Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Backlong reduction incentive

I have seven articles on the GAN list. I propose to review two articles for every one of these that gets reviewed (obviously, not your GAN, to avoid COI). Anyone wanna read about some mushrooms? Sasata (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a rather high number (19) of nominations in the 'transport' section. Most of these are all some very obscure numbered highways and roads in New Jersey. They've also all been nominated by the same user (Dough4872), except for one article. If we had a couple of reviewers that could take care of these, that would be good. The earliest nominations go back to early July. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll take Scutellinia scutellata and note that there are nearly a dozen unreviewed nominations that date back to June. -maclean (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would love to help, but I'm a bit new and don't want to do bad reviews. Is there some sort of primer for reviewers so us newbs can get upto speed? Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles or you can watch my review at Talk:Scutellinia scutellata/GA1 which uses a methodical break down of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. --maclean (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that page should have lots of good info. I will try and absorb it all and get to reviewing! Martin Raybourne (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

Progress through August

GA Sweeps has over 400 articles left to review. If you have not contributed to Sweeps yet, now is your chance to help review the remaining articles so that existing Sweeps reviewers can return to fully focus on GAN (instead of splitting between the two as some reviewers have done). Choose whichever articles you are interested in as there are articles available on a variety of topics and of varying lengths. Awards are available at the conclusion of the drive for excellent reviews. If you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Backlog template...

Is currently down to 4 items, with no more commented out to include. Who updates this now that the bot doesn't? Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen User:Jezhotwells and User:Wizardman update it before now, but I've updated it today. Any user can add to it, there's no set ones who update it. Feel free to do it yourself next time. :) Just look through the different categories, and pick out the oldest. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:EMBED concerns

Would some uninvolved reviewers please take a look at Talk:New Jersey Route 68/GA1? I'm concerned that road articles may be in violation of WP:EMBED. Thanks!--Edge3 (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Could a new user please take over the review of this article. This user is refusing to accept consensus and apply common sense, it is becoming disruptive. Taking this a step further, is it feasable to introduce standards that GA reviewers must meet? It will stop situations from this occurring where rogue reviewers try to implement their personal opinion, regardless of what the established consensus dictates. Jeni ^(talk) 01:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You could always go to WP:GAR if I fail the article. What consensus are you actually referring to? A large group of editors created GACR through consensus, and an even larger group of editors created MOS through the same process. I am considering what the established consensus dictates; it's just not the consensus you want me to look at. --Edge3 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Talk:New Jersey Route 68/GA1 review resulted in not being listed as GA, and the article is now a candidate a 2nd time, in the queue at WP:GAN#TRANS. Cirt (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination restrictions

Would it be a good idea to limit each editor to one nomination at a time? This backlog is very overwhelming, and multiple nominations by the same editor only make it worse. WP:FAC already encourages editors to only submit one nomination at a time, so why don't we do it here?--Edge3 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been suggested before. This wouldn't be practical in some sections such as Transport. Spiderone 16:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested several times before in 2008/2009 and turned down. The suggestions appear to come from nominators in certain topics, such as sport, Music, etc, that always seem to have a large backlog. Pyrotec (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominators are supposed to be able to respond to reviewers' concerns in a timely manner. How can they respond effectively if all 10 of their nominations get reviewed at the same time?--Edge3 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(1) I'm not aware of any nominator having ten nominations under review at the same time; however nominations can be failed if the corrective actions are not undertaken within a reasonable time fame. (2) Some nominators of multliple GANs write very good articles. I don't propose to name any, but they know who they are; these articles may get passed without any need to put the nominations on hold. Pyrotec (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we should restrict how many GAN can be nominated at once. Doing so will reduce the quality of improving articles. Dough4872 (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, people will be less keen to improve articles while they have a nomination in the queue. Spiderone 17:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I nominated three articles at the same time. One has since passed, one is on hold, and the third hasn't yet been looked at. Simultaneously nominating them has been a great way to keep them from being reviewed at the same time... :-S Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed, no restrictions are necessary. The queues may in themselves encourage some to become reviewers. Maybe we should put a request for new reviewers into WP:Wikipedia Signpost? Or is it possible to get a message into the top banner, the one that advertises board elections and the like? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to encourage Wikipedians to review articles. I started because I wanted to reduce the Transport backlog. Dough4872 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to take the opportunity to remind reviewers of the standard reasons for not imposing restrictions on nominations.

• First, why is the large number of nominations a bad thing? It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia, and provides reviewers with an excellent choice of articles to review.
• Second, where in the criteria or instructions does it say that nominators are obliged to respond to reviewer concerns? If a nominator does not respond to GA issues within a reasonable time-frame (7 days is standard, but you can declare your own time frame when you place the article on hold), do not list the article, period.
• Third, I've seen no evidence that nominators of multiple articles are the ones who fail to respond to reviewers; instead they are often prolific editors who should be encouraged. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, please present it for discussion.
• Fourth, in the light of the above, please note that GAN is not a queue, even though it is approximately a bunch of queues. Reviewers can review any article they want to. Certainly the guidelines encourage reviewers to consider older nominations first, but that is simply because GAN is a service to editors, and we try not to let them wait a long time for a review. However, the divisions into lists are somewhat arbitrary, so if you believe you are a good reviewer of football articles (in whatever sense), you do not have to review a bunch of baseball articles before you can review one on football. A sports reviewer who disagrees with this should also be looking at the music and transport articles to see if there is something older.
• In short, if you are really enthused to review article A, but feel obliged yet reluctant to review article B first because it comes first in the "queue", forget it, and review article A. If in the buzz, you then also go on to review article B, it is a win-win. If not, you have at least reviewed one article. Now review another.

This crops up frequently. If any tweaks to the guidelines would help, please suggest them. Geometry guy 21:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should create an FAQ page so that nobody has to repeat himself. --Edge3 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. Would you like to make a start on it? Geometry guy 22:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, would welcome a limit. I've seen editors with more than 12 nominations in queue, while not reviewing any others. IMO, it's just common sense. If you have more than 2 or 3 nominations in queue, you should probably help review an article or two to help reduce the backlog, rather than add to it.Dave (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't normally support this, but the backlog is ridiculous. Perhaps for every article you nominate, you have to review one. If we do create a limit, some articles which will fail GAN will be taken straight to FAC. Thus creating a backlog over there. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, to some extend wouldn't common sense be a factor here? If you're a nominator and the queue is taking forever, wouldn't you figure that your odds would be better if you did some reviewing, thus taking some other items out of the queue? But I don't think we should have any rules about it first, because it represents policy creep and second because we encourage reviewers to have certain reviewing skills. Some content creators may not be great reviewers - we shouldn't have any rules or guidelines that encourage people to do stuff for which they don't have the skills or experience. Many of us have seen the difficulties that can stem from problematic reviews - I wouldn't want to encourage that. And Aaroncrick is right - we could also unintentionally worsen problems at FAC. I see the sweeps are progressing. I opted to stay out of sweeps in favour of continuing work at GAN and FAC, but let's at least wait to see what happens when the main sweeps are done. I know there are different views about what effect the conclusion of that process will have, but I think it is worth waiting until we find out the answer. FWIW the queue doesn't seem to have got any worse the last couple of weeks :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've finishes my edits for the FAQ. Feel free to make some revisions so that it reflects current consensus. --Edge3 (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

More and more reviews are slowly popping up. ;) Aaroncrick (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see the benefits of encouraging nominators to only nominate a certain amount, like 3 or 5. I don't think 1 nominee each would be efficient, though. I wouldn't make it a hard-and-fast rule, but I think an informal guideline of no more than five reviews might be the way to go right now. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps a five-article limit would help.--Edge3 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? Which nominators would currently be restricted by such a proposal and to what effect? Evidence please. Geometry guy 23:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dough4872 has 16 nominations, ThinkBlue has 10, and Ed! has 9, for example. I haven't had the opportunity to check the other nominations, so there may be more. However, restricting editors to five nominations would bring the backlog down somewhere below 300. Before this conversation even started, we had more than 350 nominations waiting for review.--Edge3 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered my questions. With what benefit? Geometry guy 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The backlog will be a little bit more manageable. --Edge3 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's it?? I refer you to the FAQ :-) Geometry guy 00:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Touché...I just like to think that opposing the consensus (sometimes even being the devil's advocate) brings about healthy debate and beneficial social change. I would, however, like to see less people submitting several articles at the same time; it only makes things worse. --Edge3 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ironically Edge, those top three in nominations are all somewhat active reviewers, so blaming a backlog on them (paraphrasing) doesnt really work. Wizardman 01:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

lol...I technically just reduced the backlog by 90. --Edge3 (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Four award

Does anyone think that maybe this might encourage people who write a A-class or almost/already FA to just apply for GA so they can pocket it? I can't blame em if they do (same goes for the MILHIST A-class medal) but it might contribute. Some people seem to go for A and GA before FA YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yea...we really need to get rid of the extra incentives, like four award. Wikipedia is a project to work on in your free time. If we don't emphasize that, then we will not succeed in life. Turning in a lot of GANs is like turning in 5 extra credit assignments when you're already earning an A. It's ridiculous. --Edge3 (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorting the "misc" section

I've sorted 3 of 4 nominations out of the misc section, since I was able to clearly identify a primary or major category that fit the article in question. Anyone can feel free to revert if there's a disagreement over the placement. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is currently one article in misc: July 2009 Ürümqi riots. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Boldly going - in the lead sentence

An editor recently began removing the bold in various article opening sentences, several of them FAs such as History of Puerto Rico and GAs such as Scotland during the Roman Empire. To my surprise these actions are backed up by a MOS guideline I had not come across before - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) - see the WP:MOSBOLD section - which states that "If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does."

The problem as I see it is that the policy of emboldening article titles is so widespread that this guideline has in effect fallen into disuse and its likely that hundreds of articles, many of them FAs, GAs and certainly FLs do not adhere to it. It seems to me that is going to be easier and more consistent to amend this MOS page than the many others it affects.

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Descriptive titles. Ben MacDui 18:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree about the guideline falling into disuse, at least at FL. If you look through the recently-promoted FLs, I'd guess (I haven't checked) you'd find them all complying with that guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, most lists promoted before mid-2008 did not comply with that guideline, but we have cracked down on that since. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the bolding quite useful as a quick way for the reader to get situated into the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is the number needing review going down so quickly

A little while ago I was curious why it was so high, now it seems to be dropping very rapidly. Is sweeps over or something? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Myself and Wizardman began a drive to eliminate the Sports and recreation backlog. It seems to be working. Since last week, when we had 53 nominations and very few were in review, we now have 34 nominations and at least half of them are under review. iMatthew ^talk at 00:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be specific: At the beginning, 55 were nominated, and 9 were in review (16%), now there are 34 nominated, and 18 in review (53%). iMatthew ^talk at 00:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lol...looks like you didn't see my above comments. This should answer your question. That edit alone technically reduced the backlog by 90. :) Edge3 (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think we did that many that quickly. Good work on the sports articles, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I just increased it by about 60. This might confuse some people too... --Edge3 (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Cirt (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I move to add the following statement in parenthesis to the opening paragraph at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines:

Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user (ideally one who has written a GA) who has not contributed significantly to the article.

--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"(ideally one who has written a GA)" could turn off reviewers? - I remember how cautious I was to follow the rules the first time, no further putdown needed. Hekerui (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What if someone had written a FA, but not a GA? Cirt (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't like it. The backlog stretches back to mid-July already, and is decreasing so slowly that GAN candidates are being pulled from the listings, expanded a bit, and taken straight to FAC because it's quicker. The last thing you want to be doing is scaring off potential reviewers. – iridescent 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Once the backlog's back down to a reasonable level, then we can talk about making the review requirements more strict. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

While this is not a vote at this time, if it was, I would strongly oppose this on account of WP:CREEP. It's an unnecessary guideline that would discourage more people from reviewing and would not be followed most of the time anyways,... Dr. Cash (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't a vote, but a good example of consensus (which, of course, I share). Geometry guy 21:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement of seven day grace periods of articles on hold

How strict an enforcement should there be of articles put on hold for GA Review? I know seven days is the standard set, but I am seeing that some of the holds listed have been there longer than seven days. This is in regards to the submitter (Nosleep) of the 2009 Giro d'Italia who is upset that I failed his article despite only needing ten things to correct, but he had personal issues to deal with and was unable to get back onto a computer until the day after the seven day period had expired. Is this on an by-reviewer basis or should this be a policy that should be stated a little more clearly? Please advise. Chris (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• The length of a hold is to be determined by the individual reviewers. 7 days is only a suggested time limit.--Edge3 (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• Seven days is the prevailing practice / guideline, but it should not be rigidly enforced. The main indication to look for is whether an active editor on the article has expressed an intention to resolve the issues raised in the review. It can be a good idea in these cases for the reviewer and an active editor to agree a time frame in which the editor will respond. My view is also that in cases where there has been no initial reaction to a GA review, one should leave a message at the nominator's talk page before closing out as fail, in case the nominator has forgotten the article or hasn't realised the review has been conducted. I don't think it needs further policy clarification - editors should just come to this talk page, exactly as you have done, to get some advice. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good answer! I think we should add it to the FAQ above. --Edge3 (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  An FAQ on this would indeed be a good idea, as this has cropped up several times in the past. Geometry guy 21:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've now taken a closer look at the case. I see the nominator was AWOL from WP for about ten days. Chris, I don't think there is anything to stop you and Nosleep/Alex agreeing to essentially re-open the review and, if you believe it would now pass GA, passing the article. My view would be that to do this you would follow these steps:

• Add a comment to that effect at the GA1 talk page for the article
• Delete the following text from the top of the article talk page: {{FailedGA|12:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)|topic=Everyday life|page=1}}
• Replace it with the usual {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}, adding the topic ("Everyday life") and the page ("1")
• Follow the normal procedure outlined at WP:GAN for adding the article to the list of GAs.

So there's another option for you. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's up to the reviewer. If they want to quite after seven days, that's fine. They probably have given the article some thought, and would want to cut the nominator some slack, though. But, it should be totally up to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, I appreciate your raising this question and it lets me know for sure that you are acting in good faith. It may be better off anyway to wait for another review (or at least the amount of time it would take for one), because several of your comments go against WP:CYCLING consensuses - I'd like to bring other editors from the Project into the discussion, and it takes a little time to "rally the troops." And it doesn't really really matter, but I didn't have "personal issues" or "go AWOL" - I got the crap beaten out of me and had my computer stolen. If there's ever an excuse, that may just be it. I agree that it's up to Chris if he wants to fail the articles, I believe I've even directly said that, I was just a little frustrated. More with why I had been away for about a week than the list of concerns. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 07:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have left a message to the user stating that they can resubmit the article for review and I will let another user do the review for GA. Chris (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a hard-and-fast limit, and seven days is a reasonable guideline. I can see that some articles might require a little longer, and could take 14 or 21 days. However, I've noticed several reviewers leaving articles on hold for much longer than that -- we're talking of articles being on hold for 2 or 3 months. That's simply too much time, and the reviewer and editors need to simply step back before it gets to that point. Putting an article on hold should mean that the article is pretty close to GA, and just needs a few issues fixed up (that go beyond simple spelling & grammar that should be fixed up on the spot by the reviewer). If an article takes longer than one month on hold, that's a sign that there's simply too much wrong with the article and the reviewer needs to state clearly why the article does not meet the criteria at the present time, fail it, and suggest renomination once the concerns are addressed. Failing an article should not be taken personally. It just means that the article doesn't mean the criteria in its present state. Once it meets the criteria, it can be renominated. Some of our best GAs had to go through this process several times. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This was not a matter of being impersonal with the nominator on the 2009 Giro d'Italia article. It was just following the guidelines that were set before I put this article on hold and was failed to a lack of response during the seven day time frame. Chris (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Inherent instability?

Given that the 2009 flu pandemic is expected to re-emerge during the fall flu season, can that article possibly pass the stability criterion? It will need to be updated almost constantly with new information. I'm reviewing it, and while it's not perfect, it's good enough not to fail on any of the other criteria. Should I fail it based on inherent instability? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It can pass now, and then be reevaluated at a later point in time if things have drastically changed. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer needed

• At Talk:Ney v. Landmark Education Corporation and Werner Erhard/GA1

MLKLewis (talk · contribs) has prior involvement on this topic [1], and it would be best to have the GA Review carried out by an editor whose interest in the subject matter is more objective in nature. It would be more appropriate for an editor previously uninvolved on the topic to do the GA Review. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to review it, but I'm wondering whether I'm allowed to, since the review has technically started. --Edge3 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Edge, didn't mean to ignore your point - I picked up on Diderot's dreams comments at the GA1 page and went ahead and did the review. It was based on interpreting comments from MLKLewis as being comments only, and not an actualy GA review. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! Go ahead with the review. :) --Edge3 (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) for picking up the review. :) Cirt (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I did say that I was interested in reviewing it before he did...--Edge3 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the input as well, it was helpful. :) Cirt (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Who is the official reviewer?

Given the above, I feel that it's necessary to set guidelines for determining who the official reviewer actually is. As I see it, we have three options:

• first to comment - in this case, MLKLewis
• first to express interest - Edge3
• first to mark the entry on WP:GAN as under review - Hamiltonstone

In my opinion, the first to express interest in reviewing an article should always be considered the official reviewer. Any thoughts? --Edge3 (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) marked it at WP:GAN, I think that will be sufficient. If you wish to provide input as well that's certainly appreciated. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course, as Hamiltonstone added some points that have been responded to, it'd be fine for Edge3 (talk · contribs) to provide a 2nd opinion about that. Cirt (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care about this particular article that much, and I'm not holding that much of a grudge either. However, I feel that similar situations should be prevented in the future through new guidelines. When an editor expresses interest in reviewing an article but is initiating a discussion to establish a consensus, he or she should not be preempted from reviewing the article simply because another editor placed a template on the GAN page first. For this particular article, I already told Hamiltonstone to go ahead with the review above, but I do not want this to happen again in the future. The guidelines should be made more clear. --Edge3 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the time this is not an issue because we are in need of more reviewers at WP:GAN and it is rarely the case to find demand for more than one reviewer at an article. However, I would say that whoever places {{GAReview}} below the candidate at the WP:GAN listing should be the primary reviewer - so long as they satisfy the criteria for reviewing at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#How_to_review_an_article. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do the right thing by asking first whether I was allowed to review the article, since MLKLewis had already posted the first comment. I would have placed {{GAReview}} if given the opportunity to do so, but Hamiltonstone unfortunately ignored the fact that I had already indicated an interest in reviewing the article. --Edge3 (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case this appears to be more of a personal issue between the two of you (unfortunately), rather than a procedural one. Cirt (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not really sure how this turned into an issue. Edge, I apologised in the first place, there was no intention to cut anyone out of the loop. And I would have been more than happy for someone else to have done the work. I saw the interchange on the GA review page before i saw you volunteering here, so by then I'd already started the work. I did not, and would not, ignore another editor. I also think you are looking for clear-cut guidelines for slightly complex cases, where such guidelines aren't going to be the best solution. These cases usually get sorted out here at the talk page - and, although there was a minor hiccup along the way, that's exactly how it turned out. I agree with Cirt that the main criteria for determining who is the reviewer should be whoever tags the article at WP:GAN, but even that can change in exceptional cases, through discussion here at the talk page. I also agree that this sort of problem generally doesn't arise, because there are so many articles to review, and so few reviewers, that there is seldom conflict over people wanting to do the job. We mostly just move on to another article if someone wants to do a particular task. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then...this is embarrasing. It seems that having discussions spread out over multiple pages can lead to confusion. I apologize for making bad assumptions about your actions; it's clear now that you in fact did not intentionally take over a review I volunteered for. --Edge3 (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about recent quick fail

Edge3 (talk · contribs) recently quick failed Flying Spaghetti Monster after a review that lasted approximately 1 hour. I left a message on the user's talk page, but I was wondering if another editor could take a look at this speedy failure as it neither seems to meet the quick fail criteria nor are the reasons for failure particularly clear. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. It appears to have been failed only on "broadness". A more appropriate response would have been to put the review On Hold for the "problems" to be addressed, this is typically a week. For the article to be quick-failed the reviewer must have considered that the problem was so serious that the "problems" cannot be fixed within such a hold, but the reviewer has given no explanation of why that conclusion was reached. Actually, the GAN can't be reopened. There are two ways forward. Submit the article as it currently exists to WP:GAR, or try and fix the problem and resubmit it for WP:GAN (or, resubmit it for GAN as it is). Pyrotec (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I have nothing to do with the article, but I tend to check up on reviews every now and then. Edge3 appears to be somewhat experienced in this area, so his behavior doesn't make much sense to me. Viriditas (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys are right about the quick fail part. However, I'd say the article needs some further refinement especially in terms of coverage and should someone with knowledge in that area step up and refine it, I think this article can be re-nominated for WP:GAN Manoj Prajwal (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I initially nominated the article and am now somewhat baffled. The comments provided were certainly inadequate, especially for a quick fail. I did address one claim by the reviewer, referring to the number of adherents. But this is itself questionable; the article refers to a parody religion – no one actually believes it – and the numbers provided by the Church (which I added to the article) are patent nonsense. Anyway, I scanned the GA reassessment page, but the page rather curiously provided all the reasons not to ask for one and thoroughly dissuaded me. I'll probably just renominate the article in a few days. Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you found this discussion. I apologize for not contacting you. Now that I've looked at your edits, I was unaware that you had recently nominated FSM only on 05:00, 19 September[2] and Edge3 failed the article less than 24 hours later at 04:07, 20 September.[3] That is extremely strange, considering the large backlog and that most articles aren't reviewed for a month. Clearly, Edge3 targeted the article for some reason, and while I could give you a good reason supported by his contribution history, it wouldn't be an acceptable form of speculation. In any case, I hope someone will contact Edge3 and explain to the user that this must not happen again. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A reviewer can choose any article that has been nominated. Unless Edge3 has been actively involved in working on the article, there is absolutely no problem with reviewing it. I've had articles reviewed after two months, and I've had articles reviewed after 40 minutes. That is why it is essential that articles meet the GA criteria when they are nominated. Furthermore, there is no rule that states that a hold period must be given. It is often courteous to do so, but it is not mandatory. Everything Edge3 did in this case is 100% supported by policy. There are many reasons that Edge3 might have chosen this article: it could be a topic that interests him/her, he/she may have wanted to learn more about it, or it could have been one that he/she felt clearly didn't meet the criteria and could be reviewed easily. I have reviewed articles for all three of these reasons. Assuming bad faith, however, and stating that an article was failed due to malicious intentions, in the absence of any concrete evidence, is a violation of a Wikipedia guideline. As the instructions at WP:GAN state, you are welcome to take the article to WP:GAR for reassessment. Alternatively, you can act on the suggestions made during the review and then renominate the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice essay, but it doesn't address any of the concerns that I've raised. Policy does not support or recommend using bad judgment. I will be going through Edge3's previous reviews as a result of what I've seen here. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The concerns brought up in this thread are: (1) the nomination was quick-failed, (2) the nomination was not put on hold, (3) the article was reviewed soon after it was listed, and (4) the reviewer only failed it because of a bias. In response, I would like to say (1) no, it wasn't; it received a full review and calling it a "quick-fail" shows a lack of understanding of the term, (2) there is no rule mandating a hold, (3) there is no rule against reviewing any nomination at any time, and (4) you have shown no proof and are out of line by making such an accusation. There is nothing left to discuss. Either take it to GAR or fix it and renominate it. If you feel that the reviewer used bad judgment, either one of these options will allow you to get input from a different reviewer. That would solve every problem, other than the need for an apology to Edge3 for your accusation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Edge3 made several requests of the nominator, but didn't allow the nominator to address them. Instead, he simply failed the article because it isn't "broad". In this regard, he stated, "In my opinion, this article doesn't fulfill that requirement". That's not an adequate reason to fail any article, and it doesn't hold any water. And GCF? You seem to be confused about my role here. I have no connection whatsoever to the article, the nominator, or the reviewer, so your demands are entirely misplaced. I am an impartial observer who noticed the fail in the edit history as I was helping clear out the backlog. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(←) I strongly suspect this review is the result of the machinations of the anti-Pastafarian cabal, which is well-known (to those who know) to exert an evil influence on the smooth folding and kneading of Wikipedia processes. In his defense, at least Edge3 had the decency to wait until the end of the Pastafarian religious festival "International Talk Like a Pirate Day" (which was celebrated on Saturday) before initiating this debacle. I urge all editors to ensure that reviews are conducted impartially, and to watch out for the dangerous influence of the anti-Pastafarian cabal. Geometry guy 22:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. Renomininate.

