the negative impression of our project that placing a fail tag on an article one's only glanced at can create. EyeSerene^talk 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As a general comment unrelated to quick-fails: If the process is, for the most part, working well, why would we make substantial changes to it? The accountability, which seems to be the only concern, already exists in several forms: (1) GA sweeps of every Good Article to ensure that it meets the criteria, (2) Good Article reassessment, where any editor can express concerns about inappropriate passes and fails, (3) experienced editors with the GAN page on their watchlists, who see and revert suspicious behavior--eg. an editor passing his/her own nomination, and (4) the GAN and WP:WGA talk pages, where editors can express concerns if they are unsure how to deal with a situation. I have seen all four of these work very well. I am curious as to why this is not considered sufficient accountability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good questions - it might help to re-read the 'Green dot' debate to get a view of how many Wikipedians see GA. It'd be easy for us to circle the wagons, and I accept we can't please everyone, but I think if we want to be taken seriously as a project that produces credible assessments we need to ensure our house is in order. We ourselves know who the good reviewers are (and those to watch out for!), but unless we can build faith in the GA process across the encyclopedia, to far too many we'll always be the place where you go to get a mate to pass your article or get an unschooled opinion. We might know these criticisms aren't often true, and we do catch the more egregious errors and abuses, but the point is we don't have a proper system in place that would prevent them happening. I'm not suggesting the proposal would eliminate problems, but by making the process more transparent and accountable, and providing a degree of oversight, it goes a long way towards helping. EyeSerene^talk 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment on sweeps; if the current, incredibly slow, rate of sweeps keeps up, we will finish sweeping the current batch of GAs (not counting new ones promoted) sometime in the next decade,... Dr. Cash (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's clearly a problem, and I've been wondering if we're going about it the wrong way. It seems like an unnecessarily Herculean task to be asked to take responsibility for a whole section of the GA list, as opposed to selecting articles from the list, perhaps even sampling at random from the whole, up-to-date list. I'd be inclined to argue that every one of the articles still unreviewed on the present sweeps list be quickly scanned for obvious delisting—not just quick-fails, many are FAs now for instance, or have already been elisted—and then we think about modifying the system to make the task seem more achievable. --

talk

) 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is - yet another reason to ensure articles coming through the system are reviewed to the highest possible standard. In reply to Malleus, Jackyd101 suggested that same thing to me when I was having a talk page grumble about my slow progress. I think it's a great idea - it would help reduce the size of the in-tray. EyeSerene^talk 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the most tedious aspects of the GA process and I think one of the most daunting for a new reviewer or nominator is the wall of instructions that one is presented with when loading the page. This is touched on in the working party page, although I don't think (?) it's been addressed by their proposals above. Compare with the FAC process which requires a reviewer to only click a link to initiate a review, and the automation of passing and failing articles. I'd like to see something like this for the GA process. Something along the lines of; the nominator just having to subst a template to the article talk page (with a subtopic parameter) and then click a link and save the page, as with FAC, and the reviewer only having to change the talk page template on the talk page once the review has been completed. A bot could come along and do all the listing and so on on the various pages. Obviously this would need someone with the technical ability, but firstly a consensus (either way) on the matter. Thoughts? Perhaps I am completely alone in this ;) Naerii 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like what you're saying, and have been thinking about it, too. Reviewing articles is daunting at first in my opinion and some steps are bound to be missed for people new to the process. The whole thing can pretty much go smoothly, as in if I pass or fail an article then I change the template on the talk page accordingly; either way, it is removed from

talk

) 16:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are 100% correct and very much not alone - it has indeed been discussed, though the feeling was that we can take the proposal further without finalising bot update details. There is a thread towards the bottom of the reform page (here) if you want to comment there too. EyeSerene^talk 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason that there are fewer instructions at

I added a sentence with the number of ongoing GA nominations. Ruslik (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks good; however, I don't understand why the switch function is needed, so I removed it. I also subtracted the number of nominations on hold from the total (and clarified this in the text) because I think it's more helpful to know how many nominations actually require attention.

talk

) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually wanted to expand this template later. Ruslik (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I completed {{GAN_counter}} template. It shows various numbers interesting for the GA project. Ruslik (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The sports section is regularly the biggest section here, currently with 27 noms (per