Hi everyone. I shall try my best to reply to all concerns in one message. I'm surprised that another one of my reviews has become controvertial. This is my third review to be called into question, so I would definitely appreciate suggestions on how I could improve myself.

First of all, I didn't pick up this article because of bias, but rather because of interest. I have a classmate who left her Catholic faith to join the FSM "religion", so I already had previous knowledge of the subject.

I therefore started the review and determined that the quick fail criteria were not met, so I continued with the review. I expressed a concern that the images might be in violation of criterion 6, so I stated that I might have to request a second opinion in the future. After that, I skimmed the article to check for broadness (GACR #3) and determined that the article didn't sufficiently cover it's subject. In my opinion, the review wouldn't have finished in the recommended timeframe of seven days, so I failed it. The nominator is always welcome to renominate or ask for a reassessment. Of course, I wouldn't be able to review the second nomination due to GAN guidelines. I hope this clarifies what happened. --Edge3 (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Edge3, all I ask is that in the future, you take a little more time with the article and explain your reasons in more detail. Thanks. BTW, check with your friend about the FSM "religion". She may have something funny to tell you. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will definitely spend more time on future reviews. --Edge3 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: The article has been renominated. --Edge3 (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Cirt (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN might be a list

I think that Cher filmography would probably belong in WP:FLC. Does anyone agree?--Edge3 (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it could go either way (don't know what the FL people would say). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I dropped a note at WT:FLC. --Edge3 (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that a filmography is essentially a list with accompanying info. Therefore, it's ineligible for GA status. It's just too bad that the article had to sit in the queue for two months, when it should have been going through the quicker FLC process. --Edge3 (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on the amount of prose vs. the list (although there's no fixed number). Smallville (season 1) is an article for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the FL people will sometimes say "too much prose, go to GA". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...well the ambiguity in prose vs list policies is certainly confusing.--Edge3 (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Coming from an FL reviewer's perspective, the article is leaning more towards a list than an article, as the Motion pictures section can be shortened, and besides, most of the information in that section are already in the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm. Filmography or discography are traditionally classified as list imo.—Chris! _t 02:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Usually filmographies are lists, although they usually don't have as much prose as this one (see Clint Eastwood filmography for a more normal example). However, I still don't think the queried filmography is an article. For example, we have Michael Jackson filmography, which has substantial prose and is still an FL. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The nomination was failed. --Edge3 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Beekeeping

What would it take to nominate Beekeeping for GA? Arlen22 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarise all the important points in the article, acting as a stand-alone summary of the topic. Also needs many more citations, large swathes of the text are not cited. Merge all single-sentence paragraphs into longer paragraphs. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Order of reviewing articles

I'm might be playing devil's advocate here in what I'm about to say, however, I strongly feel it is something that needs to be looked into slightly.

I have noticed that there is a huge backlog in the GAN process, which is understandable, as many users are wanting to submit article for GA review over periods of time. The only thing that strikes to me as puzzling is the fact that people carrying out reviews are cherry-picking, instead of reviewing the next one in line, depending on the category they have chosen. Is there any reasons as to why this happens? If people cherry-pick, then we will end up with cases that have been waiting for months, while the ones nominated recently are getting looked into with qualms. All you have to do is take a look at the entire nomination page, and you will see throughout each category, articles part-way through a list that are under review, while others above have been ignored the chance. Surely this isn't diplomatic nor fair in justice to those waiting? I look forward to seeing everyone's opinions in this matter. Pr3st0n (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And why indeed the next in the Philosophy list, when there are much older Sports nominations? Reviewers are volunteers, not paid employees, and tend to review according to their interest in an article. The lists are not formal queues and any review is better than no review. See also the FAQ above.

I agree that long wait times are a problem: I encourage those who really want to make a difference here to keep an eye on User:VeblenBot/C/Good article nominees awaiting review, which lists nominations without a reviewer by date, independent of topic: go to the bottom of the list and review one of those! Geometry guy 08:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe this has been discussed before, and a problem is that we don't want to deter any more people from reviewing by adding too many limitations!

Categories are rough groupings to help us find articles to work on, but they're not narrowly defined topics, and not all articles are always comparable in those categories. The "Transport" section looks like a fairly obvious example of that; a reviewer might well look at it and think "well, I know nothing at all about American roads; I have no familiarity with the topic in question, no idea of what the articles on such topics are conventionally expected to include or look like, no chance of passing intelligent comments. On the other hand, I do know something about airlines, so I'll review #12, which is forty days younger but I can say something intelligent about".

Whilst encouraging people to work on older stuff is good, it shouldn't be done in such a way as to prevent people stepping up and doing stuff out of the nominal sequence - because the alternative is often that they won't do either, rather than do the one we would prefer. People are volunteers, and they'll do what they want to; if they're the sort of people who'll happily work on anything, they'll already be willing to work on older nominations, whilst if they're the sort of people who'll only work on topics they feel comfortable with, and are told those are unavailable, they'll just walk away and find something else to do. Shimgray | talk | 08:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with all aspects of that - I myself am in the middle of reviewing 2 article on US military units. Although I have no background knowledge into these subject, I am using that factor as an added justification in completing a fair review. If I know nothing about these topics, makes it a lot easier IMO to carry out a thorough review. We all have our own ways to review things I suppose, which I can sympathise with, and respect with upmost gratitude. It just niggling at me that some pick and choose, while others just get on with it, and work on what ever comes next. ***nudge, nudge, wink, wink, for any barnstar issuers wanting to throw one in my direction LOL***. Keep up the good work guys, and "happy reviewing". Pr3st0n (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I concur very much with Shimgray and Geometry Guy. This is not only relevant to GAN, but to the entire project, I think. What would happen if we made a rule that disallowed people from working on articles deemed to be "mid"- or "low"- importance before all the "top"-importance articles had been improved to good or featured status? I admit that I'm a "cherry-picker", but for me it's either that or no reviewing at all. I'm simply not comfortable with reviewing an article on any topic, and I'm sure many people feel the same way. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. IMO the "broad coverage" criterion requires some knowledge of the subject area. In addition there are some types of subject in which I have no interest whatsoever. --Philcha (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Firsly, it this a serious question or just a newish reviewer angling for a Barnstar (for two reviews)?

Secondly, it is worth pointing out that not all GANs are the same, even although they supposedly meet the criteria:

• I have no interest in certain categories so I don't tend to review GANs in them;
• Some articles are very short and some are quite long so the amount of effort needed to review them is different, so I reserve the right to choose articles to suit my needs;
• Some editors consistently submit good GAN's, so I reserve the right to show them some preference;
• Some articles have been resubmitted as a result of poor GA reviews, so I reserve the right to show them some preference;
• Some nominators never have the curtesy to add a thank you note to the review page, the article's talk page or the reviewer's talk page, they merely add another notch to their list of GA's on their talk page; and some do;
• Some nomiators very quickly carry out improvements to "problems" highlighted during the review; and some don't;
• Furthermore, I would suggest that in order to carry out an adequate review, the reviewer aught to have access to the sources (web pages, books, articles, etc). If reviewers take on articles in areas outside their experience (and I admit that I do) it can difficult to verify WP:Verify, broadness and also to check that the article has not been "lifted" in chucks from an acknowledged or unacknowledged source.

Pyrotec (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've switched to FAs. GA takes to long now, although FA has been getting longer too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think we should find ways to encourage reviewers who work on older nominations, especially when these are outside the reviewers' comfort zone, because of the extra effort required to check criteria such as broadness. Barnstars provide one approach (the GA Polymath Award perhaps, for reviews in multiple unrelated subject areas?) Any other ideas? Geometry guy 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not happy about "outside the reviewers' comfort zone", because there's a risk of reviews that are all style and no substance. Some examples:

• Another paleontology and I took apart a GA passed by a non-paleontogist, and it was demoted on the basis of our comments at the Talk page, without the formality of a GAR.
• I'm very comfortable with paleontolgy and zoology, and just started reviewing a mycology article (taking the magic mushrooms), but I'd be afraid of making a serious mistake at a medicine article.
• There are several subjects in which I just won't invest the time to learn the territory. But without that knowledge I could be passing something that's just plain wrong.

Hence I doubt the usefulness of "Bold reviewer of the month" awards. --Philcha (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, especially with regard to medicine articles. However, the major issues we are dealing with here are things like roads, military units and operations, TV episodes, sports events and seasons, music groups and albums and so on. This is out of the comfort zone in an entirely different sense. The sources are mostly online and one of the main jobs of the reviewer is to check that they are reliable and that the material in the article is supported by the material in the sources. That's tough work, and deserves to be rewarded. Geometry guy 23:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind handling the Military GAN cases. I'm not in the military myself, but know many people who are, and plus I was dating a British Royal Marine for a while, so have some basic knowledge on what to look for - and if I'm in doubt, I could always ask the "marine" ex for his opinion (good job he and I still have some form of good contact). Pr3st0n (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary that you be an expert. In fact, Wikipedia was founded on the basis that anyone can edit, and we don't give preferential treatment to experts in a particular subject. Therefore, I believe that reviewers don't have to be experts as well.--Edge3 (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Plus, there are many articles that have already passed FA and GA that can be consulted to assess what needs to be in a topic to be considered "broad in its coverage" (which is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles). --maclean (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Inactive user

User:Kathyrncelestewright has some articles in the queue for review: Les Fêtes Chinoises and Curly Top (film). However, she has no edits since 28 August, and did not conclude revisions to a third article which was reviewed in early September. Would other editors support removing these from the queue? She can always renominate them if she comes back, and I would happily assist in reviews at that time. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What was the third article? She just might be waiting for the reviews to begin. --Edge3 (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Flore et Zéphire was failed after there was no action for a while. I don't think she's just waiting for the reviews. Ottava left a message a couple of days ago asking if she was still around, and there was no reaction. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do make sure that someone posted on her talk page. Once a note's been there for a week, unanswered, then I'd say yes, remove them without prejudice. I wouldn't even record them as GA fails, actually. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point - i've left a specific message. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thumbelina might have to be failed, though, but I think we should leave that entirely up to Scott Free (who isn't very active either). --Edge3 (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Scott Free, the reviewer, has been notified of the situation.--Edge3 (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the note - actually, there had been a good bit of work done on the article just prior to Kathryn's inactivity - although of course it would be nice to have the article submitter available for comment, I feel that it's nonetheless in good shape for an assessment - I should be able to get on it this weekend - but if anyone's else feels inclined to assess it or remove it or fail it, feel free to do so - --Scott Free (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. I think it would be great if you could complete the assessment. If there are any minor issues that need fixing, then I'd be happy to help. --Edge3 (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is one little thing - the Live action subsection in the Adaptations section could use some references - so if you have a chance, that would be a big help. --Scott Free (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. --Edge3 (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:GAN bot

I've automated WP:RFC, WP:RM, WP:MFD archival, and now I would like to bring my services to WP:GAN. The discussions already take place on the various article talk pages, so why have humans update a list that a bot could do instead? @harej 21:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! Would you please explain in detail how a bot would affect the nominating and reviewing procedures? Would it affect the backlog in any way?--Edge3 (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope to make the revised process as similar to the current one as possible. The biggest change I imagine is that instead of the central list being updated, the role would be decentralized with a tag on the GAN discussion similar to {{rfctag}}. Instead of the list being updated whenever there's a status change, there would be a status parameter that would display the state of the nomination on the page and on the central list (via the bot). When the discussion is over, the tag can be removed, and the bot will remove it from the central list. I don't know how much it would affect the backlog, but it would definitely make trudging through it less daunting (since you no longer have to edit a massive list). Can you link me to a closed GAN discussion that I can use as a reference? Also, out of curiosity, why are GAN discussions given separate pages? @harej 03:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, harej (talk · contribs), I think that more automation in the manner similar to the WP:RFC process, the way you are explaining it, would be a very helpful development. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Here's a better idea: why not use {{GA nominee}}, which already has parameters and is included on the talk page of every GAN? And instead of having a separate discussion page, have a section= parameter so the discussion can be directly linked to. @harej 03:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I think the bot would really simplify the current procedures. There are plenty of closed GAN discussions. One I recently did could be found here. That review had the following statuses: on review, on hold, second opinion requested, then failed (in chronological order). Also, I think GAN discussions are given separate pages so that locating the discussion would be easier. I find it very hard to search for old GA threads among the archives, so I highly support the use of separated pages. --Edge3 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There can also be multiple GA reviews, i.e that article was resubmited and the next GAN review is at here. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm done coding the first version. 451 lines and 30.1 kilobytes. This is easily the largest script I've ever written. Thank you for making WP:GAN such a simple process. ;] @harej 16:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. We try our best! :) --Edge3 (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Something to bring up when we reconsider putting the GA sign on article pages

Here's an interesting fact: Of the ten largest Wikipedias after English, 5 of them not only have the GA sign on the article page, but display a Good Article on the Main page! That's right: the Spanish, Polish, Chinese, Swedish, and Russian Wikipedias all do. I'm just sayin'... Diderot's dreams (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have always thought there should be a way to feature some GAs on the main page as we do with FAs, DYKs etc. I would be keen to see a way of doing this. If other editors here at GAN thought it was a good idea, does anyone have a view about the next step in having that discussion? A discussion at Talk:Main Page? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support having the green GA sign on the corner of the article page, as with FAs. bridies (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought that having a GA sign might be arbitrary, but I would support it. Not sure about the main page bit though, what about articles that haven't been cleaned up lately? ceranthor 12:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(response on the "what about articles that haven't been cleaned up lately?" issue). That would be addressed through a nominations and vetting process. Just as Raul checks out FAs, and editors clear DYKs for key policy issues, we would have a vetting process for GAs prior to promotion. One idea would be to put them in through GAR, or they could go through a separate process like DYK entries. There are a few options - any of which could ensure that what goes forward is sound. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. GAs are understood to be imperfect articles. No vetting process is necessary. --Edge3 (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support having the GA sign as well. As for your other point, imperfect GAs just emphasize the fact that they still have a lot of room for improvement. --Edge3 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would certaintly support showing GA on the main page so that just like FAs and DYKs, people's hard work can be shown off and improved.--Giants27(c|s) 12:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think having the GA sign in the corner would be great and would encourage people like me, who often feel an FA is out of reach, to contribute more. Spiderone 12:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I also support a GA icon. OTOH I think a spot on the main page may be a lost cause, as IIRC more than 1 FA is being promoted per day. --Philcha (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that we may have 2 FAs on the main page soon?--Edge3 (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the green circle in article space. Don't think we can get consensus to put GAs on the main page, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We might have to open a WP:DRV on Template:Good article. What do you guys think?--Edge3 (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need a DRV. They would just say get consensus to use it, and you can have the template back. We probably need to put something on WP:CENT pointing to a discussion here, or on VPP or somewhere. Make sure everyone who would support it knows about it, becuase it's going to get a ton of opposes. It's been tried before, but I can't remember where. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes DRV is irrelevant. As for any future !vote on the issue, I would suggest a completely independent page, like an RfC. I would also suggest waiting until the end of Sweeps. The greater the time before the next !vote on this, the better the chance that editors have moved on (both literally and metaphorically) since the last one (approximately 1 year ago). A premature !vote will likely result in an unilluminating conclusion (and that is a likely outcome anyway, so don't get your hopes up). Geometry guy 23:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to burst anyone's balloon, I've come to terms with the fact that it's very unlikely that there will ever be a GA sign on the article page, but that doesn't mean the issue isn't worth raising again though. I do very much agree with G-guy's comment about waiting for the end of GA Sweeps; there's no point in handing out to the inevitable opposition the stones to throw. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate biology and medicine?

The Biology and medicine section is getting pretty massive, does anyone think it might be a good idea to separate it into two, i.e. 'Biology' and 'Medicine'? (On the other hand, only a few are medicine, so this might not help with organization, but I can't think of another way to divide it). delldot ∇. 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's actually a medim one. I'd be more receptive to merging some of the small ones, or splitting some of the big ones. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a bit of a slowdown currently, but maybe its size serves as a hint for folks to review :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Gallery showing cast list of cartoon series Phineas and Ferb

The main editor of Phineas and Ferb, which I'm reviewing, has just added a gallery showing the cast plus the 2 creators. Commnets on the gallery? --Philcha (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As the editor, I would like to say it isn't a gallery - it is a table that lists the names of the main cast and sometimes shows their image. The Flash ^{talk} 22:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Featured Content Dispatch Workshop noticeboard here?

I don't understand why this is here. It doesn't seem to have any direct relevance. Was there some discussion or consensus I missed? I think it should be removed. Diderot's dreams (talk) 13:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not aware of any such consensus for its inclusion on this page, or any other, it is directly related to GAC, and therefore I think it should stay. From the first section at Wikipedia:Featured content dispatch workshop: "The goal is to write a weekly column for the Signpost that describes issues concerning featured content and related pages, particularly in relation to editing and how the processes work. The stories will be about (but not limited to): interesting activities and decisions on the featured articles, pictures, lists, portals, topics and sounds, good-article, peer-review and DYK pages; and high-quality contributions by individuals and groups." Many of the dispatches were written by some of the most prolific content editors on Wiki, and very helpful for anyone dealing with the any part of the GAC/PR/FAC experience. So don't knock it til you've tried it; the image review one was especially helpful for me. ;) María (habla conmigo) 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it does have relevancy to GAC, now that you point it out. Maybe we can make it take up a little less space. Thanks for the explanation. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Weird stuff

Ok, I think a mistake went down. I signed up to review the article Marry Me A Little, Marry Me a Little More here. I went back to complete the review when I found that the article, and my post to review it, were missing from the list. Even stranger, I found myself signed up to review Bigipedia, which I had never done. Immediately I removed the notice and notified the nominator. Then, I checked to see if it was a mistake (I'd assume it was), finding that the article had been passed as a GA. Does anyone know what happened? ceranthor 00:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Diff. Shoemaker's Holiday passed the article, removing it from the list, but left your name and template, making it seem as if you were reviewing Bigipedia. I'm sure it was just an honest mistake, although you may want to alert him/her of it. María (habla conmigo) 00:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I presumed that Ceranthor's review had been abandoned, as it was three days after he tagged it as about to be reviewed (or at least I thought it was). Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 209 FCs served} 09:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. However, I believe the main issue is not that the article was reviewed, but that Ceranthor's reviewing template was left in place making it seem as if they were going to review Bigipedia, which they obviously had no intention of doing. Perhaps next time you can contact the reviewer first to ask whether they still plan to begin their review; I know it's taken me a few days to deliver on my promise to review at GAC, but I always get to it. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Review by consensus

Instead of having individual editors review GANs, why don't we have reviews completed by consensus, similar to the FAC and FLC processes? This would encourage more people to review articles, since they wouldn't have the burden of carefully inspecting all aspects of the article against all GA criteria. --Edge3 (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a good idea, I'll grant you that. However, it would slow down things a lot. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It may take longer to finish the reviews, but all of the reviews would begin sooner. Right now, I'm so busy that I'm willing to review one article at a time, but if we have reviews done by consensus, I would happily pick up about 5 to look through. --Edge3 (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC and FLC are chronically under-attended. Adding more levels of bureaucracy to GAN would, as Cirt says, further increase the backlog. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a whole already moves slowly because of the fact that everything is done by consensus. What harm will a slower GAN process do to the project?--Edge3 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This has already discussed above (and is in the archive), possibly in response to poor quality reviews. Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it is also a review of a lower-level of quality, so it makes sense to have less reviewers, then on to more reviewers for peer review, and finally (hopefully) more reviewers at WP:FAC. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the proper reviews done in GAN (though not all are like that), it gives the subsequent process something "good" to work with. I find doing reviews tiring too but at least I think one can help really improve the article by making sure the basics are covered. Hekerui (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that a group of reviewers working together is capable of making a better review than one individual person. --Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, but how many articles in the last year have had more than one reviewer? I'm aware of at least four, and that is because in all four cases the nominator(s) refused to accept the verdict of the first reviewer. Realistically, multiple-reviewer reviews are not going to happen. If you read the comments above, nominators are complaining about the time it takes to get an article reviewed. Your suggestions make the problem worse: (1) there is the administrative problem of arranging multiple reviewers, (2) dilution of responsibility - no one is responsible so, no one takes responsibility. I can review about one short article per day or two/three days to do a long article; and I have several reviews going on in parallel. If I have to arrange for other reviewers to review the article and then come to a consensus; that will slow the process down. Don't forget, there are discussions above about adding the GA symbol to both the front & back of the article and re-reviewing all the existing GAs, these changes will stop the system dead. You are more than welcome to make suggestions, but you must consider the potential consequences and the inconsistencies that each change will cause. Pyrotec (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your point that "multiple-reviewer reviews are not going to happen." Removing the burden of reviewing the whole article would actually encourage more people to provide comments on GANs. --Edge3 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents as an economist: the time we use to review is split in two: half the time (or whatever fraction) goes to reading and understanding the article and half the time goes to thinking and feedback. I agree that the more people who review an article, the better feedback and review we will get, but there is, excuse the technical term, a declining marginal value for each review—each new reviewer needs to spend a fair amount of time to read the article, but each new reviewer will add less and less constructive feedback because there will be an overlap between their feedback and that of the previous reviewers. In addition comes the time cost to coordinate the reviews. This may be necessary to establish and reach featured status, but it is not necessary for this amount of scrutiny to establish if an article is good or not. After all, there is in my experience little disagreement as to what is a good article, and more disagreement, or rather different solutions, to what feedback and advise to give to an author to improve the article to good status. If there is one thing this project lacks, it is reviewers time. I spend a given amount of time reviewing articles, as I think most other people do. If the total time to review an article increases (which it undoubtedly will do with a concensus approach), then the number of articles going through the system will be reduced and the backlog will increase. It is already dangerously high. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice analysis Arsenikk. The GA criteria are pretty straightforward; it doesn't take a jury or an Act of Parliament to decide whether an article meets them or not. And unlike FA, we have a quick and simple reassessment process if mistakes are thought to have occurred. I'm also reminded of something that Ling.Nut said some time ago. Perhaps GA is at least about the education of editors as about raising standards per se. If so, then we need more and quicker reviews, not new bogs of ever-increasing bureaucracy. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus (there's a standard clause that comes into effect here, for those who know it).

I have been consistently and firmly against any change to the one-reviewer-decides principle. It is not as reliable as the consensus model, but it is more efficient, in that extra resources only need to be involved when the one-reviewer-decides model leads to a poor or disputed decision. Multiple reviewers are welcome to comment on any GAN, but the initial reviewer decides. A consensus model would essentially mean that GA duplicates the role of FA with watered down criteria, with an instant loss of its main benefit to the encyclopedia: the one-reviewer model means that GA has more potential than any other process on Wikipedia to address the problem that over 2.5 million of our articles are crap. Geometry guy 23:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the GAN reviewing process actually achieves greater results than the FAC process does. Perhaps however, we could trace a number of steps behind FAC and appoint GAN director(s) to give a final, brief assessment of an article that has been reviewed (and given the all clear). What does anyone think of this idea? Too much effort? Would it save poor GAs falling through the quality net? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The best check in my opinion is cynicism in the process. If you believe WP:GAN churns out poor articles, you can look at the articles yourself and call out poor promotions. No need for elections of a dear leader or slowing down a process which I assume works at least half the time. @harej 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe WP:GAN "churns out poor articles", I said it achieved greater results than FAC after all. But I do believe GAs need to be of a similar quality and that a director might aid in that. Regardless, I think it is an interesting point of discussion. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That meant to be a generic "you". As in, if some person were to be wary of the process, they are welcome to investigate and subject articles to recall appropriately. @harej 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have completed, at the last count, some 158 GAN reviews since 16 September 2008 and 31 GARs; and I'm happy to acknowledge that there are GAN/GAR reviewers that have done far more than I have. Now there is a proposal by a reviewer that has done a grand total (according to his talkpage) of five GA reviews, that perhaps reviewers shouldn't make the final decision, some director needs to make the decision. Well my answer to that, if it comes into affect would be: "sod off, I won't do any more reviews". Pyrotec (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Be glad it isn't gaining traction then. @harej 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to get all British. To get MasterOfHisOwnDomain up to speed, about every month or two, a proposal to make GA for like FA comes up. Suggestions that involve more than a single editor, besides second opinions and whatnot, are pretty much rejected. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Given my message in British-English, how would I deliver it in American-English (just curious)? Pyrotec (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect most Americans would understand you, but in any case, the best translation would be "Fuck off! I ain't yo bitch anymore!" @harej 21:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Arguments of me > you are off-topic. Hekerui (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Another concern I have is that making GAN a "FAC light" will make GAN complete with FAC for the same heads. People on Wikipedia are different; some specialize in certain aspects of an article, while some people are good at looking over an entire article and hammering down all aspects of it. This is only possible because the GAN has pass at less than perfect. The featured process has its "specialists" who look through various elements of the article: some look at prose, some look at MOS compliance, some look at images and some look at content. No-one can be perfect at everything, but here at GAN, particularly those of us that have three-digit number of reviews, get a nag for the "whole picture". This is an amazing feat that the guys over at FAC and FLC don't quite have. And it creates an efficiency unmatched by the featured geeks. As a bonus, people who work with GANs probably, because they are forced into learning to pick at all aspects of an article, become excellent all-round article writers themselves. I also think that the GAN has an appeal to the more Wild West, where individual knack and initiative is more important than a social bureaucracy. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said Arsenikk, I entirely agree. Pyrotec (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this too, and consistently oppose any move towards FA-lite: GA has a different purpose and approach. In particular I distinguish between raising the GA standard (which I am against) and raising the reliability of the GA standard (which I support). GA doesn't ask much of an article: "Is it readable, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable and free?" Ideally all our articles should satisfy that, but sadly most don't. GA is fixing the problem one article at a time, in a rather efficient way. The main thing is to ensure that as many editors as possible get the feeling for the "whole picture" and the GA standard that Arsenikk describes, so that the benefit of GA to the encyclopedia is maximized. Geometry guy 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. At the same time, FAC is incredibly important, both in producing very high quality articles, and in motivating editors; there's a natural synergy between the two processes that should be encouraged.

Yes — they are two different processes and we should keep them that way. Increasing the reliability of the good articles process would be nice, but as it is the process is fairly reliable and not worth sacrificing principle over. Plus the current appeals system is pretty good. @harej 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think a lot of improvement could be made by reviewers making more use of the "second opinion" option. A culture in which reviewers add to other reviews without being asked, either to endorse or point out further problems would help even out the review quality, and reduce disagreements. The primary review and decision is still made by one person, so secondary reviewers are not under pressure to give a full review (similar to how GAR usually goes). If anyone ever wants to add to my reviews, they are more tha welcome!YobMod 13:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've completed 159 GAN reviews in the last thirteen months and I've had a 2nd opionion in no more than three of them - that was two separate editor's (I remember their names but I shalln't name them, but you can look them up if you like). One of them has done many more reviews than me; and the other one (I think) had completed one review at that time and was still full of enthusiasm. It is nice that another reviewer takes sufficient interest to add comments; its just that in my case it is approximately 3 in 159 reviews. So I can't agree with your suggestion that reviewers are producing sub-optimal results by ignoring 2nd opionions. I am aware of cases where the nominator or another editor, rightly, refused to accept the verdict of the reviewer and forced a renomination of the article for GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Requiring GAs to be reviewed by multiple reviewers before promotion has been discussed before. The reason it hasn't gotten anywhere is that we don't want to be "FAC Light", and that would make us too much like FAC. I will also strongly oppose the idea of a "GA Director(s)" -- the LAST thing we need is for some "super-user" running around with some additional title that they're going to hang on to for far too long. With no offense to Raul, part of the problem with FAC is that Raul has had that little "title" of FA Director for too many years now, and there's no fixed "term of office" with that. So he's allowed to run around with near "Jimbo-like" authority without necessarily having to answer to anyone. We don't need more of this; we need less of this. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  Congratulations for strongly (and boldly) opposing issues that no one has actually supported anyway. No one asked for a !vote, and !votes such as this show a complete lack of touch and failure to engage with (or even read) the discussion. We don't need more of this; we need less of this. Geometry guy 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Green boxes

I'm about to start rewriting the instructions for when the transition is complete (I'll host it in a user page until it's ready to be put on), and I was thinking of something. Do we really need all those green boxes? Frankly, I think it's overkill, and besides, Wikipedia:Requested moves looks just fine without it. Barring substantial objection, in my simplified rewrite of the instructions, I will do away with the boxes except for the box up top. What say all of you? @harej 03:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the green boxes are necessary to help separate important material. And please don't rewrite the instructions without clear consensus. There's far too many people around here that simply want to be the "saviour" of GA and want to dictate to everyone how things should be done. In fact, what we simply need are more dedicated reviewers, and more people with the knowledge of the criteria to help articles be better. Lately, too many people have been using the talk page here to b*tch and moan about things like the backlog being too high and for "suggestions on improvement", instead of actually working to improve articles. If GA didn't spent it's time on 50% reviews and 50% "process improvement", maybe there wouldn't be a huge backlog to begin with. So, to make a long story short, please DON'T rewrite the instructions. They're fine. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dr. Cash. By almeans create some instructions on a user page for people to look at and comment on; but the existing instructions should stay in place. Pyrotec (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

By no means am I interested in changing the process. These rewritten directions would just be to account for the autogenerated list. And it won't be implemented until it's ready. @harej 18:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, DO NOT rewrite the directions at this time. If you wish to automate the process, focus on that. Once that's done, if there are minor changes necessary to the instructions, then we'll focus on that. But I strongly oppose any rewrite of the instructions at this time. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the substance (if not the strong wording) of this. If/when the automation is rolled out, the changes to the instructions will be fairly straightforward (removing the steps that are no longer required thanks to them being handled automatically). Anyone is free to make a draft revision of instructions in their user space, but the instructions on the GAN page are consensus based, and proposals to change the formatting should not be bundled together with necessary changes resulting from (consensus based) process changes. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Indeed, the text of the draft won't be more than the modified current instructions. My idea to do away with much of the prettiness was just an idea I came up with; apparently, an unpopular idea, so I will not go ahead with it. @harej 20:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I feel that the green boxes are rather unnecessary. I favor your proposal to get rid of them. --Edge3 (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It will be clearer when we see what the instructions look like after the obsolete steps are removed. It may even be obvious. But one step at a time. Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Geometry guy 13:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How many refs are required?

Does every single statement need an associated ref? Or just ones with quotes and stats, or controversial ones? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Good article criteria point #2. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In laymans terms? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not every sentence needs to be cited. Yes, all quotes, stats, and facts likely to be challenged should be cited. María (habla conmigo) 04:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Prose or list?

How would you classify The X-Files (season 9) and Bigg Boss (Season 2)? Should they be sent to WP:FLC?--Edge3 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, I'd go to FLC first only because it's 5x faster. I would consider the first one an article though at least, second leaning list. Wizardman 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say the first is an FAC, and the second an FLC. If you want to read some detailed reasoning about the difference between the two and how it relates to TV ep lists, check out the FLC for Supernatural (season 1). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed Bigg Boss from the list --Edge3 (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Automatic listing of nominees at WP:GAN

Please see the draft at User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2. The reason why that list looks different from the one at WP:GAN is because of the discrepancies that exist between the list and the data within the {{GA nominee}} tags used on talk pages. I am good with updating the documentation and retrofitting the existing GANs unless there is something very egregiously wrong that I need to fix before I can proceed. @harej 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! We will have to revise all of the procedures when you are done, though. Shall we tell everyone to stop nominating, passing, or failing articles for the next few hours?--Edge3 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about any of that. When it's time to temporarily shut down GAN, I'll make it known, and once the bot has fully taken over the process, you will be able to tell. @harej 21:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is great work, but please do not rush to implement. Automating WP:GAN is on a different scale from RfC: WP:GAN is very active 24/7 so any automation needs to be very robust. Also, WP:GAN serves a purpose, and one of those purposes is to see at a glance which nominations are under review by which reviewers. Capturing the reviewer is a tricky one: if you can do this, then your automation may fly.

This is something I have thought about a lot, and in my opinion, any proposed automation of WP:GAN should set it up in user space (as you have done) so that it replicates WP:GAN as closely as possible, and then let it run for several months, fixing glitches on the way. Once it has several months of smooth operations, we can discuss making the transition.

I hope this doesn't sound discouraging. Believe me, I am a huge fan of automating GAN and really hope we can make it work. Geometry guy 22:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I understand the magnitude of this process and I don't want to rush into things. While I will definitely be doing more testing, I don't find it necessary to test it for several months before integration unless it actually takes that long to come up with a working product. Here is how I see it. The current process places a lot of emphasis on the list, and the replacement process is based entirely on what {{GA nominee}} says. To have both processes running at the same time would increase workload without any of the benefit of an automatically-updated list. To run both while recognizing the current process and mostly ignoring the replacement process as a sideshow would mean that we would have to continually work to retrofit nominations until we decide to finally settle with one process. Yes, we must test it to make sure it works, but there is no reason to embargo a working process. @harej 23:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You haven't commented on capturing the reviewer in an automated list. Geometry guy 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Would a reviewer= parameter be any problem? All it would add to the template would be |reviewer=~~~| @harej 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be a sensible approach, and is also why we need some time to make the transition: guidelines and templates need to be changed to accommodate the new process. Please bear in mind that many editors are not (understandably) wiki-code experts, and will not always do what we expect them to do in response to changes. It can be annoying to maintain the replacement process as a sideshow (that's my preferred approach) for an interim period (I did it with WP:Peer review, so I know from experience) but the benefit is worth the effort. I'm willing to help. Geometry guy 23:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah! You are the one who automated WP:PR. I am impressed at your work (and was going to do that if you had not done it already). You are definitely more deliberative than I am; my approach to automating has consisted of suddenly changing things and throwing up signs everywhere. After the culture shock subsides, it works. Your approach just might be better. Let's come up with a way of weaning people onto the new listing system. @harej 00:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the PR bot is coded, operated and maintained by Carl(CBM), so it would be an overstatement to say I automated it! As for approaches, yours is often a good way to go, but in this case, culture shock would lose reviewers and add a hundred articles to the backlog! Introducing "reviewer=" into GAnominee is straightforward enough; we also need to track nominators with a "nominator=" parameter, but that is even easier, since it can be done automatically by {{subst:GAN}}. If you can get your bot to capture this information, then the auto-generated page will become a convincing avatar for the manual one and the transition will be relatively straightforward. Geometry guy 07:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the templates to support a reviewer and nominator parameter, and I have updated all the other templates. @harej 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. Do you want us to fill them in, or will those parameters be automatically filled in future reviews?--Edge3 (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

From now on, {{subst:GAN}} will fill in the nominator automatically. The guy who decides to review it will have to put in his name in the template manually, but at least the parameter will be there. In the meantime, we should fill in the blanks manually. Really we should begin to update the documentation so that when the switch is made to the automatic list, we'll be ready. @harej 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The first person to edit the review page is usually the reviewer. Could you use that information to automatically insert the reviewer's name into the parameter?--Edge3 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be too unreliable in my experience. We need a robust substitute for the reviewer posting "On review" at GAN, and that needs a talk page parameter. It means adding three tildes to the "reviewer=" parameter in the GAnominee template (the bot should be robust enough to accept the more familiar four tildes instead). We don't need to worry about the "nominator=" parameter: those who believe automation of WP:GAN is a good thing can for now fill in the parameter to make the draft automated page look more impressive; in the long run it will be filled in automatically with every nomination.

Once fully implemented, the bot means that every subsequent change of status (on hold, second opinion) needs only to be made on the talk page, saving editors' work. In an interim period there will be this very small amount of extra work so that useful information on the GAN page is routinely recorded on the article talk page.

Finally, one further issue for harej: another thing GA reviewers value at GAN is the edit summaries. The bot could provide good edit summaries if it ran frequently enough so that there were only one or two changes in most runs (say every 5-10 minutes - the exact figure may need to be optimized). In cases where the changes were too long for a good edit summary, the bot could say so, and provide a link to a log page where more detail is available. Is something like this worthwhile and achievable? Geometry guy 22:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Using status=review produces the "On review" message on the auto-generated lists. Furthermore, for those paying attention to the draft, there is a link next to the listing that reads either "Start review" or "Discuss" based on whether or not the review page exists. The bot actually does not use the reviewer or nominator parameters yet, though it will shortly.

As for edit summaries, the log thing is kind of pointless, because they might as well click on the diff button. I don't have a problem with running the bot every 15 minutes, but as of now there is no way to track differences between updates. Luckily I have just thought of a way and it should not be that difficult to implement. @harej 23:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't really been following these discussions. Can someone break the changes down to a bite-sized version for us newbs? Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the title of this section. The summary is: at the moment reviewers need to record many of their activities twice, once on the article talk page and once at WP:GAN, a duplication of effort. The proposal is that a bot will handle the WP:GAN version of events, saving effort on the part of reviewers. To do this we need to make small changes to ensure that all useful information that we use at WP:GAN is recorded on the talk page, and we are discussing the best ways to do this. The main proposed changes are that the user name or ip address of the nominator will automatically be recorded in the GAnominee template, and that reviewers will need to add their name to the GAnominee template. Geometry guy 22:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the instructions to reflect the changes. Hopefully people will actually read them. :( --Edge3 (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a warning message. We might as well have people confused now rather than later...--Edge3 (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

When we fill in the reviewer parameters, do we add the signature - 3 tildes for Edge3 (talk) - or just the username - Edge3?--Edge3 (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would use the three tildes. @harej 00:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, tildes will display better. I should note, though, that the |reviewer= parameter appeared to be vacuous—that is to say, there was nothing in the template that actually used it, and adding a reviewer name didn't cause any change in the template. I added some code so that the reviewer parameter would actually be meaningful. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative. I was going to do it eventually, honest! @harej 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries. This was just a quick fix, so if you have bigger plans feel free to writer over my code :) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot now bases its edit summary on new nominations. @harej 03:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I just checked out the automated system. Love it, all the streamlining and simplification is great! Diderot's dreams (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why three tildes? Is it very different than it was? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the three tildes is used for the nominator field so that the name of the nominator can be automatically included. Using it likewise for the reviewer field would be consistent, though it doesn't actually matter what is put in that field. @harej 22:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewers may prefer the more familiar four tildes and I suppose it could be used for the nominator field too. In any case, it would be helpful to capture the date that an article is put on review, either using the signature or the edit history. Geometry guy 08:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are reviewers obligated to use this new automated system? –Whitehorse1 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all it isn't in operation yet (the Sandbox is a demo). Secondly, if/when it is rolled out, the listing at WP:GAN will be generated automatically, so I'm not sure what it means to be obligated to use it: automatic updates to the listing will simply happen. Let me summarize what this would mean for reviewers:

• When placing an article on review, they would sign the GAnominee Talk page template (using three or four tildes in the "reviewer=" parameter) instead of signing the GAN listing;
• Any changes of status (on hold, second opinion) would only need to be made to the Talk page template, not the GAN listing, removing a duplication of effort.

For now, the system is being tested. Reviewers are not obliged to use the new "reviewer=" parameter, but if/when the system is rolled out, this would be the way to get your username added to the GAN listing as reviewer. Does that clarify?Geometry guy 08:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am seriously concerned that adding a new "reviewer=" parameter to the GAN template is just adding unnecessary "process creep" and is going to confuse nominators and reviewers more than it is going to help. While (per my other comment) we do need to insure that the identify of the nominator and primary reviewer is on the main GAN page, I don't think adding a new parameter to the template is going to help things. We want to make the nomination and the review process AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE. If automation can make it even simpler, than great! If automation adds more complexity to the process and confuses people, then it's a bad thing and I would favor the status quo. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Cash, thanks for your comments, but I do recommend you pause for reflection before posting comments with capital letters and bold fonts. In this case the reviewer parameter is an essential part of making the process even simpler, and if you read my post immediately above you will see the explanation why: the proposed automation by harej will replace multiple edits by reviewers to the GAN page with just one new edit - adding tildes to the the nomination template. That is a net saving of at least one edit to almost every review, with no additional net edits in any review. Geometry guy 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I just checked out the automated GAN page here. The major FAIL with it is that is does not have the nominator's name (account) next to the review, with a link to their user page. For on holds, current reviews, and 2nd opinions, the name of the reviewer that added that tag is also not there, either. This information ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY MUST be included on any version of the GAN page, or I will STRONGLY OPPOSE any changes to the page. We simply need quick links to the primary reviewer and the nominator on one page for ease of communication (for example, when one reviewer decides to take 3-4 months to do a review, we need a way to contact them quickly letting them know that they're taking too damn long ;-). Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again this demonstrates the pitfalls of posting before reading carefully. The nominators' username (or IP) will be next to the review if/when the process is rolled out. If you check the demo carefully, you will find that in some cases it already is. The reason it is not available in all cases is that this information needs to be stored somewhere. From now on, the GAnominee template is generating this information automatically. However, it isn't always available for old nominations. Geometry guy 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am trying to read this as carefully as I can. The difficulty is that it seems that a lot of this "proposal" is either (a) still in harej's head or (b) being released in bits and pieces, making it very difficult to see everything in one place. I do notice that some of the username's on the sample page are there, but not all, which to me, says that the bot is not working very well at this time. Before this rolls out, ALL the bugs need to be worked out. There are simply too many nominations and reviews here to roll out a half-assed attempt at automation. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The automated list won't replace the current list until all the details are filled in. The bot is working just fine, but it can only work off of the information it is given. Which means that it is a case of filling in all the details, which I would be happy to do. @harej 19:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And which has now been done. I created a script to detect the nominator from WP:GAN and insert it into the template details, and then I did likewise for the reviewer. In other words, if the nominator or reviewer was listed on WP:GAN, it's on the automated list now. @harej 02:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is already being implemented, Geometry guy, the bot began adding nominator & reviewer parameters to the GA nominee talk template less than four days after the possibility of a bot was even mentioned here. As for what it means to be obligated to use it, that means being able to complete the ordinary steps for reviewing/holding/closing as anybody would a month or six months ago. –Whitehorse1 09:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That isn't implementation, but development: nominators and reviewers are free to ignore these parameters. I find it bizarre that Dr. Cash can simultaneously complain that the proposal is under development, while saying what and what is not acceptable to him in terms of implementation. That is the whole point: the only way to develop a simplification of process is in consultation with the editors that use it, and that is what is happening. It isn't being released piecemeal; the reviewer/nominator parameters are necessary for development, testing and demonstration. I repeat: they can otherwise be ignored.

I have no idea what gives Dr. Cash the impression that a half-assed attempt is going to be rolled out without his heroic efforts to prevent it: certainly not from my initial comment above "any proposed automation of WP:GAN should set it up in user space (as you have done) so that it replicates WP:GAN as closely as possible, and then let it run for several months, fixing glitches on the way." But apparently, everyone thinks they are the saviour of GA.

The only difference between my response to the proposal and his was that I was polite and open-minded, made considerably more effort to understand the proposal before commenting, and did declare an a priori position in big letters and bold font. Far from being "still in harej's head", the way the proposed automation would operate was quite clear to me purely from onwiki information (I have no other info): this thread, the demo and the bots contribs. Details are a matter for discussion with reviewers on this talk page. I repeat: consultation with reviewers is the only way to develop a proposal such as this.

Finally, thanks for commenting, Whitehorse. To answer your question, there is no "ordinary" - 18 months ago there were no review pages, and just over 2 years ago, "on hold" and "second opinion" did not exist. Most changes have added to the work reviewers do. If/when this is rolled out, reviewers will not use all of the same steps as 6 months ago - for once, there will be fewer. Geometry guy 11:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not opposed to automation. I just want to insure that it's done good, and properly. I also think that it's important to develop a process that, once implemented, isn't completely dependent on one person. For example, if all this coding is done, implemented, and then one day, Harej gets involved in a reviewing dispute 1-2 years later and decides to just leave the project, and takes all his code with him. Something like that could potentially leave GAN dead in its tracks (or at least, severally handicapped). I think it's important to consider these implications now, at the time of implementation, rather than to let it happen and then we're screwed. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My bot code is open source, so that if I disappear one day, someone else can carry out the work. It also prevents me from using my code as political leverage, which I am sure everyone appreciates. I had planned on releasing the code once it was finished, but I think I will release it now. It will be available at User:RFC bot/goodarticles.php. @harej 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. Cash for making an important point about robustness, and Harej for making your code open source. With such a high traffic process as GA, I believe it would be a good idea to have another bot operator (there are several I could ask) running the same code, generating a mirror of the GAN page in (say) the bot's user space. Then if there are any problems with the main bot, we can switch to the back-up. The second bot should, preferably, not rely upon any of the same computers if possible - for instance the toolserver sometimes crashes. Geometry guy 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Having run bots on the Toolserver for 2 years now, I can tell you that Toolserver crashes are brief and are not long-lasting. If there ever was a situation where my hosting arrangement disappeared, I would announce so and run the scripts on my personal computer until a more permanent home is found. If I disappear and the scripts subsequently stop running, anyone should be able to pick up the scripts and start running them. If my goals to make Wikipedia operate more efficiently are to be realized on a lasting basis, they have to be designed to work in a world without me. @harej 03:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

another major issue with automated the GAN page

Another huge issue to overcome with automating the GAN page is the fact that if it's completely automated, individual users won't have the ability to add additional notes to either categories, or individual reviews on them. For example, from time to time, an article gets nominated that has somewhat of a "history" of multiple previous reviews to it, and we like to add notes to it, such that "only experienced reviewers are requested to review this", or something to that effect. I also recently added notices to some of the sections with lots of nominations, to let nominators know that their nomination may take a long time to get reviewed. So ANY automation attempt needs to be done to allow individual nominators/reviewers to make additional comments on the review, as this is part of the GAN process and is NOT something that we can do away with. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How the section headers will be handled (they are subject to change) if/when this is rolled out is an issue I had planned to raise with harej. The addition of comments to individual reviewslistings could be handled by adding them to the GAnominee template instead of the GAN page. Such comments could be copied over automatically to the GAN listing for the article. Raising issue like these are helpful, and I encourage you to continue to contribute constructively with respect for the good intentions of e.g. harej to simplify procedures and save everyone time and effort. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The review could be transcluded onto the talk page by the bot. Very easily, in fact. (I will have to eat my words if I end up mucking it somehow). @harej 21:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a different question to the above (I've rewritten to clarify), but your suggestion would also save work, so if you can get RfCBot to do it robustly that would be great. Geometry guy 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree strongly to the idea of adding comments directly to the GAN template. Most editors are NOT going to do that, and they'll simply want to edit the page directly, which will result in the vast amount of special notes added being deleted every time this bot runs. Bad idea. No, not bad. Horrible. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking of a convenient way to allow for additional comments to be made on the nomination page. I could make it another parameter, but that's too much of a kludge and there should be a more elegant way of doing it. Thankfully, there aren't that many cases where a comment needs to be added to the listing that isn't onreview/onhold/2ndopinion, though it is still something that needs to be accounted for. @harej 18:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Further issues

• Among further issues which need to be sorted out, one is the maintenance of subsection headings. For instance, the subsubsections (and sometimes even the subsections/subtopics) at WP:GA are subject to change, and WP:GAN needs to be kept in sync. Also hatnotes are sometimes used for issues particular to the subsection. One approach would be to transclude this information into the automated page from other, editable pages. Other ideas? Geometry guy 13:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  The bot makes use of User:RFC bot/Live code/GAN listing boilerplate to generate the page. @harej 15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  At the moment this looks too tech-y for most editors (although it doesn't look so bad in the edit window). I think it would be possible to write a template that could take the data and output either a PHP array (for the bot), or something humanly readable. I also wonder if some of this data could be autogenerated from WP:GA, so that we don't have to keep WP:GAN in sync by hand (which is a pita sometimes). Geometry guy 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  I am not sure what you mean by writing a template that could take the data and output an array or something readable. Auto-generating the categories based on WP:GA is doable but I don't think it's a very high priority. @harej 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that GA is another story (there is another duplication of effort involved in listing GAs). As for the template, the point is to have something that every editor can easily interact with, without knowing about scripts, PHP and the like. Most editors are familiar with wikicode, including some simple templates. Templates can easily convert their parameters into PHP on one page, while displaying them as a table on another. Geometry guy 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can more be done with the edit summaries? The integrity of GAN depends enormously on the watchfulness of its dedicated reviewers, and the more information that can be transmitted through edit summaries the better. For instance, when a nomination is removed, it would be helpful to include the outcome ("listed" or "not listed") in the edit summary. Also, in the updates to nominations, can we get a breakdown? For nominations placed on review, the reviewer name would be helpful. For articles placed on hold, and second opinions, I believe the article name would suffice. Geometry guy 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  Among those, the easiest will be to differentiate between those removed because of passing and those removed because of failing. "Updating nomination statuses" is actually the fallback edit summary when there are no pages being added or removed, so making that into something more useful may prove to be a challenge. @harej 21:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  Differentiating between those articles listed and not listed would already be a good step. Good luck with the challenge :-) Geometry guy 22:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

comments by CBM

Geometry guy asked me to look at the code and comment on the robustness of the setup. I contacted harej yesterday, and gave him some feedback about the code. Overall I don't see any significant issues. Here is a more detailed summary of what I found:

• The overall setup of the code looks fine. For tasks like maintaining WP:PR or WP:GA, there is basically only one way to do it: generate a list of the pages, then format that list appropriately.
• The unique thing about the GA setup is that a lot of information has to be parsed out of the template that is placed on an article talk page. That's a somewhat delicate operation because there is a lot of variety in legal wikitext, and it isn't usually practical to try to predict every possible variation that someone could put in. The code that I reviewed operates under the assumption that the the GAnominee template is produced by substing the GAN template, and the code should work fine in those cases. It would be possible to write a more robust parser, but I don't think that should be the first priority. Over time, if any patterns emerge, the bot can be edited to deal with them.
• The bot currently uses User:RFC_bot/Live_code/GAN_listing_boilerplate to get the sections for the page; the contents of that page are executed as code, which is a security risk. It's possible to just parse the section headers out of the GAN page itself, so that people can change them by just editing that page in the usual way. I wrote code to do this in ga1.pl. I wrote it in PERL to make it faster for me to write, but translating it into php would not be very hard, and I added several comments to describe how it works.
• I do not know what the response time of the bot will be. One strategy is to use a script that just checks for changes to the set of pages transcluding GAnominee, and then runs the real bot script if that list changes. So the script could run every couple minutes, but the bot would only edit the wiki when something changes.