Does anyone involved in that area (preferably people involved in those areas; eg. GaryColemanFan, Nikki311, iMatthew come to mind) know of any good editors who've done some work in GA and might be interested in reviewing? —Giggy 10:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the sports section is regularly the biggest section on here, but I'm not sure that's simply down to a lack of reviewers. It regularly receives the most nominations. At the moment the backlog is growing across the board. The amount of reviews needed had gone below 100 a couple of weeks ago, but has been steadily rising since. While it would be great to get more reviewers for sports articles, I don't see it being any more of a problem than other sections. Peanut4 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it gets more nominations—that was part of my point (more noms = more reviewers needed). I'm still using {{User:DHMO/GAP}} whenever I pass a GA to (hopefully) get new reviewers; since I'm not a regular in sports articles I don't know of anyone else to spam, or of any other quick solutions. —Giggy 23:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, and try to review some articles. I always nominate, but barely ever review, so I'll try it out. --

T.C.

00:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think I've reviewed a sports article and don't intend on doing so. However, I like to think that I'm helping out in other sections :)

talk

) 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You did do the one. Wizardman 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, that template is a clever idea. I don't know of anyone involved in sports, but I'll try and review more myself. I'm pretty selfish and only really make significant efforts to review when an article of my own is up - following the logic that the less articles there are left to review, the more likely mine will be done promptly. I wish other nominators thought like that - if every nominator reviewed one other article, we'd never have a backlog. naerii 10:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do try and review sports articles, though my problem is that 90% of those on GAN are either wrestling or association football, neither of which I'm good at or am able to properly review. That seems to frequently be the case. (the two that aren't, one's on hold and the other i helped write) Wizardman 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I get that problem too; frankly I really tire of reading about the same faked wrestling moves again and again. Oops, did I saiy its faked? ;-) —Giggy 12:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a similar problem. I find wrestling difficult to review, and find myself overlooking too much football jargon because that's mainly where I write anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The august newsletter is ready for reading. Enjoy! Dr. Cash (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 10 – August 2008 July issue Project News There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA . The backlog at WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Juggernaut (wrestler), Dark Angel (wrestler), Irrigation in Peru, Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting, Coltrane for Lovers, Bayshore Freeway, Jon Cryer, Heather Mills, New York State Route 273, and Tsugaru clan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles). There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment . Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-) GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay . Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include: talk · contribs ) Giggy (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Also, with 17 nominations, Mr.crabby (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month. Member News There are now 223 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of July: 97198 (talk · contribs) Carbonrodney (talk · contribs) talk · contribs ) Omaga99 (talk · contribs) Protonk (talk · contribs) talk · contribs ) talk · contribs ) 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! GA Sweeps Process The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria). The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here. With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited. Did You Know... ... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August 2007 ? ... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept? ... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)? ... that the GA project was recently mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article entitled, "Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt," on Wikipedia on August 8, 2008 ? From the Editor Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps Correspondent) Nehrams2020 (Article Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Madame X (album) (talk | history | start review) • Gedling Town F.C. (talk | history | start review) • Reggie Barnes (skateboarder) (talk | history | start review) • Exile (American band) (talk | history | start review) • Jude Law (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Muhammad in Islam • Field Spaniel • Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion • Louie Caporusso • Northallerton • Task forces: GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

I'm having some difficulties in delivering the newsletter to all wikiproject GA participants. I used to use

WP:AWB, but I am unable to use that due to some errors (it's not allowing me to obtain a listing of the links to everyone's talk pages). I've tried using Newsletterbot as an alternative, but I posted the request sunday night and it still has not been delivered. If anyone has any suggestions on this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk

) 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hello everyone! I just reviewed my first article for the article SS El Occidente with the review here, and I was wondering if some of the experienced reviewers in this group could take a quick look at it. I would like to make sure that I haven't been too harsh, or too lenient, or missed anything completely obvious. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me.

talk

) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

and me. Edmund Patrick – confer 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time! The reassurances are much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hello everyone, I too am a new person to GA Review . I have nominated an article, and am watching while it makes the move from the bottom (of the list) to the top. Before I proceed any farther into whatever this GA Review process entails though, I would like to receive whatever advice anyone has to offer. Thank you. Hag2 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Good topics) - Cirt (talk
  ) 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)