My main concern about robustness is always: what happens if the bot stops running for 24 hours (which will eventually happen, one way or another, for every bot). In this case, there is no problem: people can easily edit the GA page by hand (as I think the now do anyway) until the bot returns.

My other general concern about a bot like this is whether the bot operator is available to address issues when they arise (because they always will). I don't think there is any issue about that with harej as an operator. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Premature GAN

I've been working on a particular article, Not All Dogs Go to Heaven, since March of this year, including creating it from a redirect and DYK-ing it. While it's been on the backburner for me the last couple of months, I've been keeping an eye on it. Yesterday a user made six edits to the article, including copy/pasting half the article's body content into the Lede, and GANing it. I reverted that edit, but since I have an interest in the article I'm unsure what to do with the GAN. I don't believe it is anywhere near ready, and I know I have no real grounds to object under WP:OWN, but still... can I close the GAN, or should I wait for it to be failed? Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question, but what if it passes? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't pass currently, but isn't there like a two-month backlog? decltype (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If I were in Matthewedwards shoes, I would simply delete the nomination from the GAN page and renominate when the article is ready.

I have observed at least several cases when someone, often without a single edit to an article, nominated it for GA. The result was usually such that if a referee started a proper review, the GAN would fall apart as the nominator could not handle the comments. If the referee limited him(er)self to a formal check, the article was either quick-failed or quick-promoted, and the nominator had a fresh brown star on his(er) userpage. Just to give one live example, 5 nominations of one day by Gandalf61. 3 failed after a review, two still hanging around. Other examples upon request. I myself simply quick-fail nominations submitted without contacting main contributors, and would really appreciate a comment of an administrator on that, as this issue does worry me as a clear abuse of GA system. Nomination by non-contributor is not treated as violation, but IMO, nomination without notifying main, active contributors should be snowed administratively. Materialscientist (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that I have been singled out as an example of "abusing the GA system". At the risk of spoiling a good argument, let's get some facts straight here. Of the five mathematics articles that I nominated back in August, I had originated one, and had made significant edits in the past to two others. But, yes, I had not made significant edits to two of the articles I nominated. I deliberately included these articles that I had not edited, so that I could be more objective about reviewers' comments. I most certainly was not trying to claim any credit for articles that I had not worked on.

Now, I guess I must have misssed the bit in WP:GA, WP:GNGA, WP:GACR or WP:RGA that says a nominator must have edited an article before they nominate it. Could someone please point that out to me, so I can understand just how my nominations were abusive ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

GA is not about the nominator, it is about the article. Its purpose is to encourage improvement to the encyclopedia, not user pages. Any editor may nominate an article. If anyone believes an article has been nominated prematurely and is not yet ready, the most helpful thing they can do is comment on the talk page or the review page (once the review starts) to alert the reviewer to areas where they believe the article does not yet meet the GA criteria. Maybe someone will be able to fix it, who knows? Geometry guy 09:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I brought you up not to blame, but as example of nominating not your articles (this is well allowed, off course). In the three GA reviews you have had so far, you haven't tried to address any referee comment. As Geometry guy hinted below, if you asked help of the major articles contributors or other editors, things might get better for the project (?) Now, as to starting and contributing, my brief look through those 5 articles tells me you've started none and made major contribution to one - forgive me in advance if I'm wrong. That said, my comments are by no means personal and by no means aim to blame you - they are about the GA system, which IMO is being abused by some (no slight to you regarding abuse) and which might benefit from administrative attention sometimes. Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I misremebered about originating jeep problem - you are correct, I did not start the article, but I did expand it from a stub. I think I also made significant contributions to complete icosahedron and mathematics and art (in which I merged two previous articles which overlapped) but you disagree.

But my main point is that you singled me out as an example of an editor who abuses the GA system to get "a fresh brown star on his(er) userpage". That sounds pretty directly aimed and personal from where I am standing. If you are having second thoughts about those remarks, may I suggest that the most honourable thing you can do now is to withdraw them and apologise. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comment above, understand that I did not say what you wrote just above, and try to stay with the arguments. Fresh brown stars are not about you, but about one recent case I haven't brought here yet. My concern with you is nomination without consensus with main contributors and leaving referee reports unresponded (except for "thank you"). I myself wrote 2-3 such reviews, do not want to do this again, and therefore am extra careful and sensitive to such cases. Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist - once again, you need to get your facts straight. I did not leave the "referee reports" unresponded except for "thank you". In each of the three reviews so far the reviewer left a note on my talk page, and I responded with an explanation of why I was unlikely to have time to work on the review points. What I did instead in each case was to leave a note at WikiProject Mathematics talk page to alert any other interested editors who wanted to work on the review points. Unfortunately, those notes did not elicit any further action, as most other editors involved in writing mathematics articles seem to have no interest in participating in the GA process (User:Geometry guy is an exception). And frankly, from my experiences here, I can understand why they feel that way. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why then submitting 5 articles in one day and then saying you can't handle reviews, one after another? Maybe looking for collaborators should come first, not last? Anyway, I have no hard feelings against you. Please take it as "peace". Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Please don't nominate articles you aren't going to have time to work on. Notifying a project doesn't help. You've basically wasted volunteer effort that is in short supply. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that we're talking about Proof without words, right? The review really didn't take up much of my time, so it wasn't a problem for me. I don't see it as a wasted effort, but rather as an opportunity for informal peer review. --Edge3 (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's good for that article, then. Maybe we should have an instruction that says "If you aren't going to be able to find solution to reviewers comments, please don't nominate". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a very difficult guarantee for a nominator to give since they have no idea what comments a reviewer may produce. Naively, I expected the GA reviews of the article I nominated to either generate a handful of specific fixable issues, which I could have worked on, or to result in a quick fail. Edge3's review of Proof without words proposed a major expansion requiring a lot of research; Protonk said that Jeep problem required a "substantial rewrite" and raised over 30 review points on Mathematics and art, saying it had "many challenges". I was unable to promise to undertake that scale of work. Your FAQ at the top of this page says "Nominators are encouraged but not required to respond to reviewers' concerns". If nominators are now going to be expected to give an open ended committment to address any and all review points, not matter how many, how large or how vague then I for one won't be making any more GA nominations. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you have identified the solution. Why submit articles that you reasonably expect a quick fail? I can fully understand the reason for submitting articles that in your opinion are likely to "generate a handful of specific fixable issues", but not the former. Pyrotec (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Read carefully what I wrote. I expected a handful of fixable review comments or a quick fail. Of the two outcomes, I thought the "handful of fixable review comments" was the more likely, as I believed the articles were a good fit to the nominal/official GA criteria. But there was a chance that I had misunderstood the criteria, so failing was always a possibility. But why on earth would I nominate articles that I thought were likely to fail ??? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In case any of you were interested, I'm currently reviewing Complete icosahedron, which is actually going quite well. I see no unethical behavior on Gandalf61's part. --Edge3 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I myself simply quick-fail nominations submitted without contacting main contributors: I'm not an administrator, but I highly disagree with this action. "Article was not nominated by main contributor(s)" is not one of the GA quick fail criteria, and therefore an article should not be quickfailed because of it. Fail the article on its own merit, not on the lack of involvement of a nominator. Sometimes an uninvolved user can pull through and adequately address a review's concerns, and sometimes they can't; sometimes the main contributors step up to address concerns. Who knows what can happen. However, to quick fail an article simply because of subjective process wonkery does not help anyone, IMHO. María (habla conmigo) 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain my unclear writing. (i) I never fail an article if its content is fine; (ii) My comment was not about nominating by non-principal contributor, but about nominating without consulting principal contributors. Materialscientist (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you see a nom made without any talk page discussion by somebody who has never edited the article and shows no sign of expertise in the topic, just remove it and explain on the nominator's talk page that you've done so because this places an unfair burden on the people who review and maintain the article. You can also explain that the nom can be put back if the nominator feels personally capable of handling the review process. I've done this a couple of times -- the amount of labor involved in managing a spurious GAN justifies it in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think who nominates it matters, but it sucks when the nominator has no intention or ability to fix the reviewers comments. I sometimes like to just throw up a few comments to start the review, and see if they do fix them. Then a few more. That way I don't do a huge review for no purpose. That's just me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Post-automation guidelines draft

Oh, by the way, the draft I wrote a few days ago for the GAN guidelines once automation was in full swing is available here. @harej 21:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall, that looks good. I like how the subcategories are included in the category list at the top.

I would like to make one minor change, to the "on hold" instructions, but it's unrelated to the automation work. Let's change that first sentence under "On hold" to read: "You may put an article "On Hold" for a period of time not to exceed three weeks:" The reason for this is that I've noticed several reviews lately that have been placed on hold for much, much longer -- one to three months. The nature of GA as a one-person review versus criteria should mean that articles can be reviewed a lot more quickly, though in some cases, I can understand if they take two, or even three, weeks. Longer than that is simply too long, and counterproductive, and many editors will simply just go back and forth endlessly. Even WP:FAC, which tends to be far more "anal-retentive" than WP:GAN, doesn't take too much longer than that (and I think three weeks is about how long most articles are at WP:FAC. And WP:PR very likely doesn't take longer than a month, either. The bottom line is, that on hold should only be used for articles that are close to meeting the criteria -- if an article has too many issues, then fail it, suggesting that it can be renominated once the issues are fixed. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree to that change to the procedure. If there is consensus to put that on the current guidelines page, then I (or someone) should edit the draft procedure accordingly. @harej 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Some long reviews might actually be productive. Let's try this instead: "Reviews may not be left inactive for more than two weeks."--Edge3 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, alternatively phrased, "if a review has no activity for two weeks, the article fails automatically." This, of course, only applies to reviews that have already been started. @harej 12:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The only thing that a ridiculously long review taking over a month or two does is serve to contribute to increasing our backlog. If a reviewer lets the review take too long, he's really becoming more of a contributor as well, going against GAN's policy of major contributors not allowing to review articles. The longer reviews take, the more bias the reviewer obtains towards ultimately passing the article. To remove this bias, the best thing to do is to limit all reviews to a shorter time period. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In order to encourage as many reviewers and reviews as possible, it is preferable to place as few and as simple requirements on the review process as we can. If a reviewer sees ongoing improvement in response to issues raised, it does not improve the encyclopedia to curtail such improvements by an arbitrary window. If reviewers becoming contributors and then passing an article during a hold is an issue, I'd like to see clear examples before new restrictions are imposed. Improving the encyclopedia should be the primary mission of every editor, and the GA process should encourage that activity. I believe it does and would welcome suggestions to simplify and remove instructions that interfere with this.

In contrast, when there is an inadequate response during a hold, we need to provide encouragement and support for reviewers to decide not to list the article at this time. Suggestions to bolster reviewer confidence in closing GANs as "fail"/"not listed" would likewise be welcome. Geometry guy 22:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with G'guy. This seems to be a clear example of instruction creep, which needs to be avoided, in order to keep the GA process reviewer- and nominator-friendly. Articles/reviews that have been on hold over-long can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; there is no need to place specific, arbitrary guidelines on the process. Dana boomer (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we wandering off course here, and it might cause the automation changes to bog down. Let's just adapt the procedures for nomination to the changes prompted by the automation. Save other changes to the GA process for another day. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of automation, is there a way we could automate the listing of articles on WP:GA after they are passed? Such a process would involve the following:

1. Removing the article from the GAN page,
2. Adding the article to the appropriate category in the GA page, and
3. Updating the article count at the bottom of the category's section.

I fully realize that this proposal would require much more planning and testing, but this change would improve the reviewing process if implemented. --Edge3 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove nomination of 1928 Tour de France

A time ago, I nominated 1928 Tour de France for GA review, but now it looks like I will be too busy to respond to a review. Therefore I retracted the nomination. I hope I followed the right steps to do this. Additionally, I started the David Wetherall review, but I won't have time to complete this. I thought it would be better to say it here than to say nothing and stay away.EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You could have directed the reviewer to address WP:CYC at large rather than just withdrawing the nomination, you know. I probably would have followed up. Oh well. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 08:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominator finds himself required to go o/s on short notice...

A while back I nominated Laurie Nash and I now find out that I have a business trip on short notice. I'll be away for two weeks and will be unable to respond to a review in that time. I don't want to withdraw it as it is possible that it won't be reviewed until after I return but in case some one does wish to review while I am away, is a message on the article talk page asking them to hold off a review until my return acceptable? --Roisterer (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I beleive it is. I don't tend to review sports nominations, so I am unlikely to review it; but in view of the backlog, such as request is entirely reasonable. Pyrotec (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been in similar situations before. I've just added a note right on the WP:GAN page after the title of the article stating "Please hold off reviewing until after November 12" or whatever the date of return will be. It has never been a problem. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I can keep an eye on it. As long as there aren't any hardcore content queries, anyone from WP:CRIC can look out YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How strict are we with sourcing

Hello all, I am reviewing Alsatian Shepalute, which is a nice concise and well-composed article...but I am concerned about the sourcing. It is a fairly new breed and the bulk of the article is sourced by the corresponding dog breed society, and Lois Denny/Schwarz who first bred the breed. There is some coverage in newspapers, but not a huge deal. I'd be grateful if some other folks could take a look and offer an opinion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your RSN post. As far as the club goes, it's borderline.[4] I'm not sure an English Mastiff didn't just jump a fence, and the stuff about "No hyperactive, whining, or barking traits were bred" seems kinda promotional. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the sourcing being (less than) borderline. Most sources are from websites that I don't think meet RS standards, or from a site written and maintained by the article's author. If the dog is as good as the article claims, I'm sure it will be written about by someone else soon enough. Sasata (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys...hopefully some more sources will turn up (somehow...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Report Bot Req

We have gone a long time without Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report. Does anyone mind if I post a request at WP:BOTREQ for a bot that resumes nightly updating of this report as well as updating of Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection - I think this would be good. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Same here. That was a useful report, and it would be nice not to have to update the backlog list manually. Dana boomer (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Request made.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. I have been speaking with Geometry guy, but I thought I should bring this in here -- I'm the person who wrote StatisticianBot, which was the bot that was generating the GAN/R report. I'm incredibly sorry that the bot got left by the wayside and hasn't been operational for the past 6+ months; it was certainly not my intention to leave you guys with a non-functioning bot when I wrote it! As I requested of Geometry guy, I would like the opportunity to fix up StatisticianBot and get it running again. I fully understand the breach in trust that has likely been caused by my disappearance and the bot being broken for six months, but I believe that I can get it back up and running in the next couple days, if you'll let me. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem with you re-implementing your bot. We all know that real life sometimes intervenes, and that can't be helped. Dana boomer (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But if it is possible, could you release the source code of your bot? @harej 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I will certainly look into doing so. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed up the bot and am ready to have it go live again. To ensure that everything's gone successfully, the bot has done a test write of the report to User:StatisticianBot/Sandbox (using current data). Please take a look at it, and if everything looks good I'll start the bot up again. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot was run manually this morning on the actual pages, which should now be properly up-to-date. Automatic runs should start tomorrow morning. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 16:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"GA nominee" template: "nominator"

Documentation at Template:GA_nominee is not fully clear but its examples suggest "nominator" means the person who entered an article into the queue for GA reviewer. Both in the last 2 days competent reviewers here and here entered their own ids in the "nominator" param (I amended the first but the 2nd case left me uncertain). I can this needs to be clarified. --Philcha (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a bot. I put the {{GAN}} template on the talk page as you had (presumably) forgotten to do it. Easy to change. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer instructions on review page's edit box

The instructions that reviewers get when they begin the review are now obsolete. We no longer have to manually transclude the review page onto the talk page, for example. Also I think the "I am the reviewer" template should have the "subst" prefix attached to it. Would anyone here know how to fix the appropriate templates?--Edge3 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the pages concerned, and will revisit this, and similar documentation issues, in the next 24 hours (unless someone beats me to it!). Geometry guy 00:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the obsolete instruction from Template:GAN/editintro. As for {{I am the reviewer}}, the reason why I designed it like that is so the bot could have something unambiguous to look at to ascertain the reviewer. Upon reflection, '''Reviewer:''' (signature)\n, which is what the template basically consists of, should be unique enough. If there is agreement, I will get AWB working to substitute existing uses. @harej 01:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

We can keep the signatures in the template if it's more convenient, then. Will this remove the need to sign the talk page template?--Edge3 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I decided with the substituting, since it's probably better on the bot, as a matter of fact. And yes, the idea is to remove the reviewer parameter from {{GA nominee}}. @harej 01:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Things that still need to be accomplished

As far as I can recall, the following things still need to be done before the automated list has any chance of being implemented (in no particular order):

• Find a way to generate the categories and subcategories based on what is readily available on the page, rather than rely on the bot's own configuration
• Have an auto-generated list of good articles
• Allow reviewers etc. to leave notes on GAN listings that are in addition to onreview/onhold/2ndopinion
• Resolve the issues with people's bloated signatures that cause the bot to get confused, as seen in WP:GAN#Miscellaneous
• Have better edit summaries, including updates on review statuses and the reasons for why an article was removed from the list (whether it passed or failed)

Here are what I am considering implementing:

• When reviewers follow the link on {{GA nominee}} to start a review, their signature would appear on the page and the bot would ascertain the reviewer based on that instead of the reviewer= parameter in the template.
• With the reviewer= parameter obsolete, there will be a note= parameter which will allow the leaving of miscellaneous notes under GAN listings.

@harej 13:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• • The whole bot thing sounds pretty cool. But, I think review pages get started by the wrong person occasionally. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• • When you improve the edit summaries, remember that there are three options: pass, fail, and withdraw. --Edge3 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree with the above summary. However, I don't believe automating the GA listing is essential for automating the GAN listing. It would certainly be nice to do, but can be done as a separate step.

On a separate issue, one robustness issue I've noticed concerns the dates and the ordering. Where the bot is unable to find a date, or two submissions have the same date, the ordering can change between edits. Reviewers may find this disorienting and/or annoying. A more robust way of collecting and maintaining nomination dates would be helpful. For instance, at PR, VeblenBot has a cache so that a peer review that is accidentally removed and readded maintains a stable position in the list. Thanks again for all your efforts. Geometry guy 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been making some progress. The more eluding thing is the fact that some entries end up in Miscellaneous when they shouldn't. Part of it is that some editors demand the sea and the sky in their signatures. What would be great would be if I can resolve this problem without changing around their signatures. @harej 05:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved with a greedy regex. Who knew, right? @harej 07:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I review this?

I peer reviewed Welles Declaration some time ago and was asked to look at it again. I did and made the comments on the article's talk page. I then realized that my suggestions would essentially constitute a GA review. However when I went to this page it says you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, nor can you review an article if you are the nominator. I have not made any edits to the article, so does doing the PR disqualify me? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You can review it, you just can't review articles that you've edited a bunch. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Formally, you may review it again. Informally, the article would usually (not always) benefit if other referee eyes look through it - this is said not to advise you against refereeing it, just a thought. Materialscientist (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I will let a fresh set of eyes review it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Impact on GA reviews of zoological name changes

Eustrombus gigas, being reviewed, seems to need to be renamed - there's a lot of zoological renaming since the 1990s. I don't think we can quarantine articles while the zoologists achieve stability, and over 95% of the content of this article would be unaffected. It appears the new name should be used at WP:GA if the article passes. In the meantime should the name be changed at WP:GAN. --Philcha (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION...word However

Is it normal to see articles getting promoted not just to GA level but FA level with the word However in an article 20 times?? like -->Drapier's Letters. Have seen this a lot lately and was wondering ... I thought this was a word to avoid! On many many GA reviews i have seen this word must be omitted to get GA level let alone Fa level. more info see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#However, although, whereas, despite. Just wondering..not planing to get reassessments, just would like to know wikis stance on the word.Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with the word "however" (it's perfectly cromulent), but it's certainly one that people, including me, tend to overuse. I'd agree that its density is rather too high in that article, and if I'd reviewed it at FAC I'd have made that point, but it appears that nobody did. C'est la vie. In any event, articles are regularly promoted to GA status with far more serious prose problems. Steve Smith (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ok tks ...now i feel like an A@#..I just told someone they cant use the word. LOL o well...sorry Ottava Rima i guess some editors have no problem with it. Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The point with these WTA (however, although, whereas, despite) is that they "can introduce an editorial bias" in some cases. They should be o. k. in the following, e.g.: "He was fond of...rich food, he disliked banquets and drinking, however". Or: "Despite his aquittal, rumours continued that he had killed his wife." I don't think the word "despite" introduces bias here, rather would being silent on either the rumours or the aquittal. These words are mostly needed to express a contrast; it is simply not possible to write a longer text this way: He was fond of...rich food; he disliked banquets and drinking...He was aquitted of murdering his wife; rumours that he had done so continued...this is good style for isolated instances, but impossible to do all the time. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting the word out on the GAN report revival

Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report is back up and running. I put a link at the top of WP:GAN. Not sure how else to get the word out. Can we get a notice in WP:POST. I will drop them a note.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't noticed until I saw the message here, so now I know it works (Yay!). As for beyond this tough to say. I guess the people high in the on hold backlog will notice it's working by my poking them :P Wizardman 18:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If the StatisticianBot is also updating the Backlog template, can the "If you review one of these articles, please remove it from the list and add the next oldest." be removed? -maclean (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This statement was there when the list was being bot-updated before, and IMO, it should be retained. The bot actually adds the ten oldest articles to the list (five visible and five hidden), so as people review articles throughout the day, they can remove the article they reviewed and replace it with one of the hidden articles. It makes it so that more of the oldest noms are getting seen, and if we have an especially busy day, the list doesn't dwindle to nothing with none of the oldest noms being seen at the top. Dana boomer (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the statement should stay as per Dana boomer. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot didn't update today. :/ Wizardman 14:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

User:AndyZ/peerreviewer script needs adoption

This script often used in GA/FA reviews needs adoption by an active user or a WikiProject. Please see my comments here for a centralized discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominator gone

I reviewed Robert Novak for GA and placed it on hold. However, it appears that the nominator, User:The Squicks, retired a couple of days ago. Do I fail it, since the concerns likely won't be addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would do that. If there was someone who still cared about the article, they could take over as the nominator. In the meantime, fail the nomination. @harej 04:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If it only needs smaller tweaks and the like, ask the appropriate wikiprojects or people he works with and see if they'll pick up the slack (i had this sam issue once with a footy article, they all pitched in). If it's more source-based issues that the nom would need to look at then just fail it. Wizardman 05:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

His retirement seems rather abrupt (so he could come out of retirement just as abruptly). He still has several nomination here, one as recent as Oct 30 What is done with the other nominations? maclean (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We've had abrupt retirements and returns within the tropical cyclone project in the past. It might just be best to let them all run their course, in case the person returns. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - give him some time to change his mind. In my experience most people that explicitly retire come back soon after. People that are actually going away for good do so more quietly and gradually. --Tango (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed article

With the agreement of the primary editor on an article, Battle of Bita Paka, I have removed the nomination. He did not nominate it; rather, it was nominated by someone User:XavierGreen who had contributed very little to it. The nominator was unable or unwilling to make the substantive changes; the primary editor User:Anotherclown is unable to do it right now. nothing of substance, and it was not ready to go. I removed it from the list with note in the action field. and I'll take the parameter off the talk page. Hope this doesn't mess up any reporting.... Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominator not a contributor

I just decided to review Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore -- my first review. On looking through the article, I noticed that the nominator has not made a single contribution to the article. I heard something about the main contributor(s) being the one(s) to nominate articles or at least be consulted on it. Two of the major contributors over the last six months appear to be on wikibreaks. What is the convention here? Should I just continue the review and work with the nominator? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 01:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no clear guideline. If the article needs some work, one option is to throw first quick comments and see if the nominator is willing and capable to handle them. Materialscientist (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thx, the article appears to have an interesting past and has been through FAR too. I'll see if the nominator can address the issues that were identified there. -SpacemanSpiff 02:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The writer quit 8 months ago, because of his FACs always being stopped by Fowler YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

GA Review transcluding multiple times

At Talk:Where's Herb?, the RFC Bot has transcluded the GA Review 19 times (and counting...quickly). Has this been a problem elsewhere? Can anything be done? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked RFC Bot until harej is available to fix it. Geometry guy 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The relevant glitch has been resolved. @harej 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource as a source

An article that I am reviewing, Kiliaen van Rensselaer (Dutch merchant), has a bunch of references that link to several documents on Wikisource. What is the prevailing opinion on using Wikisource as a source for GAs? Personally, I would prefer for nominators not to use them, but I don't have a policy page to point to that would back up this preference, and I don't know if it goes above and beyond the requirements for a GA. Any thoughts or links to policy pages I may have missed would be appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, stuff on Wikisource is required to have been previously published, so it can just be cited to there anyway. And from there, I don't see any problem with a courtesy link to the Wikisource version. Steve Smith (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would treat Wikisource as any other primary source collection. That is, conclusions cannot be based on primary sources, but you can simply repeat what the source says and then cite it. @harej 01:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is of course not acceptable as a source, its a "circular argument" in respect of WP:Verify, but I've have no previous experience of wikisource. However, looking at some of those citations, they are stated to be precises of an English translation of a 17th Century Dutch document. WP:verify appears to be meet in so far as wikisource provides an 1908 English source which is not a primary document and a reference to the original primary document. Pyrotec (talk) 09:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource did not make the sources, it only places them online. It is like using Google Books to find old sources, which we don't have a problem with either. Ucucha 12:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like its settled, but the source isn't wikisource, it's whatever is hosted there. So the reliability is based on the individual thing. Wikisource is a great convenience linke, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource can be cited if it is in turn properly cited; i.e. if the page transcribed lists a (reliable) source. If it doesn't, it's as bad as an uncited Wikipedia article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

GA noms by blocked user sockpuppets

Hi there - just a flag - User:Kathyrncelestewright has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Itslassietime. KCW has some noms in the GAN queues (The Emperor's New Clothes; The Nightingale) and an active review underway (at Boys' Ranch). Obviously there may be appeals etc, but if the user stays blocked then these will need to be addressed, probably through someone else taking on the review at Boys' Ranch, and removing the others from the queue. I'm figuring we should wait a day or two just to check the situation is stable. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot is almost there

The bot code has reached maturity, and all major issues have been addressed. Anything more to do before we start considering implementation? @harej 21:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not clear what Implementation involves. You perhaps aught to start off by stating what "implementation" will involve and what changes nominators and reviewers will see and have to do. Pyrotec (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Implementation involves WP:GAN being generated automatically: it means reviewers and nominators will no longer have to edit this page; one less job to do. See my request below (post ec) for comments from reviewers. Geometry guy 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work, harej. I encourage reviewers (and other interested editors) to watchlist User:RFC_bot/Sandbox_2 for a while and compare it (minus headers etc.) to the GAN page. Current activity should be mirrored there, although older reviews may not be reflected so accurately.

The automation of the GAN page has the potential to save a lot of work for nominators and reviewers; as the aim is to serve those who contribute so much to GA, comments and suggestions from regular reviewers would be particularly helpful. Geometry guy 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that many articles have the wrong subtopic listed in their GAN template parameter, resulting in them being listed in the wrong section on the page. This is most notable in articles that have no subtopic listed, as the articles end up in the "Miscellaneous" section. The parameters on the currently affected articles should be fixed, and nominators made aware of this issue for future nominations, before the bot goes live. Also, how often does the bot run? It appears from the history as if it's running once an hour - is there a way we could make this more frequent? Say every half hour or every 15 minutes? Third, what will the bot do in situations such as Talk:Hurricane Caroline (1975)/GA1? An editor has started the page, but not as the reviewer, rather simply as a commenter. From the look of the bot page, the bot reads this as the initiating editor being the main reviewer, and so lists the article as under review on the GAN page. This will make it so that (in general) no other reviewer looks at the article (thinking that it is under review) and so the article sits on the listing for much longer than it otherwise would have. I don't think the hurricane article is an isolated incident, either, because the same general principle is happening at Talk:United Arab Emirates/GA1. I think the bot needs a bit more tweaking before it's ready for the main page.Dana boomer (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WOW great work ....now more time spent on articles and not GA page edit....you are my hero!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the bot not recognizing when review pages are started just to comment, two quick points: (1) when a reviewer starts and then quits a review the same problem exists, and (2) I think the editor doing either of these things will have to modify the template somehow to tell the bot this, and this will require instructions somewhere, and so can't really be corrected before we implement the bot. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The same problem exists in the current system; someone will mark the page on-review and then they end up disappearing. Under both systems you can leave a note stating that the reviewer is MIA (in the automated system, via the note parameter in {{GA nominee}} that allows people to leave notes). Now, I could get really fancy and have the bot check the age of the latest comment, then leave the appropriate message on the GAN listing. (Something like This review has not received any comments in two weeks). Such a feature would serve as conspicuous warnings of review abandonment and is far more feasible under an automated system. @harej 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not referring to abandoning a review without notice, I mean the reviewer quits by saying "I can't finish this" on the review page and removes that the "I am reviewing" ({{GAReview}}) template at GAN.

For abandoned reviews without notice, I think the bot leaving a warning notice at GAN is a good idea. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the former would end up becoming the latter, though the reviewer should leave in a note that s/he's given up on the review. That would be more explicit in inviting new reviewers. @harej 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And as you can see on User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2, such a notice is now in effect. @harej 03:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. But I disagree that a properly quitted review is not going to be picked up by another reviewer under the current system, because the "I am reviewing" tag is removed at GAN and the article looks open for review like any one that hasn't been touched yet. And once a new reviewer goes to the article talk page, they probably will investigate the discrepency they see by reading the review page and see that the reviewer quit.

It certainly would be a good idea for the old reviewer in this case to use the note parameter to leave a note on the template, but remember that you recently added the that parameter to the template. It isn't used much because reviewers don't know about it, including me until you told me. Like most editors, I don't read template documentation. So, like I said, explicit instructions for these cases need to be given in the GAN instructions or on the template. Well, at least in the new automated system. No sense changing instructions in the old system since we're not going to be using it much longer. Diderot's dreams (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made the appropriate changes to my draft of the modified GAN guidelines. @harej 02:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect dates being used

• Hang on! The bot is using incorrect paramaters for the nomination date. Appears to reading the start of review date. At the top of Theastre, Film, Drama are 5 articles without nomination dates, similar in other sections. Comparison of WP:GAN and User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2 show a number of inconsistencies. Interseting idea but needs more work. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see what you mean by incorrect parameters for the nomination date. The nomination date is the date as signed in the {{GA nominee}} template and the bot reflects that. Likewise, the review date is the date listed beneath the main listing, as determined from the review page. @harej 15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well if you look at an artcile I have under review at present, Al Williamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): WP:GAN shows it having been nominated 20 August, the bot as 24 October (timed at one hour after I started the review!!); Scrubs (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - GAN 7 August, bot 9 September; Some of these are caused by the changes to the template which effectivel re-nominated articles by adding false nomination dates; Aiden Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) actually nominated 1 October, shown in the bot list without nomination details. Just compare the two lists, GAn and bot generated. There are more than twenty errors. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • This is very weird. Now that I have some free time, I am going to investigate. @harej 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • The Al Williamson example has nothing to do with my bot, and the Aiden Ford example is caused by a non-standard timestamp. Non-standard timestamps usually don't occur, as most people do {{subst:GAN}}, which uses a proper timestamp. @harej 03:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I have fixed nominations wherever I could. The case was largely older nominations that did not transition well for some reason. @harej 04:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • The Al Williamson example does make sense, but I'm not certain whether the logic of the various bots/templates has been defined to fully commodate the process in use. The article was nominated on 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC), so that date stamp is shown on the article's talkpage. The reviewer then put the article On hold at 19:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC). The template states Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article, but the 22:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) date stamp is to some extent irrelevant, as the starting date for the seven-day period was 19:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC). The date stamp was then changed to 19:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC); which seems reasonable. In conclusion: the existing lists can accommodate an article being place On Hold, I suspect that your bot and/or the templates may need to commodate two date stamps: a nomination date stamp and, where appropriate, a Hold date stamp. Pyrotec (talk) 12:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Agreed, I had previously been in the habit of putting a new timestamp in when I placed an artcile on hold as that seemed teh right course of action. If there could be a new place to put the on hold time stamp that would be good. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Is there a need for a new parameter? Assuming that people even adhere to the seven day limit of GAN holds, can't it just be counted up from the timestamp where the reviewer initially signed his/her name? (The bot could even augment the on-hold statement on the GAN list with "Issues in the article should be rectified by date"). @harej 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Furthermore, Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines says nothing about a 7 day period for GAN holds before the article fails. @harej 02:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I said nothing about failing them after 7 days. How many GA reviews have you done and how long have you been doing them? Pyrotec (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• If you care to look at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report there is a bot-created list, it includes holds over seven days; and some considerably extend beyond seven days. Replying to one of your questions, there is no reason why the Hold date and the review date should be the same; and if you consider date stamps they will be different. Your working list at User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2 does list hold dates as does Wikipedia:Good article nominations. It was just not obvious to me whether they were generated in the same way. If you look at Talk:Washington State Route 506, that article was put On hold yesterday (7th) and the date was not changed on the article's talk page. Both User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2 and Wikipedia:Good article nominations are in agreement for this review. You have been editing the GA nominee template and the instructions on the nomination page as well as creating the bot. I would have assumed that you knew what you are doing. Pyrotec (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Having checked User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2 and Wikipedia:Good article nominations again this morning, Kõpu lighthouse is shown in both lists as On Hold, but the Sandbox 2 list does not have a hold date whereas the GAN list does. The talk page has no On Hold date stamp. There seems to be a problem, it could be the bot, the templates or the instructions. The article appears to have been On Hold since 9:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC), so it is not insignificant. Problems like this, which appear to be fairly minor, do suggest that more work needs to be done before the switch over to the bot takes place. Pyrotec (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it

Are there any more requested features? @harej 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my comment got missed above (although part of it was later restated by another editor and somewhat discussed), so I'm going to repost the pertinent part here: It seems that many articles have the wrong subtopic listed in their GAN template parameter, resulting in them being listed in the wrong section on the page. This is most notable in articles that have no subtopic listed, as the articles end up in the "Miscellaneous" section. The parameters on the currently affected articles should be fixed, and nominators made aware of this issue for future nominations, before the bot goes live. Also, how often does the bot run? It appears from the history as if it's running once an hour - is there a way we could make this more frequent? Say every half hour or every 15 minutes? Dana boomer (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I did some work earlier on making sure pages were in the right category; I should continue doing that. Also, the bot runs every 15 minutes now. @harej 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All the pages I could categorize are now categorized, with only one left that couldn't be categorized on the human-maintained WP:GAN either. Furthermore, there is now a notice on the template whenever a nomination is left uncategorized. @harej 21:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User awarding themself GA userboxes for non-GA articles

Colleen16 (talk · contribs)

I'd normally handle this myself, but as I've just blocked Colleen16 for a short period I don't want to give them the impression that I've got it in for them. However, I've also noticed that the user has awarded themself GA-contributor userboxes for Lee Jun Ki, Daniel Henney, Hero (2009 TV series), Nam Sang Mi, and Lee Da Hae, none of which have passed a GA review. Although they're not a new user, I believe from their shaky grasp of policy in other areas that this is probably a misunderstanding rather than deliberate deception. Could someone tactfully rectify the situation? Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 12:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this. I have removed the user boxes and left a note on the user talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. EyeSerene^talk 13:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Scribblenauts/GA1 and Talk:Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008/GA1

Hi. Talk:Scribblenauts/GA1 has been up for a month now and only one person responded. Also Talk:Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008/GA1 has been up fir over a month and NO one responded. Can someone please respond to these GAs please. Please respond any further questions on my talkpage. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

SS, the GAN process is a timely one. If you don't have the patients, then you shouldn't be nominating articles to be perfectly honest. iMatthew ^talk at 03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Although it's not an official review, I left some suggestions on the review page for the Obama article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 was only added to WP:GAN at 03:09 on 15 November 2009 by Secret Saturdays. This edit [[5]]. Admittedly, Scribblenauts has been there about on month.Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles in wrong categories?

These are nominated in "literature" but I suspect I'd should expect them to but in other sections:

• Who's Your City? - business or society?
• The History of British Political Parties - politics? --Philcha (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I nominated Who's Your City?. You may re-categorize it as you see fit. I nominated it there because I only ever thought of it as a book. I have been writing articles on various books. It follows the book article structure and uses the Book Infobox. maclean (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sex, sex, sex! (and Porn)

I was thinking of Nominating Abbywinters.com as a GA candidate when I couldn't think of a general category to put it in, looking more in-depth at all the various sub-categories I was still surprised that sex and sex-related topics didn't really seem to fit neatly anywhere. Topics on Sex could either fit in Biology or Psychology, porn stars and films would fit in Film and television, but where would websites go? Business? What about homosexuality? BDSM? voyeurism? Dildos? and various other Sex, Sexuality, Sexology, and Porn related topics? I was wondering if a clarification could be had as to where the various topics could go? or rather a proposal that a new subcategory be formed.

I was thinking of placing it either under

A) "Art" as 5.1.4. Pornography which would include Porn-stars, Porn Companies and Websites. and/or

B) "Everyday life" as 5.4.5. Sex, Sexuality and Pornography. which would include Porn-stars, Porn Companies and Websites, Sexuality, Sexual Orientation and Sexual acts. and/or

C) "Social Sciences and Society." as 5.4.5. Sex, Sexuality and Pornography. which would include Porn-stars, Porn Companies and Websites, Sexuality, Sexual Orientation and Sexual acts. and/or

D) "Natural Sciences" as 5.4.5. Sex and Sexuality. which would include Sex, Sexuality, Sexual Orientation and Sexual acts.

Personally I think a combination of A, C and D be adopted so that Porn-stars and films and companies be explicitly mentioned under "Film and television", that Sexual Orientation and Sexuality be explicitly mentioned under "Psychology" and that Sexual Intercourse, Pregnancy, Vagina, etc be explicitly mentioned under "Biology". Either that or Sex as it's own completely seperate category. Any thoughts? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you give us some statistics on how many current GAs would be in each of these new categories? Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your categorization query is that the "Social sciences and society" category, specifically its "Economics and business" subcategory which encompasses "Businesspeople; Businesses" would be suitable. The "Culture and society" subcategory encompassing "Internet culture" might be an alternative; for instance, if an article on an online resource has lesser focus on corporate ownership than on critical reception and reputation within the industry area of the online resource.

The broader question about sex-related topics becomes easier when you look at the listing of actual GAs on that page—BDSM for instance, would go under "Social sciences and society" which encompasses "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures"; likewise homosexuality, presumably, as LGBT is already listed there.

Turning back to the nominations page, the "Biology" subcategory (of the "Natural sciences" top-level category) would cover any articles about the human body, which would include those about genitalia, the reproductive system, biological processes such as pregnancy, etc. Likewise, the "Theatre, film, and drama" subcategory (of the "Arts" category) covers actors, performers, films, which would include adult movies and actors & actresses in adult films, or porn films and porn stars if you prefer.

The GA nomination categories have broad scope, so the subcategory for film/television isn't further broken down by style and genre. I don't know that GAN receives all that many nominations of articles that have sex and pornography as their focus. It's that broadness of present categories/subcats that makes such nominations come within them though.

Where an article might fall into more than one top-level category, opt for the closest match. E.g., Arts for films; Social sciences and society for websites; Natural sciences for 'hard science', so to speak. Where unsure which subcategory is best, it doesn't matter too much; just choose whichever you think most closely fits the article topic plus content as a whole. Really, you don't need to worry about placing something in the wrong category: there's a "Miscellaneous" category to place anything you're unsure about in. Somebody is always happy to lend a helping hand, by moving something to a more suitable category if need be.

Last, I took a look at the "Abbywinters.com" article you mentioned. I ask that you please not nominate it for GA assessment in its present form. Although not a biography article, it has material potentially defamatory of a living person. I'll bring it to the BLP noticeboard to get more eyes on it, shortly. If there's ever anything about how to nominate you're unsure of, feel free to ask here again. Thanks, Sanguis. –Whitehorse1 23:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that new subtopics are not normally created unless other subtopics are receiving a large number of nominations from a particular area which could usefully be separated. This doesn't seem to be the case here. If there are a number of current sex-related GA's that are poorly categorized, please raise this issue at WT:GA. Geometry guy 00:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies everyone; So just to clarify (for future reference for other GA nominators) the porn-actors and films goes under Film and TV, Bio-Sex goes under biology, Sexuality goes under culture and the companies themselves go under business. Where would Sex-toys go under? where do other products go under? Business? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep to all of those. As for sex toys, possibly under subcategory Culture and society, if it's of particularly iconic following or focus. (You can probably see listed GAs 'Reborn doll', 'Grill (jewelry)', 'Underwire bra' as examples.) Otherwise, you could nominate them under Miscellaneous.
There hasn't really been many noms/GAs of other products. That's aside from those such as albums (under Music) and a few board/card games (under Sports and recreation). There is another Sports and recreation GAs subdivision not included within the GAN list ("Toys" e.g. lego), probably because it only holds a couple've articles. Like G-guy says new subtopic areas can be created as needed to organize large amounts of nominations more effectively. –Whitehorse1 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for reviewers for educational assignments GANs

In the past WP:SUP and GAN have successfully collaborated on teaching students how to write Good Articles (for example this summer we have managed to create 3 Good Articles). As I've announced here few weeks ago, a new bunch of educational assignment projects are now being nominated for GAN. Full list of 10 articles that are subject to this assignment can be below (and details of the assignment are here). As before, those GANs are a bit more urgent then others (as many students, unlike your average editor, will be much less motivated to address the reviewers comments and fix the articles after they receive their grade). For this educational assignment, grading is expected on 11 December. I am well aware of our backlog problems, and while I have no problem with my own GANs waiting for a reviewer for many weeks (and sometimes, months), in this case I'd appreciate if some reviewers would volunteer to review those articles outside of our chronological queue. Below is the list of the articles in this batch, they all should be nominated by students today. If a reviewer would like to take care of a given article, please strike it out and sign below. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 1: Polyethnicity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) @harej 04:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 2: First World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm happy to review this one.Pyrotec (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 3: Sociology of health and illness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 4: Pax Mongolica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 5: Economy of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm happy to review this one. Pyrotec (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 6: Proto-globalization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Pyrotec (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 7: Gender aspects of globalization in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 8: Politico-media complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I think User:Peregrine Fisher said earlier he wants to review this one --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 9: Food power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Pyrotec (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Group 10: Semi-periphery countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) @harej 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take Politico-media complex. I don't know exactly how to claim it, since I don't see it on the GAN page. Feel free to strike it, if that's how we're claiming these. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all articles were nominated yet. Hopefully they'll be in a few hours. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I started a section for the review. I'm going to wait to see what this new bot does about the templates and subpages, then copy it wherever it needs to go. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IMDb: I'm sure we have been here before, but anyway...

Just wanting to check if other experienced GAN editors would reach a different conclusion to me on the effect on a GA assessment of having IMDb as a source for some facts in an article. I'm aware that IMDb is generally not regarded as a reliable source. I am currently reviewer for The Bill, where the active editors are indicating that IMDb pages are the only place they are finding some information about the careers of the main actors from the TV series. Most other facts in the article in question are or will be cited to accepted reliable sources. As a relatively recent series, obviously editors and fans will know about other career activities of the actors because they've seen them on TV, in the cinema or at the theatre. Thus editors' personal knowledge may be consistent with what is at IMDb: but of course, personal knowledge doesn't count.

WP:V says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". The fact that actor X appeared in film Y does not appear to me to be something likely to be challenged. And if it is, it can always simply be deleted if IMDb is the only source. GA criteria 2b says in part "(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons..." The facts in question do not fall into any of these categories in my view, so I don't see a problem.

I intend not to let the IMDb refs for actors CVs stand in the way of the GAN. If you have a different view, i'm happy to hear opinions here. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

IMDB is reliable for a lot more than people generally acknowledge, but it may not be acceptable in this case. As we say over at WP:RSN, what is the article saying, and what is being used as the source. If it's just "actor X appeared in show Y", then I feel that's fine. If it's "actor X began in commercials before making the jump to TV serials", then it doesn't cut it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Basketball Association of America

I am not sure what is going on with this nomination. The previous review does not appear to have reached a conclusion. Feedback was left, but then someone came along, said it should be failed because the primary contributor wasn't consulted, and removed the GAN template from the talk page. The primary contributor then came along and implemented an article history stating that the nomination had failed. The article has since been renominated, but I am concerned that the first review hasn't finished yet and that some people seem to be of the opinion that permission is needed before an article can be nominated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I said I was wuickfailing it. I thought I did rm it from teh list maybe I didnt tweak teh talk page YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What does the bot do?

Over at Talk:Polyethnicity, I've been doing a review. I've been doing it old school, with just a section on the talk page. I think this confused User:Harej, and he started the GA1 page, then noted that I was already doing it. Then the {{Talk:Polyethnicity/GA1} template is showing up at the bottom of the last section, which was annoying me, so I just removed it. I figured I'd fix all the stuff after the review was over. Then the bot puts it back. Automatically, I guess. So, what exactly does the bot do? The nominator is a newbie (part of a class assignment) who never put the GAN template at the top, and I started reviewing it before they nominated it on the GAN page. Stuff that's definitely not the bots fault, because it was so screwy. But, I'm not sure what the bot does so that I can anticipate what it needs and fix it before it happens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The {{Talk:Polyethnicity/GA1} template aught to be be visible on the talkpage whilst the article is under review; and pre-bot the reviewer had to manually add it to the talkpage. I've been doing reviews for the almost 15 months, so the "old school" is possbly a couple of years out of date, perhaps less. I noticed that, the problem was that Polyethnicity was not shown on WP:GAN as under review, neither was there a {{Talk:Polyethnicity/GA1}, so for all purposes the article did not appear to be under review. The bot will add the the GA/1 template if the article is under review and it is not there. Why not cut your review from the talkpage and paste it into {{Talk:Polyethnicity/GA1}? Pyrotec (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft: Orcs & Humans failed w/o any comments

Teancum failed Warcraft: Orcs & Humans with no explanation at all. I think Teancum's conduct need needs explanation. Philcha (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that Teancum screwed up. You can ask him/her on User talk:Teancum for an explanation. @harej 00:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that reviewer screwed up royally and I have posted to that effect on thir talk page. I suggest that the nomination be re-inserted at the original place in the queue, it was only nominated two days ago. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I just shifted it up to the correct place, does Pilcha want to put another review template on the talk page? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jezhotwells, what did you mean about put another review template on the talk page? I was expectig that aother reviwerr would come along and create a .../GA2 page? --Philcha (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant placing {{subst:GAN|subtopic=name of the subsection on this page where the article is listed}} on the talk page, but I have done that now. This enables the GA2 page to be easily created by following the link. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -Philcha (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent)This case raised some procedure issues at WP:GAN:

• I fail / pass reviews in the order: update the GA review page; update the Talk page (see WP:GAN); finally remove the nom from WP:GAN. That way if something distracted me I'm less likely to omit links. I think the current checklist WP:GAN could cause errors like this, as it removes the nom first.
• Why the review failed to show at Talk:Warcraft: Orcs & Humans is more complex. At present transclusion the GA review page into the Talk page is manual, and occasionally I've deliberately held off if I need a day or 2 to read round, and at this stage the review is just a draft - then I transclusion and notify the nom. But Talk:Warcraft: Orcs & Humans/GA1 showed no reading round. Any what to make loose like this tie up? --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing is a transparent process, or it aught to be. If any GAN article is being reviewed, then I strongly beleive that the review should be visible from the article's talkpage during the review, i.e. by transcluding the review. If it is being suggested that so called "draft" views can be hidden until after a decission has been made, then that is not what GA reviews should be about. Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and anyway the bot now transcludes the review automatically. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In the view of recent events, transcluding the review automatically is best. If I need a think, I'll use a sub-page. --Philcha (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic lists

Topic lists! Have at them! Great if you're only interested in watching part of the GAN listings! @harej 07:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Pyrotec, "have at them" is a colloquial expression. @harej 18:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Never heard of it. What does it mean? Pyrotec (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Typically it means to attack "them", though in this context I am asking for eyes to look over the lists. What do you think of them? @harej 20:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I like them. I seldom review the Arts, other than Architecture: and some of these subtopics have large backlogs; but I do have an interest in Geography and Places, amongst others. It would be nice to be able to put some of the Topic Lists that interest me on my watchlist, but with the bots updating them every 15 minutes, I'm not sure that that is a good idea. Alternatively, I could just look at the Topic Lists that interest me once or twice a day. Pyrotec (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the topic lists have less volume by nature of being smaller parts to a larger list, it would be a lot more reasonable to watchlist a topic list than to watchlist the whole list. @harej 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you on that point. Typically I review between 12 and 18 GANs per month, so I have to look at/edit the WP:GAN page on almost a daily basis; but these list could make choosing the next article to review a bit easier. Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviews and reviewing

I placed an article for review on the list (William Stanley (Victorian inventor)), but I do not feel that I know the MOS in enough detail to be able to properly review another article.

Is this likely to prevent people from doing a review of the article?

Can anyone give more pointers on how to do a review of another article? Is it best to choose an article about a subject that you know, or one that you know nothing about?

As this is my first substantial article (researched and written from scratch), I really want feedback on if it is GA status, or if not, how I can bring it there. I am the main contributor (apart from 15 relatively minor edits) - and as I can't think of any other articles which I can create which are likely to be as substantial, I would like to get this to GA status (and onwards to A or FA standard). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Don't worry too much about limited familiarity with the sprawling MoS. For GA reviewing, you really only need to make sure it complies with 6 of its guidelines. The fiction one only applies to certain articles; the lead one boils down to making sure the lead is a summary of all the key points of the article, without introducing new material absent from the main body; the list incorporation one can be summed up as bulleted lists are discouraged in favor of using prose paragraphs when possible; the rest are easy enough.

I shouldn't think that'll deter people from reviewing the article, no. Naturally, it's encouraged, but it isn't forced. You might even find yourself more confident about reviewing an article after you've gone through a review yourself.

Some people prefer to choose an article on a subject they know or are interested in. Sometimes it can be good to push oneself outside the comfort zone and review something unfamiliar, too. For first reviews it may be better to go for a subject you feel comfortable with. That way you don't have to struggle with getting on top of what the article's saying as well as assessing an article against the various criteria for the first time.

The reviewing guide is a good resource to look at if you haven't already. You can always contact a GA mentor for advice if you need help, or simply ask here. We all have to start somewhere. I'm sure you'll do fine. As for your nominated article, I know reviewers tend to really like working with nominators who have a genuine interest in their articles and want them to be good, even great. :) –Whitehorse1 18:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Report bot

This bot is pretty good, but there are still issue. The bot doesn't seem to have picked up the fact that the article Bill Harry is under review and is currently on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That particular talk page used "hold" instead of the supported "onhold" or "on hold". The bot should now recognize a plain "hold" as meaning "the review is on hold". Anything else? @harej 20:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation, I didn't notice that. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably harej knows this already, but the status (hold, on hold, second opinion, 2nd opinion etc.) is processed by {{GAN/Status}} to accommodate multiple usages. Any form supported by this template needs to be supported by the bot. Geometry guy 22:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Still didn't work at latest update. I checked and Bill Harry has "status=onhold" in the GAN template on the talk page. The only other thing that is slightly diffrent is that the page number is 2, as this failed GAN a few months ago. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I see on hold for Bill Harry. @harej 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, this [6] doesn't show it on hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have nothing to do with that page. @harej 21:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake - what does your bot do? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Right now it updates the topic lists, but once I get the go-ahead it will be updating WP:GAN itself (see the ongoing demo at User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2). @harej 21:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Some strange GA reviews

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Closing: User:LittleMissWikipoo blocked as banned user sockpuppet. Any solely article-related issues can be dealt with in a new thread as needed. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Can someone take a look at the five GA reviews by LittleMissWikipoo (talk · contribs) in the last couple of hours? "Quick passes", all of them. I follow GA reviews regularly as I'm just starting to review articles myself, and found these to be a bit odd.-SpacemanSpiff 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I noticed them too. They are all starting with "I'm dispensing with the checklist" and then the article is passed with comments like "this article cannot be bettered". That's not up to standard. Hekerui (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I think the profile was created today. Sock, maybe? MMagdalene722talk to me 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Getting a bit too disruptive now, latest review was "Excellent, PASS with congratulations". Time for a block and mass revert. -SpacemanSpiff 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I've checked Sussex spaniel now, and it looks okay. The articles selected are good candidates and look at first glance likely to pass GA - the new account has not placed them at GA yet either. So it begs the question what to do. The easiest I think is to double check as we go and place them on GA with a note on the GA review page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Not denying that the articles are good. But so many reviews in such a short time without providing an evaluation seems a bit too much, I'd say the evaluation process is there for a reason. But then, I've just started working in the GA area, so take this as an uninformed opinion. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (sigh) it's tricky I know..see my plan below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC) The others to check are - Hudson County Courthouse, Brad Follmer, Lord Guilford Dudley, I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song), and Shoegazing Kids. Can we strike and add to GA (or not as the case may be) as we go? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC) FWIW my take on it is this - proceeding above by quickly verifying the articles means that (a) if the new user is good faith, we double check her contributions to show them what they might have missed (b) if it is a sock, by reviewing the articles anyway and verifying, we erase any mischief and exclusiveness of sock contribs, and (c) we make sure the good-faith editors who worked hard on the six articles in question do not get their articles enmired in controversy. Is this okay with everyone? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Fine by me, but as a nominator, I would normally like to see feedback on the article, but all that is beside the point here, given that there's at least a second check going on. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Sounds reasonable to me, Casliber. Clearly any of these articles which do not pass at present but remain unreviewed should be reinserted in the nominations lists. I further concur with SpacemanSpiff that even very well written articles deserve more of a review than "Excellent, Pass". In the list, the article that stands out the most as needing work (i.e. placing on hold) to meet the GA standard is Brad Follmer. Even the first sentence is inaccurate. The first section reads like in-universe synthesis, and the reliability of the sources may need attention. Geometry guy 20:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) To spaceman, absolutely, so adding extra feedback to the /GA1 template pages would be most valuable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Hi, it's me. I was here months ago and worked quite a while on GAs and articles but forgot my user name and password so I reregistered. Don't even ask me to guess at my old name. Nothing comes to mind. Anyway, I noticed that the GAC is backlogged to the crack of doom and thought I would look for those GACs that appear to be well done FIRST (and get them out of the way) before tackling the toilet paper that require hours of concentration, haggling, and sleepless nights. I always look at the nominator's history FIRST and if that person has a record of arguing with others and making life difficult I throw their articles in my mental trash basket and leave the stuff for the hardier souls to take on. NO WAY am I getting involved with those sorts of editors! I want WP to be fun not a headache! Sorry if I upset others here but I thought I was helping. I'm ready to quit now because it's obvious I'm not wanted. One thing you people have to learn: a GOOD article is a GOOD article and you don't have to pick it apart at every comma, period and exclamation point! Good luck! LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC) But you do have to check whether the material is reliably sourced. Geometry guy 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC) First, I regret making the comment "block and revert", that was out of place, but it was on seeing that four word review. That said, I don't expect picking apart at every comma or period, but there should be some evidence that the article was reviewed and the review should at least show the judgment used in the evaluation. I'll stay out of this now. -SpacemanSpiff 23:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC) It's unfortunate that you feel this way LittleMissWikipoo, but have you read the GA criteria or even read the articles you passed from top to bottom? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 23:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Another sign that Wikipedia is changing. We used to welcome new reviewers with open arms and if they make mistake, we'll let them know and give them a chance so they can fix it themselves before we do the cleanup (or send it to GAR). Now, the same scenario results in admonishment (or getting to the point where it closely resembles public humiliation), accusing someone being a sockpuppet, a pile-on with similar comments at the talk page to make the user feels pressured and overwhelmed, and a stern warning such as "block and revert". Have you guys paused for a second and think that our behaviours have gone too far to reviewers, particularly the new ones? OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Right, except according to LittleMissWikipoo herself, she's not new. I think five reviews that were passed by "doing away with the checklist" by a user profile that was created that same day warrants at least a little concern. Besides, it's not like we tarred and feathered her - that's why I went and got an admin. The main concern is not whether someone's feelings are hurt. The process has been established and is regulated so that WP has good-quality articles. MMagdalene722talk to me 13:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Not changing for the better either. Compare a deletion discussion I took part in back in 2005, with this one from 2009. The change in what we're prepared to accept is vast. Dismissive derogatory soundbites and labels have become policy. –Whitehorse1 14:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and reverted the last three - they're still nominated and have been put back in the queues according to their nomination dates. MMagdalene722talk to me 18:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I am really confused! I was of course delighted about the pass of Lord Guilford Dudley, and now it is back in the row again because of this: "I think that this was initially passed hastily; see discussion of this and other quick passes here. It still needs a little bit of work. The main thing is that the prose needs to be edited so that it flows smoothly and sounds more neutral. I put it back in the queue. MMagdalene722talk to me 18:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)" Why is there no explanation as to why it doesn't sound neutral? I now gather two other articles have been "reverted" also: In these the explanation is in both cases: "I think that this was initially passed hastily; see discussion of this and other quick passes here. It looks good for the most part, but still needs a little bit of work. The main thing I see is that there are citations in the lead paragraph; per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the body and therefore not need citations. I put it back in the queue. MMagdalene722talk to me 17:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)" which is no valid reason to fail any article, of course there may be citations in the lead, see any number of FAs! Why get nominators no message if GAs are no GAs? And isn't there a thing called GAR? I by no means wish that these articles be put to GAR; but without more detailed explanation as to why they fail (and also only in half an hour, even quicker than all these articles had been passed), this is not o.k.: Any new reviewer will notice the remark about not being neutral on the talk page, perhaps being influenced by it beforehand. Buchraeumer (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I wasn't the person who re-queued the articles. I'll try to address your points though. In all cases the close+passes were 'undone' or reversed, rather than initiating GARs. In cases like this, where it's felt an appropriately complete review appears not to have taken place the first time, it's far quicker to just start that recently-conducted review over. As well as being practical, it avoids each article talkpage having a 'not promoted' record in its permanent articlehistory. Your article hasn't failed. Citations in the lead aren't taboo, though are usually unnecessary; some like to make limited use of them for contentious claims. I think the neutral comment was intended merely as a tip to the nominator, so they could look at the article and address any occurrences they saw, before a reviewer came along. When a reviewer assesses it, he or she will examine it for neutrality among other things. If it is neutral, the comment won't make any difference in a complete carefully-conducted review. –Whitehorse1 20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC) It's back in the review because the review wasn't properly done, essentially a "I like it", but the process is about getting better articles in the end, and I've seen articles become much better because of it. Hekerui (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I do know what a GA review is and have spent hours and hours since Sunday with reviewing and making "minor" edits at Byzantine Greeks, after having reviewed Peter the Patrician and Nikita Zotov (meanwhile a FA) in the summer. Nevertheless, I doubt an article with this comment at the top of the talk page has great chances to find another reviewer: "Lord Guilford Dudley is currently a good article nominee. An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article, and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer." Buchraeumer (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I have fixed Talk:Lord Guilford Dudley and similarly Talk:Shoegazing Kids so that fresh reviews can take place. OTOH, I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song) looks close to GA standard to me. Could a reviewer with experience of songs articles look over it and comment at Talk:I Miss You (Miley Cyrus song)/GA1? Thanks. Geometry guy 06:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) PS. Thanks to Whitehorse1 for wise words above. In particular, restoring a nomination avoids recording an incomplete review in the article history. Geometry guy 07:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for fixing the talkpages, Geometry Guy! Buchraeumer (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I'm POed your article was tossed back to GAN. I think somewhere I read an editor thought the prose didn't "flow". Well, it "flowed" as far as I was concerned and that's why I passed it. So somebody had a different opinion about your prose-flow and decided to tosss the article back. Of all the nerve. This opens the door for any and all editors to toss articles back to GAN because "IMHO the prose doesn't flow and the original reviewer was wrong, simply wrong, wrong, wrong to hastily pass your unflowing, crummy prose to GA. Sorry bub you're back at square one. PS I'm not going to tell you where and why your prose doesn't flow. You'll just have to take my word for it." LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC) You need to calm down. We can see you're frustrated. We recognize occasionally people let their frustration show through. But making comments in the heat of the moment is not always the best thing. –Whitehorse1 14:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC) If anyone could take a gander, she also took a good long stab at the article on White Zombie. As I originally nominated the article, what she suggested goes against various Manuals of Style and her GA review standards were quite the opposite to what we've had here. If anyone can help with this, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Looks alright to me. An unusual style perhaps, but there are many styles. Between review & reviewer talkpage comments, what's apparent is an editor acting with best endeavors to take earlier concerns on board and conduct a careful considered review. At this point, the best course of action in my view is for all of you to stay calm and work together to improve the article. Beyond all else, what shines forth from the discussions, is how you are all fond of the film and genuinely want it to have a good article. –Whitehorse1 14:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Please do. While the nominator wants to "blame" me for using some sort of "unorthodox process" (LOL) the fact of the matter is we are stuck at simple MOS and good prose issues. Jeesh, we have yet to touch things like factual accuracy. This is essentially a one source article and I own a copy of that source so no problem checking this stuff. The problem here is the unwillingness of the nominator to work on this jazz. He seems to think the article is a GA and only needs a light copy edit. Pfft! What does he think I've been doing for days only to have things messed up at every turn. I've asked him to rewrite the plot summary because it has some misinformation as does the plot summary in the lead but we haven't even gone there yet. Anyway, I'm lashed for passing GACs "hastily" and lashed for being thorough. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. This review is giving me a sick stomach because I can't get through to the nominator about the good prose stuff. I want someone else to take this review on because I'm gonna hurl if I hafta go back there. LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC) And he really has a nerve sending an article to GAN that needs a light copy edit. It's not my job as the GAN reviewer to tire my fingers correcting somebody else's typos. All that should be done BEFORE the article hits the GAN runway. LittleMissWikipoo (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Please see my comments (of today) above. Both of them. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 14:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I am alarmed by User:Mmagdalene722's statement[7] because I am one of those reviewers who look at article first, jot down the issues/problems on word document, then post all of them in one go (which saves the bandwidth and money for Wikipedia). What Mmagdalene722 currently doing is not calm down, but rather is escalating the discussion by adding oil to the fire. If what Mmagdalene722 said was true, then does anyone want to go through my history and send every single GA I reviewed to GAN (and not GAR)? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC) We've kind of moved on since then, OhanaUnited. It's important to remember Mmagdalene722 is a comparatively new user too. Yes, in hindsight communicating with the user more providing help where necessary, rather than moving to bringing in an admin with all the connotations people often attach to that may have been better. We're fortunate Casliber, who has a thoughtful approach, was the admin alerted. In general, we should learn from not dwell upon each situation. I'll take your suggestion in the spirit it was meant. –Whitehorse1 17:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Well, I nevertheless find OhanaUnited's comment very comforting (as I also find LittleMissWikipoo's piece on "prose"). I can move on feeling much better with their comments than without them. Buchraeumer (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC) "Moved on", just so you know, referred to Mm'722 not having acted in relation to this for 2 days. OhanaUnited's near-unparalleled contribution to GA is not unappreciated. –Whitehorse1 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fedora Project review

Hello all. Fedora Project has just been reviewed and passed by User:MWOAP. While the review did trigger some improvements to the article, it apepars to me the piece is not even in the ball park of being a GA, and may be a target for a merge, and for cleanup templates. Issues I have mentioned to the reviewer are:

• Most of the (very few) references in the article are to internal company or project sources and may not meet either reliability criteria, or be considered independent of the subject.
• The bulk of the article comprises embedded lists, which are not ideal for the nature of the article. See Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:EMBED.
• Much of the list material reads like promotional text for the Fedora Project (for example "Printing to create a good printing experience on Fedora")
• Almost nothing in the "Subprojects & Special interest groups" section is referenced, and there is no indication why any of the detailed information is in any way notable.

IIRC, I haven't taken a recently-promoted article straight to reassessment, but would consider doing so in this case. I just want a couple of other sets of eyes on this before I proceeded. Input sought. I have advised the reviewer that I would be bringing this here. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the review too and the article looks like a quickfail candidate. Perhaps an admin could quickly rectify this or a GAR should be started, if necessary. Hekerui (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it should go to GAR. There are a number of issues: majority of refs are to fedoraproject.org, one dead link, one section is a list, it possibly doesn't actually meet the WP:CORP notability guidelines, lead does not comply with MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

MWOAP's response at User talk:MWOAP/Archives/2009/December#Fedora Project GA review is illuminating. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that was as I was logging off last night because I had to go to bed. I have since replaced that. I don't know how I missed this but agree with the above statements. Can I just delist it, or what kind of re review is needed. I would like to delist it myself if there is a process on it. Sorry for my slip-up. Please remember to assume WP:AGF. --MWOAP (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to assume good faith here - that was one of the reasons I set out my concerns on MWOAP's user talk page before i came here - to help that editor identify issues such as these for future reviews. I note MWOAP's support for delisting, as expressed at their talk page. In light of this, I will take the article through the individual reassessment process rather than community reassessment, as the initial reviewer is not expressing "a disagreement over an individual reassessment or review". Thanks to all. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For info: individual reassessment now opened here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Backlog is starting to get out of hand

The Music and Theartre etc. sections are getting out of hand. I think someone should holler for some backup from WP:WPMUSIC, WP:THEATER. Just a suggestion. ResMar 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, why don't you? I don't think Theatre is a problem but films and TV maybe. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I left a message at Music wikiproject, hopefully there'll be a reply. ResMar 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll definitely help you guys but I restrict myself to the music section only and I have only reviewd 10 articles yet :( --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message at WT:FILM similar to ResMar's. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary split question regarding HMS Belfast (C35)

Input would be welcomed at Talk:HMS Belfast (C35)/GA1 regarding if a Summary style split is appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The matter is now resolved. SilkTork *^YES! 08:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2

Does anyone use this? @harej 00:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal relationships of Michael Jackson

Just wondering which subtopic to nominate this article in and, also, where to place it at WP:GA if it passes its review. Any ideas? Pyrrhus16 01:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest in Music for GAN and in Performers, groups, composers and other music people as it is a sub-artcile of Michael Jackson. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Done. Pyrrhus16 21:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this an article or a list?

Harry Potter influences and analogues was just submitted to Featured list candidates because it was delisted as a good article; the consensus at the GAR was that this was just a collection of cited influences, so it was a list because there was no "overriding theme" to make this an article. Does anyone else agree with this assessment? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I closed the GAR discussion per consensus; however, the article was delisted prior to this discussion.

My personal opinion is that it would be possible to write either an article or a list (or even both) on this topic, but that the two encyclopedia pages would have quite different structure and emphasis. A list would focus on the influences and analogues that Rowling and other commentators have noted. An article, by contrast, would focus not on Rowling, but on the books themselves and textual literary criticism. That requires using a lot of high quality secondary sources to draw out themes and connections between the influences on the texts, as Wikipedia itself cannot provide any synthesis.

At the GAR, the main contributing editor indicated he regards Harry Potter influences and analogues as more of a list than an article. However, I was surprised that it was immediately nominated for featured list status, as the requirements for featured lists are different from those for good articles, and I would imagine that some work is needed meet them. Geometry guy 21:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for FL are pretty much the same as for GA for FA. If it meets GA I can't see why it can't make FL. For the record, the article was delisted due to a technical screw-up; the reviewer decided to up sticks without completing his review and the article was delisted by default, even after all the issues the review had raised had been dealt with. I submitted the article for GAR because I felt it had been unfairly demoted, and THEN it was closed as a list, much to my own surprise. The fact that it was a list had not been a problem in the initial review, nor in the original GAN. Serendi^podous 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"I've always seen this as a list, not an article, because for it to be an article there would have to be some kind of overriding theme to these different texts, but there isn't one"? I leave the question of FL criteria for reviewers at FLC. Geometry guy 22:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't a list. I said that the fact that it was a list was not a problem for its original GA nomination, or at its first GA review. Serendi^podous 16:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've relisted this conversation, as I think consensus would be helpful for both article devellopment and the user. Having been in a similar situation, I believe that consensus one way or the other is very important. To tell the author that this work is not eligible for assessment of any kind is surely discouraging. For disclosure, I should add that I have opposed its promotion to FL status, but the current limbo seems to have discouraged reviewers, and therefore improvement. That can't be a good thing. WFCforLife (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed be discouraging to be told that a contribution is not eligible for assessment either as an article or a list, but that is not the situation here, nor the right way to understand the guidelines.

• The bottom line is that it is not possible for any contribution to be both GA and FL. Consequently editors are advised to decide what type of page they are writing, write it accordingly, and submit it to the relevant process.
• It is important not to confuse eligibility with passableness. The consensus at GAR not to list the article as a GA reflected two issues: first, the article did not meet the GA criteria, and second, the author indicated that he viewed the work as a list. The GAR was closed in order to allow for it to be assessed as a list, and the author took it to FLC. I'm not surprised that reviewers at FLC do not favor featuring it, but that does not necessarily mean it is ineligible: rewriting and restructuring may suffice.

Lists and articles need to be written differently. If the author wishes to reconsider and have this work assessed as an article, then that is not a problem: he can simply withdraw it from FLC, and it becomes eligible for GA status. However, that does not mean it is likely to pass as a GA without significant rewriting, and I made some suggestions above. Geometry guy 21:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's all very well, but there isn't (just) opposition to the FLC candidacy because it's not a good list. Three people are opposing/ commentating that it's not a list at all. WFCforLife (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Progress as of December 2009

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. When Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if there's a ruling against this...

I am currently reviewing the article Shoegazing Kids and by my reckoning the only thing going against it passing is the lack of a full Personnel section, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Assessment#Quality scale a B-class article must have "A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians." Is this grounds alone to fail the article? The CD release of the album was only in France, elsewhere it was released as a download album only, and the nominator (and me) can't find any other sources for this information. I know those are just excuses, but I thought I would explain the problem, so my question is... should I fail the article based on this? REZTER ^TALK ø 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not put it On Hold to allow someone to fix it. If it is not fixed after a reasonable time (for you to determine) you could fail it then for the reasons given. The GA requirements are WP:WIAGA, so in effect you are saying that it is substandard in respect of requirement 3(a). It does not have to meet WP Albums requirements to be a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My first review

I just boldly made my first review. I'd like to get some feedback. Did I do everything correctly? It seemed relatively obvious to me that the article did not meet GA criteria on language and style. Therefore I did not mention every incident of bad style but gave just a few examples. I also tried to point out what should be done to fix the problems. Probably my review isn't perfect, but I hope it is sufficient. Offliner (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first review. You've failed it and you've given reasons why. I'm happy to accept your verdict that it is a failure. However, DIY "do it yourself" and "stationary products" are obvious to me so I would not have made those particular comments, perhaps they are UK terms that are not used in other countries. I'm not saying you are wrong on these two comments, I'm just saying we have different views. Just to reinforce the point, I'm happy with your reasons for failing it, but were those the only reasons for failure, you've not make that absolutely clear other that to say that it was well referenced, but perhaps you expected the nominator to infer that?

What I think might have been helpful in your review would have been provide a link to the GA requirements, such as in WP:WIAGA; and there are a couple of templates {{subst:GAList}} or {{subst:GAList2}} that you could have used.

This is my summary of your review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Hopefully someone will fix the problems and at a later date resubmit it. Based on your review, they will only fix what you've stated needed fixing.

Don't get too hung up about whether the first review was right or wrong, the best way is forward is to try a few more. Pyrotec (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Pyrotec, I shudder to think of the mistakes I may have made with some of my early reviews. You will find that some are easier than others, some editors are more or less co-operative. If you get stuck give one of us a shout or use the 2nd opinion template. Good luck and thanks for spending the time on reviewing. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I think all the suggestions here are absolutely correct, and I will be following this advice in my future reviews. I will especially try to be a bit more comprehensive. Offliner (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I just did my second review: Talk:New_Jersey_Route_133/GA1. It again seemed relatively obvious that this should pass, because of problems with the prose and because an unreliable source (bing maps) was used. But could someone please confirm my belief that the article has too many details, gives too little context, and is not very readable to non-locals and non-expers. This is a somewhat subjective issue, so I hope it's not just me who thinks this is a problem. Offliner (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Deep biasness from an editor

Just yesterday I nominated the article "Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)" under music for GA. However, an editor who was involved in a previous dispute of the article, User:Piano non troppo suddenly chimed in and started reviewing the article. His main intention is to fail the article and hence is claiming in short that "the article is a pile load of shit". I request my fellow GA reviewrs here to request him to step down from his biased review and let a reviewer not associated with the article come and review it. He should be warned against actions like this. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have placed notes about this on the review page and the other editor's talk page and I am prepared to undertake the review if they step down. Otherwise, it may be appropriate to take to WP:GAR if there is a dispute about the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Piano non troppo is vehemently being aggressive regarding this article and it totally shows from the comments on his talk page that he is reviewing the article with the intention of failing it. And whether the dispute was regarding the external links or not, he was involved in editing the aricle and he should not review it. As the nominater of the article I frankly refuse to accept a review by such a biased and aggressive editor who doesnot carry any good faith. I call for a community evaluation and will raise a request at GAR. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like the best course as no one here has the power to "forcibly" remove a reviewer. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know but a general consensus strongly indicates that the user is biased in his review and will never offer a fair trial. As the nominater, I have the right to refuse a review if I feel that it is biased. Other editors have noted that critical and commercial reception, promotional devices as well as its chart performance are important aspects of a song. I think the editor, under the veil of professional writing, is a supporter of inserting any fact whether or not its a verifiable reliable source. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the reviewers?

I originally wasn't going to say much since I figured the problem would solve itself, but since 2010 began, we've moved from just shy of 400 nominations to 420, a new record by quite a bit. So, my question to us is not so much to review more; we're reviewing as many as we can. Rather, where can we find more reviewers to handle this backlog? Once sweeps are finally done I'd be tempted to start up a drive to reduce the backlog, but until then we need to find a way to at least break even. Any ideas on finding some, or on reducing the backlog? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the trend of the backlog reports (Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report) and the archive. Typically about 10% of the articles are "On Hold" and about 10% are "under review" (with 80% just sitting waiting). The 10% On Hold seems to be reasonably constant, but the "under review" has been running below 10% since Christmas and it's a cummulative effect. We need to get the "under review" percentage up above 10% to keep the queue stable. Perhaps we need to think about putting Sweeps on hold? Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

True. The problem seems to me that our review numbers are consistent, but we're suddenly getting a lot more articles in, and we're just out of reviewers. We're so close to being done with sweeps (and once that backlog's gone it's gone) that I don't want to block it off, but there's not too many other options. One other note: the 10% on hold being constant sounds nice, but a good amount of that 10% are articles that have been on hold for several weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to offer what I see as an outsider's perspective. I'm reviewing my first GA this week. (asked a senior editor to watch me) One of the big challenges I think GA reviews face is... contests. When I see one editor with over 20 articles up for GA review, I'm thinking a) man, I'm such a slacker, b) nobody's ever going to review my pagespace, c) who the hell can manage 20 GA reviews at a time?, d) that overachiever with 20 articles up for GA better be doing some serious reviewing him- or herself, and e) I'll be damned if I learn how to review GAs just so someone can win a contest. Notice the mood change during my process? As someone who thinks content creation contests are totally antithetical to why we're supposed to be here (what, we're looking under rocks for subjects now?), I believe this is one reason why contests are a bad idea. Contests disproportionately allocate resources toward folks who already have one zillion edits and ache for a zillion more. Worse, contests strain reviewing resources, and tend to badly flavor the review process to folks who haven't taken the plunge yet. That's my opinion, take it with your own sense of salt. BusterD (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I recently performed my first review (of Saratoga campaign). I chose this to review because I was already reasonably familiar with the topic. My inclination is to continue to only review topics that I am somewhat familiar, just so I don't label something as a good article when in fact it is based on cherry-picked sources. So my suggestion would be to try tor recruit reviewers from the projects where the biggest volumes of articles are. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The content contests do certainly seem to be a lot more popular of late - and more participants mean more review requests. However, this isn't always a bad thing. One contest at least, the current MILHIST WWI contest, makes a sensible attempt at balancing - it awards points for reviewing as well as creation. If we can encourage this in the larger contests - the Wikicup is the obvious example - then there's a good chance of getting that energy diverted into keeping the review process moving, and have the increased influx be self-sustaining.

Currently, GA reviewing is "valued" at a rate of about five to one - the milhist project will offer two points for a review and ten for actually writing the article - which seems about fair in terms of time taken, and if anything overly generous. Perhaps something worth making sure is in there for the next time around? Keeping the system moving has pretty obvious benefits for the contest itself, and we could certainly sell it on those grounds. Shimgray | talk | 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup is exactly the kind of contest which taxes reviewing resources at all levels. It's all about Featured Content. No points for reviewing, unless I missed it in the scoring. I'll agree the Military History project focuses on reviews, but I don't understand whole concept of contests in a collaborative environment (except strictly as a novelty). The entire point of wiki-participation is teaching, helping and connecting, not competing or winning. BusterD (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the original intention of the contests is to motivate editors to actually write the content, rather than as a medium for competition. For example, the WWI contest grew out of a need for better articles for the upcoming centennial of topics related to that war. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Whilst they're not for everyone (I myself avoid them) people do seem to find it a good way to work; it provides a structure and a goal for them, a way to set targets and try to work to them, within a reasonably social environment; these are often things missing for a lot of our editors in the normal day-to-day run, where you can get lost as the sole worker in a morass of indistinguishable articles. If they're putting a strain on the reviewing system as a result, it's no doubt in large part because they're causing the production of a lot more high-profile material, which can only be a good thing in the long run. Shimgray | talk | 01:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is my first turn around at the Wikicup, but right now I am focusing on DYKs, so straining someone else.  ;) These contests do strain the system a little, but they are a net benefit to the project. For my part, when I post a GA nom, I try to make sure I review at least one, and usually two, articles. Even if it costs me advancement in the WikiCup, I won't be changing that strategy when I get a couple planned articles up here. The hockey project has thrown a bunch of GANs up recently. I might poke our project a bit to see if some of our writers might take on an article or two. Resolute 22:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside from appealing to individual projects (which is also a good idea), it may be beneficial to have an article in the Signpost noting the alarming increase in the backlog. Plenty of editors see it, and if 100 editors all do just one review, that's making some sort of dent in the backlog. Featured content has the weekly Featured content dispatch workshop. A one time "ad" followed up by weekly backlog reports may attract some reviewers. Mm40 (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Another idea: there 747 people who watch this page. Double the nominations needing review. If everyone who saw this post does one review, it would help. Mm40 (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't deny setting goals and achieving them is one powerful way to motivate folks to create and nurture content. I have no problem with particular contests or how anyone tries to run them. But Wizardman's original query was roughly 'with numbers up overall, where could we find more and new reviewers?' I offered one possible reason why numbers are up: several users have more than 20 pages up for review at one time (if just one of those doesn't, then we're at 400, not 420). No wonder there's a logjam. Perhaps folks who want to nominate so many articles at once should become part of the solution. BusterD (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

An excise tax for each nomination in a week-long window after three nominations, payable in reviews or US$500 to hire a reviewer. @harej 02:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mm40: The Featured Content Dispatch currently is mostly inactive, and only kicks back up when there's a story that needs doing. Talk to User:SandyGeorgia and I'm sure she'd be willing to set up the shop. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was curious to see what this looked like over time, so I put together a quick graph using the stats data:

• There was a similar peak in January last year - the total ramped up by fifty in just ten days after Christmas, and didn't drop back below 300 before early the next month. Readers may interpret that however they want ;-) Shimgray | talk | 10:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Another perspective to take is looking at the proportion of GAs to ordinary articles. Today it stands at 1 in 397 according to WP:GA. My impression is that the proportion has been steadily improving for several months. I think that there is "no need to panic, sir!" Jezhotwells (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to help by taking on a big one (Anarchism) to help out and make up for the little one (Twice Through the Heart) that I have up for assessment. If I'm lucky anarchism may turn into a little one. As far as I can tell, the nominator has not mentioned the nomination on the talk page. He certainly hasn't posted the nomination template. So I'm asking the editors whether they think the article is near GA quality before I start.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a banner with nominator name and original date of nomination. The article looks worthy of review to me, plenty of apparently RS citations. I don't look in detail though, I have left that for you and for you to start the review page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A user with two GA noms has retired

Jack1755 (talk · contribs) has retired and currently has two article nominated here, Gian Gastone de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany and Violante Beatrice of Bavaria. I asked the user to consider withdrawing the nominations himself but have had no reply so thought it should be raised here so that they can be removed (they are, after all, unlikely to have any issues raised in a review dealt with). Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of nominations being removed for this reason. The relevant Wikiproject(s) may be able to address concerns. Maybe they should be approached in advance to find out if they would be willing to help out if there are any issues. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

They should still be reviewed, though if there's a lot of issues with them then it may as well be failed instead of held. Plus, you never know, people unretire. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll adopt them and fix any issues if they are put on hold. Jehochman ^Brrr 03:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reviewing

(moved from WP:EAR by Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

I hope I am asking in the right place. If not, please tell me kindly.

I am currently reviewing Pat Condell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for GA. It was failed in September 2009 for unreliable sources. One month later, it was renominated by the same nominator as before. I did a diff check, and not much has changed since the last failure besides the addition of one reference and a bit of formatting. Does this constitute a Quick Fail?

Note: This is my first ever GA review. Brambleclawx 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have answered on your talk page, but best place to ask is here. I won't offer a formal 2nd opinion on the review page as I have already failed this artcile, but I agree that not much has changed, there are some RS but still a lot on unreliable sourcing. The nominator doesn't seem to understand our RS policies. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're teetering between putting it on hold and failing, then given that the nominator has disappeared since nomming it, I would just fail it, noting whatever concerns you've found. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jezhotwells failed it for pretty much the same reason, and the page hasn't really changed. All they did was add one new source. Brambleclawx 17:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, just quick-fail the article, since they didn't do any work on it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow good articles on Twitter!

Whenever a good article is approved for listing, it will now be posted on Twitter by @wikiarticles. @harej 19:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Current event article should be de-listed

See Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Danlev (talk · contribs) nominated it. Wexcan (talk · contribs) started a review in December and placed it on hold. Wexcan's last edit was on January 2. This is obviously a rapidly changing event with a definite end point. I left a message on Danlev's talk page and Wexcan's. Wexcan has not responded, but Danlev agrees with the de-listing.

I've put in about 100 edits to the article within the past 3 days, so I should not de-list the article. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Review Suspension

I am currently busy, so I will have to suspend my Good Article review for Tampa, Florida for five months. Us441 (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From the article's talkpage, you don't appear to have started yet, as no Talk:Tampa, Florida/GA1 page has been created. Why not remove your name from the nominations page and let someone else review it. Pyrotec (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at Talk:Dido and Aeneas/GA1

Can someone please look at Talk:Dido and Aeneas/GA1 and give some advice. I am very concerned about the way this review is being conducted. It is spectacularly unhelpful and the reviewer (User:GamerPro64) has not responded for over a week to queries and requests for clarification. Voceditenore (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the process for dumping an inactive reviewer so that another can pick up the baton? Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

::A second reviewer could add comments to the review (which appears to have been done), but the first reviewer has the final say. You've either got to persuade the first reviewer to complete the review or to withdraw. If the first review does fail it then the article could be resubmitted to WP:GAN or taken to WP:GAR. There does not appear to be a process for dumping an "inactive" reviewer - the editor concerned is still making edits on wikipedia so its not an inactive editor. Pyrotec (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got that all wrong. The article is currently at GA, GA having been awarded back in 2006. (User:GamerPro64) is doing an individual review (WP:GAR) as part of WP: GA Sweeps. If (User:GamerPro64) does nothing the article stays at GA; but the review could lead to withdrawal of GA-status. If that were to happen, the article could be resubmited to WP:GAN or taken to WP:GAR. I've not looked at the article itself, but the review appears to be "unhelpful". Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message for the reviewer, asking them to go back to the review and raise any specific issues and close the review when dealt with. Let's see what happens. If it closes as a delist and ends up at WP:GAR, Voceditenore (or anyone else for that matter) can leave a message at my talk page and I'll take a look - as no doubt will others. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment on the GAR. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

 – Answer given on User talk:Edkollin. Gabbe (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am confused. Where exactly am I supposed to copy this Nominating Post-Britpop?. Please answer on my talk page Edkollin (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism? unintentional perhaps?

there appears to be a problem on the nominations page, in one of the instruction boxes. Someone has added a complaint about an article there. I'd reverse it, but I don't remember what the text was to start with. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Undone Gary King (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Extending GAH

After my initial placement of Anarchism on hold, three different editors have fixed my previous issues. I have now raised a smaller number of points, some due to a different editor turning up and adding new material. Should I record a new GAH time stamp on WP:GAN or do people not notice if it approaches 3 weeks?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to update the timestamp, although you may if you wish. There are a few editors who occasionally go through and check reviews that are a few weeks old, but if it is seen that continuous work is happening, the schedule is left up to the reviewer and the nominating editors. The one-week hold period is a guideline, not a rule, and there are many articles where the hold is longer (or shorter) than that week. Hope this helps :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Criterion 2b

While looking at a underreferenced article today, I decided to study the criteria afresh. To my amazement, criterion 2b seems to be very lax on what actually needs to be referenced (direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons). I then took a look at my latest nomination (Værøy Airport), and noticed that according to the criteria, all I actually would need to cite is the passenger statistics from 1973 and 1982, and the regularity rate. However, had I removed all the other references and nominated the article, I would probably have been quicker-than-quick-failed and laughed out of GAN. If I wanted to game the system, I could probably make an article that would meet criterion 2b and yet fail an AfD on the grounds of WP:N. Many projects have set the criteria for B-class above that of GA.

Thankfully, it seems, particularly among experienced reviewers, that there is an understanding that almost all content needs to be referenced. While reviewing, I sometimes experience "difficult" nominator, who are [I feel] trying to avoid having to do proper research by claiming 2b when critical information is not referenced. The main criticism against Wikipedia has been WP:V (you can't trust Wikipedia), which essentially only can be overcome by improving references. GA is (along with A-class) the second-highest level of quality assurance in the project; while lack of referencing is becoming the Achilles heel of the project, I fear GA on paper is too relaxed on the issue. Is there anything we can do to improve this situation, or have I just misinterpreted the criteria or overlooked something (such as the span of 2a and 2c)? Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a project wide discussion really that boils down to whether we think we should remove the basic tenet that only material that is controversial or otherwise likely to be challenged must be referenced. I think that the standard set by reviewers for referencing is becoming too high - requiring references for even the most pedestrian of assertions. Most GA's nowadays have nore references than almost any scholarly paper. In my opinion reviewers should follow the current wording of the GA criteria instead of arbitrarily raising the bar to a more FA type of standard. The key part is "material that is controversial and likely to be challenged" - if all such material is sourced and the rest of the more basic information can be traced to a couple of broad introductory works then the article is sourced good enough for GA. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Maunus, the key is "likely to be challenged". If there are no citations in a section to show from where the content is being derived (via citations) it could be "challenged", maybe with a {{Unreferenced section}} tag. --maclean (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "likely to be challenged" is significant here. Also the word "referenced" is, for better or worse, somewhat ambiguous on Wikipedia. Clearer words are "sourced" or "cited" ("referenced" can mean either). All material on Wikipedia should be sourced (perhaps to common knowledge, but more likely to reliable sources). This is as much about WP:NOR as it is about WP:V, and GA criteria 2a and 2c reflect this. However, this does not mean that every sentence needs an inline citation: criterion 2b indicates the minimum requirement for inline citation for GAs. Inline citation is not a notability requirement, as notability can be established by providing reliable secondary sources which discuss the topic; they do not need to be cited to establish notability. While verifiability continues to be an issue for the project as a whole, this is primarily because 99.75% of Wikipedia articles are not GAs. By and large, GAs do not have significant verifiability concerns: this was tackled several years ago, and has been reinforced by GA Sweeps. Recent experience at GAR (the last year or two) would suggest that the reliability of sources, image use, plagiarism (including possible copyright violations), unclear prose, and bias have been at least as significant issues as verifiability for GAs. GA reviewers have responded to this by paying closer attention to checking sources both for reliability and content. This is preferable to focusing on numbers of citations, as there is an inherent danger of bean-counting associated with the latter: article assessment is about quality, not quantity. Geometry guy 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think that a GA should be fully referenced. How long ago was the bulk of WP:GACR written? The criteria may not have changed for a few years, and on the main FA/GA articles weren't as good back then...Aaroncrick (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

All articles should be fully sourced (and in particular, GAs should, per 2a and 2c). GA requirements for inline citations were added in Autumn 2006 and GAs have almost entirely been swept for verifiability concerns since then. Early FAs have not received such a systematic review, and some are still poorly sourced and/or lacking in citations. The current GA criteria post-date that era, and have been fairly stable in the last year or two. Geometry guy 22:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is "likely to be challenged" can include almost everything. Citing things saves every reader time, and avoids misrepresenting certain sources; it's also a guard against original research. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Two recent reviews by User:Zscout370

I noticed that the above editor passed Noriko Matsueda with even creating a review page, also that they passed Takahito_Eguchi with a cursory review at Talk:Takahito_Eguchi/GA1. Both articles seem to rely heavily on Square Enix Music Online which doesn't appear to meet the requirements of reliable sourcing. I am concerned at this drive-by reviewing style and would appreciate others taking a look. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is a wierd one. Reviewer has 46K edits, is a sysop and been here since 2004. Reviews do look very cursory, and source reliability does look to be an issue. The articles appear to be reasonably well written and laid out, so they have the surface appearance of being OK. However, I don't think an article can rely on the subject's employer's website for half the cites. These need to go to GAR I think. Other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Has the suitability of Square Enix Music Online as a reliable source previously been discussed at the relevant wikiproject or at WP:RSN? From what I can tell, it is not affiliated with Square Enix (despite its name), and seems to have some sort of editorial structure.[8] On the flip side, the contributors seems to be members of the forum community. decltype (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any discussions at RSN, It looks like a forum to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How can I can do to help

From medical reasons I'm not fit for GA reviews - my stamina and contentration are weak. I'm still hoping to develop and nom GAs, although slower - even so, I hope to nom 3 in the next month. Since I would be nom'ing but not reviewing, is here any other way I can help. --Philcha (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps second opinions? There are several that are asked for on the page right now... These often only ask for an opinion in one or two areas, and as a secondary reviewer you wouldn't be put through the stress of doing a full GA review on the article and having to concentrate on every aspect. Possibly also contributing at a forum such as Peer Review where you are not having to enter a pass/fail type opinion and instead could concentrate on as many or as few aspects of the article as you wished. These are just a couple of thoughts... Dana boomer (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look out for second opinions and have a look at Peer Review. --Philcha (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

On hold for copy-editing

I'm currently reviewing an article which seems to have extensive prose problems; nearly every sentence contains some sort of issue. I'm aware that I'm picky in regards to prose, but it needs improvement. I've recommended a the nominator ask a copy-editor to take a look, but I'm wondering if it would be sensible for me to put the article on hold while the CE is being done. Obviously I'd go through afterward and conduct the review normally, and it's quite clear the article is of GA-quality in other areas. Mm40 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's your decision as to whether you fail it, pass it, or put it On Hold, based on your assessment of the article against WP:WIAGA. If you consider that the article is not compliant but can be brought up to standard in a reasonable period of time (set by you, but typically a week, or a couple) then go for an On Hold; otherwise fail or pass it. Don't be too concerned about failing it: all that means is that the article did not meet the standard at the time it was assessed. "Failed" articles can be resubmitted, hopefully after the "faults" have been addressed.Pyrotec (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Like Pyrotec says it is up to you, the reviewer but I think a hold is customary — a copy-edit is possible in a short amount of time. Also, remember that the Wikipedia:Good article criteria definition of "Well-written" is "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct", and not the more subjective WP:FA? definition of "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". maclean (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd reviewer requested

At Talk:U.S. Route 30 in New Jersey/GA1, the current reviewer has barely edited in the past month, so could a second person look through this one? Looks like all the issues were fixed so it could be a simple pass. Up to you though of course. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Propose to use {{r}} instead of <ref>

Chienlit has unilaterally and repeatedly replaced <ref> with {{r}} through out Arthropod. Stemonitis has protected Chienlit version, i.e. with {{r}}. Could you please comment here on:

• whether {{r}} could be used at all for articles to be review for GA. Please have a look at the parameters at {{r}}.
• whether it should be imposed unilaterally.
• whether articles with a mixture of {{r}} and <ref> in the wikimarkpup is acceptable. Citation formatters such as refTool output <ref> and biots such as User:AnomieBOT operate on <ref>, and Chienlit has no provided evidence that such bots can operate on refs produced by {{r}}. --Philcha (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no set referencing standard for articles on WP, whether for GA, FA or just general editing. I have no problem with the template (although it is not one I have seen before) but just like any other reference formatting tool, it is not required by any policy, GA or otherwise, and so should not be imposed by a reviewer on an article, or by an outside editor on an article. The reference formatting of an article should be agreed upon by the main editors to the article, and should not be imposed unilaterally by an outside editor or by one single editor within the editing group. As a side note, Chienlit doesn't seem to be proposing that this be used across all GA or GAN page, although I may be missing something on the Arthropod talk page, so I'm not sure why the discussion is relevant here... Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see Chienlit has replaced every <ref> with {{r}} at Arthropod. --Philcha (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also confused as to what relevance this discussion has at GAC, seeing as how the article in question (Arthropod) has been a GA since November 2008. Perhaps WP:REF would be a better venue? Since it's being discussed here now, however, I agree completely with Dana above; there is no right/wrong way to reference an article, all that is required is consistency, and the style preferred by the main contributors should not be overhauled without consensus. Because there was no consensus, the original style should of course take precedence. I also personally despise {{r}} and find it clumsy and confusing. María (habla conmigo) 17:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of interloping over here, except to say that I have provided a fullish response at Arthropod, and even the title of this section is very misleading, - 'instead' should read 'as well as'. regards Chienlit (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cormier wrestling family: article or list?

I would like to use this as the lead article in a Good Topic (3 of the brothers' articles are at GA level, and one is undergoing a GAR). I'm not sure whether to nominate this here or at FLC, though. There are only four people, so I don't know if it is long enough to be a Featured List. (I understand that a reviewer in either place may want more information added, which could be discussed during the review. Right now, I'm just wondering where to start, though.) Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say article. It has no tables or other key characteristics of a list; instead it is full prose, which would aim it towards article status. I view it (perhaps wrongly) as approximately equal to a ship-class article as opposed to an article about an individual ship in the class. There is a small description of each individual ship (or in this case person) linked to its own article, and then there is a narrative tying the whole thing together - their shared history, etc. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I really appreciate you taking the time to look at the article and provide feedback. I might expand it a little more before nominating, but hopefully this will be the last piece in a Good Topic. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC on introduction of {{r}} for citations

You will may wish to comment at this RFC, which I raised because {{r}} has been imposed without prior discussion on some articles, including some existing GAs, and because the implications for some well-used tools are not clear. --Philcha (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the imposing of the {{r}} template in the GA articles does not include Malvern, Worcestershire, where there was healthy discussion on the options known to be available at that time. At that time, the editors were under the impression that list-defined referencing was achieved via {{r}} templates. It is now known that this is not the only way, and it is now known that technical issues arise from the use of {{r}}. But it was not known at the time, and if it was known, the editors would likely have adopted another way of achieving list-defined references. Wotnow (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird GAN

I did a review on Lech Wałęsa. I actually did it on this version, with comments and responses done by email. It's because of a weird arbcom thing, which can be read about here. Anyways, do people have a preference one how I should do the paperwork? I can copy and paste the comments onto a GA1 page, or I can just add it to the list, or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand how your reviewing a page in user space on the Polish Wikipedia bears any relationship at all to an article in English Wikipedia which has not been nominated for GA here. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Article One of the United States Constitution

User:Reywas92 had originally started the review of the above article, but didn't complete it. I have contacted Reywas, who has said they would be happy if i could took over the review, including closing it out. I will do this, but am leaving a note here in case anyone has any concerns about the handover. The started review is here. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Windows Product Activation

Hi all. I have to go out the door right now, but can a couple of editors check the GAN for this article which just passed? There are NO third party / independent references and it looks like a tech manual, not a WP entry. Can someone drop a note to the reviewer and take this to GAR or something? I'll come back later, maybe tomorrow. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that assessment, the article fails WP:NOTMANUAL imo and I notified the user of the concerns expressed here. Hekerui (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually have to disagree to this. (FYI, I am the reviewer) First for the sources, the article has one external site that is 100% not related to microsoft, it is here [9] (number 8 at the moment). Also, Microsoft has multiple different departments that it runs and we have a variant of Microsoft TechNet, Microsoft Support, just general Microsoft. The odds that one person wrote all of those articles is close to one-in-a million. Also,

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Wikipedia Policy on self published sources

This satifies the 3rd criterion of Good Article Criteria. As for the article looking like a manual, I disagree.

For activation over the Internet, the utility transmits data using an Internet connection. For activation via a telephone call, a longer telephone activation code must be read to the Microsoft agent who supplies a code to input into the utility to activate Windows. For activation using a modem, the utility sends data to the activation center using a phone line accessed through the modem.

In each of the three cases, the utility checks and records information on eight different categories of hardware:

• Display Adapter
• SCSI Adapter
• IDE Adapter
• Network Adapter (including the MAC Address)
• RAM Amount Range (e.g., 0–512 MB)
• Processor Type and Serial Number
• Hard Drive Device and Volume Serial Number
• Optical Drive (e.g., CD-ROM)

A code based on this information is calculated and stored on the computer's hard drive. This is then sent to Microsoft, together with the Product ID number derived from the 25-character unique Product Key used in the installation of Windows. In Windows XP Service Pack 1 and onwards, the entire Product Key is also transmitted so that can then be checked against a list of known pirated keys.

Windows Product Activation

That whole section is completly comprised of stuff that is not telling the user how to use WPA, but instead identifying how the process works. Does the user really want or need to know what it checks? No. That is why it is an encyclopedic article. There is a lot more that is like this too. Also, if there is one or two sentences which I have missed, then they can be fixed. GA is not FA here. I hope that addresses your concerns & I will try to stay up with replying to this. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, MWOAP you are correct that aspects of this article are nort what a user needs in order to use WPA (though WPA is essentially automatic, and it is what users need to understand about what is going on). And yes, there is a single reference external to Microsoft. Nevertheless, there are too many problems, and i think you were on the right track, BTW, in the first GA review in November. A few points. You remark "The odds that one person wrote all of those articles is close to one-in-a million." That's irrelevant, though. The issue is not what individual wrote them. The issue is reliability and independence of sources. At the moment, the entire article (bar one footnote), is based on what the company itself says about its own software. That just won't work for an encyclopedia article. Product activation has been a controversial software development, but there is no sense from the WP article that that controversy exists, nor any product reviews from computingjournals, nor any discussion of glitches, policy issues, legal wrangles (if there are any). I'm not expecting you to sort these things out, obviously, but i don't think an article can be GA quality without a basic coverage of these things. On issues with other company's use of product activation see:

• Product activation glitch hits Symantec (which mentions Microsoft's introduction in passing too)
• Intuit Abandons Product Activation Note this 2003 article contains this comment "Microsoft backed down from a limited activation process in Windows XP." Obviously that wasn't the case in the long run - it seems a history section may be needed.

Concerns as the process was developed in msoft, and afterwards:

• WinXP beta testers still in open revolt over product activation
• Microsoft: No Activation Changes Until Longhorn
• What to Do About Windows XP

Reports of early 'cracking' of the most recent activation system:

• Product activation system flaw found in Windows 7 follows earlier server message block problem
• Windows 7 activation crack comes as no surprise

This is just some stuff i found online, and i tried to ignore material that i didn't think came from reliable sources. Which brings me to the only non-Microsoft footnote: i can't see anything that would show why that webpage meets WP:RS. The WP article also lacks any introduction to the product or its purpose. The only reference to this is a sentence in the lead.

Perhaps my comment about it looking like a manual was not the most accurate way of drawing attention to the problems of this article, but i still think there is absolutely no way it meets GA criteria. I'll open an individual reassessment - i'll re-post the above material there, to get the ball rolling - and if editors continue to disagree, it'll end up at community reassessment. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Progress as of January 2010

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you guys have to be sick of seeing these updates by now. Again, when Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

SS Irish Oak (1919)

The SS Irish Oak (1919) article failed its first GAN on needing a copyedit / MOS compliance. Since then, Shir-El too (talk · contribs) has done a lot of work on copyediting. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) has not responded to a request for a review of the GAN, although he said that he would re-evaluate the article and list it if he considered it met the criteria. Therefore I've relisted it, and would appreciate an early review of the article. Mjroots (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Resigned reviewer?

Resolved

 – Mabeenot (talk · contribs) has apparently taken a swing at it. Gabbe (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the reviewer of David Icke has resigned (see Talk:David Icke/GA2), what is the kosher course of action now? Gabbe (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Technical Reviewer Needed

If someone with a basic level of technical engineering knowledge could review m-derived filter and Distributed element filter, that would be excellent! Both articles are nominated back in November, so the nominations are getting quite old. I took a peek at them, but I don't think I have quite the in depth engineering knowledge necessary to give them a fair review. At first glance, I would probably fail m-derived filter for lack of adequate citations and completeness issues (very little text and overwhelmed by complex equations that aren't very well described). Distributed element filter looks a bit better, and could probably pass GA with a little bit of work. Thanks! WTF? (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've completed an initial review of m-derived filter. I notice that the microwave filter article is mostly sourced with with hardbound references. Do we take these on good faith as in DYK reviews? JPatterson (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean offline printed sources then the answer is yes, assume GF. Jezhotwells (talk)

Yeah, you have to assume good faith unless you decide to go to a library and read them yourself. We aren't about to ban them, or else I'd be screwed. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Which category?

If I wanted to nominate a fashion designer's article for GA status, which category would it come under? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fashion design is a form of art, so it could go under that category. It could also go under the business and economics category as well. WTF? (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Backlog elimination drive?

This would be a while away yet, but I think it might be time to have another one of these. I'd say one for the month of April would be best (sweeps will finally be done by then so we'll be getting fresh reviewer blood that was over there). Does this sound like a good future plan? If we can get it down to below 300 again from that, it would be awesome. We've got time to discuss any specifics. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

April would be good. But we need to adertise it throughout Wikpedia, maybe in the signpost? Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if it's best to call it a "backlog elimination drive". For one, there will ALWAYS be backlog, since GA is a pretty popular review process for Wikipedia. The fact that we currently have 397 nominations outstanding is a sign that GA status is something that's sought after, and reviewer opinion is appreciated. This is a good thing.

What I would be more concerned about is a few things that jump out in looking at the GAN report. Specifically, are nominations over 30 days old, of which there are currently 171. Of those, 113 are unreviewed (the remaining on that list are either on hold or under current review). We should be doing our best at GAN to try and make sure that articles are reviewed within 1-2 months. There still is one article that was nominated on November 29, and several that were nominated in December, that we should try and deal with.

Also of concern, are articles that are "on hold" for over three weeks, of which I see that there are currently eleven. Ideally, "on hold" status is for articles that meet most of the good article criteria, but fall short in a few areas that should be addressable within about 2-3 weeks. If an article needs more work than that, it should be failed (not "quick-failed"; e.g. a complete review should still be posted so that issues can be worked on) and the article can be renominated once it meets the criteria. The oldest holds I see are:

1. World War II (108 days)
2. Hip-hop dance (85 days)
3. Eurasian Sparrowhawk (80 days)
4. Richard Ravitch (55 days)
5. Parliament of Singapore (55 days)
6. High Court of Singapore (55 days)
7. Greenlandic language (44 days)
8. Mallee Cliffs National Park (42 days)
9. Inglourious Basterds (32 days)
10. Butterfly Fly Away (31 days)
11. EasyJet (29 days)

I still think that some sort of review drive will help, as we can certainly use more good reviewers here. But I don't think we need to worry as much about a "backlog" as much as we should about specific areas of that backlog, like making sure that every article nominated is reviewed within 1-2 months (ideally, one month), and that "on holds" are treated in a timely manner. WTF? (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

4, 5, 6, and 8 need a second reviewer actually; the original one burned out. I poked the reviewer of 10 since that looks done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoever's reviewing World War II is bound to be burned out too. There's just mass amount of comments and edits going back and forth. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cosmos (book)

I was thinking of quick failing this, but since that would be my last choice, I wanted to bring this up here for discussion. I contacted the nominator and explained that the article is too short, and I would be willing to help make suggestions for improvement. So far, they have not responded to my concern, but are still online. Should I go ahead and quick fail this as a bad nom, or would the article benefit from a solid review and being placed on hold? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just look at Talk:Cosmos_(book) and it seems the GA review hasn't started, as the "new review" link has not been linked and saved, and the GA has not been transcluded to Talk:Cosmos_(book) - see WP:GAN for procedure.

IMO the article is not bad enough for quick failing. A "normal" review should enter "hold" after the review comments have been published in the GA review page and transcluded. However, much work is needed, e.g.:

• The "plot summary" needs to explain the scope - IIRC (from reading many years ago) from the Big Bang to the modern world.
• "Reception" cites only the most WP:PEACOCK of the media press comments. I'd want to see citations from at very least the semi-serious mags like The New Scientist, The Economist and Scientist American. And I'd be pushing for reviews from academic reviews - there were some for Wonderful Life (book) (Stephen Jay Gould) and The Crucible of Creation (Simon Conway Morris), so I expect there were some for Cosmos.
• Lead has at least 1 fact not contained in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I contacted the nominator informally on their talk page as a feeler. I wanted to see if they were willing to do the work it takes to fix the article. For example, Anarchism and Friedrich Nietzsche was failed because the primary editor refused to expand the lead section (among other things). With no response from the primary editor in this case, I don't plan on starting the review as I would just end up failing it. That's why I was wondering if a quick fail was appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Then looks like one of:

• The nom was the primary editor but changed his/her mind. You could rm the nomination for WP:GAN.
• The nom was not the primary editor? If not, IIRC it's so rarely that it's not in the WP:GAN procedure. If you don't produce at least a stub of GA review, you should post to the nom's Talk, etc.

IIRC this is all a bit of a grey area, it would good to get advice from G'guy. --Philcha (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a big deal. Thanks for the input. Viriditas (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it has been nominated then proceed with the review and then contact the editor pointing them at the review page. If they don't respond then fail after seven days. If you don't start the review then iit may be that another editoprs decides to start the review ad you will have wasted your time, so as soon as you sign up on the GAN page to do a review, click the link on the talk page ans start the review page. Then everything is clear to all editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, I'm not keen on the comment you left on Mnation2's talk page: basically "this article is only 10,000 bytes, it needs to be twice that long to be a GA". A fail on the basis of merely having too few bytes would be very obnoxious, and I recommend that you not review the article if that's what you would do. (Failing on the basis of having left out important material would by okay, of course.) Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the comment I left on Mnation2's talk page, and you quoted a statement I made without also quoting the part where I said I would " make some suggestions for improvement", which implies expanding specific sections (such as plot summary, see Philcha's comments above). This is not failing only because of size, but because it is not broad in its coverage. Please don't read selectively. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Query (qualifications of reviewers)

Can anons or new editors review articles that are nominated at GAN? Isn't there a requirement of a minimum number of edits or at least a registered account before one conducts a GA review? Please clarify. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Only registered users can review GAs, so IPs cannot. (IPs can, however, nominate articles.) There is no requirement for the number of edits that an account needs to have before they conduct a GA review. That being said, it is usually not the best thing for brand-new users to jump into the reviewing process. It takes time to thoroughly understand all of the criteria, and in reality, the best GA reviewers are usually the ones that have written at least one GA themselves, although editors who have not written a GA can review and nice reviews are produced this way. Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Does this mean that these comments on the Delhi Metro GA review page do not count as a valid review and could be reverted as unconstructive? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The comments made by the anonymous IP could still be useful in pointing out issues with the article, so a complete reversion is not necessary. Rather, I have edited that review to specify that those are merely comments and that the article is still seeking a reviewer. WTF? (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad review/bad English

What to do with Talk:The Last Remnant/GA1? That's doesn't deserve the word review (5 mistaken in the one sentence it has?!). Can I have some input on what to do? Cutting down on backlog can't be more important than what the process is supposed to do - have articles evaluated with a minimum of rigor. Hekerui (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been registered as a GA (see Talk:The Last Remnant), so Talk:The Last Remnant/GA1 is "official" despite being a bad joke. I suggest you follow the Community GAR procedure as WP:GAN - the reassessment would then be Talk:The Last Remnant/GA2 (this is a redlink until the reassessment is created). This will either delist the article or confirm it as a GA, possibly after the article is improved. It may be helpful to refer to WP:WIAGA during the review. --Philcha (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:GAR says "It is rarely helpful to request a community reassessment for an article which has not had a proper review: simply renominate it." Done. Hekerui (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity

The above article has been under review since 11 December 2009, with a second opinion requested since 16 December 2009. Despite three second opinions, the reviewer Wandalstouring has not commented on the review page Talk:Philip the Arab and Christianity/GA1 since 18 January 2010, and hasn't edited Wikipedia since 7 February 2010. What to do? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest having one of the other reviewers revisit with the purpose of closing it. I did a similar action with The Kindly Ones (Littell novel) after the original reviewer disappeared, and ended up passing the article. María (habla conmigo) 13:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked at the article for three days and failed it. That should probably have been done two months ago. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have alsom picked up the same editor's review of Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals‎. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the original nominator. I have now brought the article to GAR. G.W. (Talk) 14:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

His Band and the Street Choir

I'm just letting you all know that I'm unable to contribute to wikipedia from March 31 to April 7 due to a school trip. Would it be possible for this article to be reviewed at least a week before this date so I'm able to adress any issues the article may have before the trip, or maybe have the review just after it? This is because I don't want it failed after three months waiting for a review and then have to renominate it again, which I hope you agree is understandable. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note on the article talk page, thanks for letting us know. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ram Loevy/GA1

I have taken over this review as the original reviewer, although active in other parts of Wikipedia, has not responded to comments and the review has been marked as needing a 2nd opinion, which it has been given, since 16 February. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Article failed due to OR, lack of citing, copyvio on images, poor prose, should have been quick-failed probably. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

2nd Opinion/review at Streptococcus iniae

Hi all, I'm the reviewer of one of the offending articles in the "Troublesome trend" thread above. The main editor became busy due to real life commitments, and I didn't feel like failing the review. Today I expanded the article to include some more recent literature, so I think it now looks ok in terms of "Broad coverage". I was hoping another reviewer could come along and check the other criteria, as I've fiddled with it too much to be impartial now :) Thanks, Sasata (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Will do. Ucucha 03:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Troubling trend?

I've noticed a worrying, to me at least, trend in regards to the GAN backlog. As of earlier today, we had around 440 good article nominations. Huge yes, but that's not what worries me. From that, we have 39 on hold and 40 under review. Again, not worrying itself. What worries me is the gap from those numbers to the GAs being passed or failed. Out of the 39 on hold, 24 have been on hold over a week, with 14 on hold over three weeks. Out of the 40 under review, 20 have been under review over a week, with four of them being so for over 45 days. This is to me what's creating the backlog, as GAN is not for articles that might be good in three months; it's for articles that could be good now. Having a couple that are going long due to time constraints on one side or the other is fine. Even hitting the month mark is understandable sometimes. But for over half of them to be going over a week, that's something we have to start nipping in the bud. For ones where the reviewer disappeared, we'll have to find people to pass/fail the obvious ones, and re-review the unsure ones. For ones where the article writer disappeared, fail it; they can re-nom it later when they return. By keeping these on hold forever, it main the review process appear far more painful than it is. Maybe I'm blowing it out of proportion, but come on. When you review an article, note the corrections, when you're done you pass it, if it's not you fail it. No reason for them to go on for months at a time, especially when articles like Parliament of Singapore have been sitting there waiting for a real review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with those concerns. I have left notes on reviewer talk pages, as have others including Wizardman. Should we consider crafting a guideline? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A guideline would be helpful. Would we be looking at a hard time limit for finishing reviews? I would be fine with that though I could see others having problems with it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Something could be added to WP:RGA. Geometry guy 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it partly depends on the topic, e.g. a country or an importance sea (e.g. Talk:North Sea/GA1) may need 3 weeks on hold even if the comment per char is the same. We may also need a "difficult topic", e.g. in some maths topics. In addition we need to allow for RL, as nominators have no idea how long a article can wait in the queue. If we can use simple formulae for comment per char and difficulty of topic, and ask the nominator to declare RL delays at the start of the review, the reviewer and nominator will have a good idea of how much time is required. --Philcha (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That could be a possibility. I can understand major articles taking a while (I haven't poked Ecology, for example, since I understand that'll take a while to finish reviewing) I do have something to start though as a proposal. After 30 days, if an article is under review with no mention of why there is a delay, the article must either be passed, failed, put on hold, or the review tag removed. From there we can see what we want to do in terms of the hold tag and other deadlines. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with these sentiments, though I'm partially to blame with four articles currently on hold since late February. Though I had to go out of town for two weeks in March and am now back, so I plan to wrap these up shortly.

If we look at WP:FAC, I think we'll find that most articles are only there four about three weeks (max), and that's supposed to be far more rigorous than GAN. I've seen some articles in the past on hold for two to three months, which is far too long, IMHO (see World War II (which finally did pass, though it took long enough). WTF? (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but at FAC you have multiple reviewers weighing in on each article. Not to mention that all open reviews are transcluded to the same page, so they need to be archived regularly to keep the page length at a readable level. Incidentally, I was the reviewer on World War II. I could conceivably have failed it outright at the beginning, but given the huge scope of the article, the relative inexperience of the nominator, and the willingness of a group of people to continue working on it, I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and put it on hold for a longer period than usual. The result? A new GA on a vital topic, majorly improved from its initial state. You may disagree, but I say despite the time and effort that took, it was worth it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That was good work on WW2. I think our problem is more about a lack of reviews in general, not how long they take. Hopefully things will pick up now that sweeps is done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit War

The edit war on this page needs to stop. I'm tired of constantly having edit conflicts when I try to nominate articles. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll just nominate the article. The reason the person is getting reverted is because banned users don't get to make nominations. --Hadger 22:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll nominate the article if the person is reverted again, I mean. --Hadger 22:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I don't want to have to fix article errors if they are pointed out. --Hadger 22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor has been reported for edit warring. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the Maniots article and I think it should be nominated. If someone would be so kind as to allow for the review process to proceed, then I'll go somewhere else. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.82.92 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, the IP was banned user Deucalionite (talk · contribs), a long-term sockpuppeter with a habit of hiding his disruptive POV-pushes under an avalanche of seemingly innocuous minor edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Parliament of Singapore

Three months and still no full review. Can someone review it please, ideally swiftly? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left a note on the reviewer's talk page, User talk:Rebecca. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Review taken over following responses for Rebecca, also High Court of Singapore. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo

(post below copied from WP:EAR by –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC))

I listed this article on the Good Article nominations page and the reviewer has yet to promote it (or even respond to the changes I made that he/she suggested). The last comments he/she made were on March 2. It's now the 20th. I left a message on their talk page but I never got a response. I then contacted an administrator who responded on my talk page and told me to wait a little longer. It's been a week and still no response from the nominator. Do I need to renominate this article for someone else to pass it or is there some other protocol for this kind of problem? It's just frustrating waiting this long because I nominated this article in January. What do I do in order to get this officially listed as a good article? // Gbern3 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message at User:Mephiston999's talk page. The review looks superficial to say the least. I won't pick up the review myself as I have already failed the article once. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer hasn't edited since the 8th. I'd be willing to take it on if they don't respond and nobody objects to it being slightly out of process. I won't be on til this afternoon (UTC) now, but I'll check back then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I have taken on two of User:Rebecca's reviews as they have too many things going on their life. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it, since there's still no response from the original reviewer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Second opinions

Who can ask for a second opinion for a nominated article? Is it only the reviewer, or can anyone do this? Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to discuss this with the reviewer and ask them to place the 2nd opinion template, as it it is usually the reviewer who asks for a second opinion. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't come to that. Hopefully we'll be able to work through any outstanding issues. I just wanted to know what my other options were. There's always WP:GAR if we can't agree I suppose. Mjroots (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Good article reassessment/Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)/2

The attention of regular GA reviewers would be appreciated at the above community reassessment to determine whether or not Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song) meets the GA criteria. Please express your views there, giving reasons and/or specific issues as appropriate. Geometry guy 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it would. I made the request because another editor has challenged my passing of the article and I want to put the matter to bed once and for all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting work on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries on the main page

There a lot of FA/GAs around, and many of these can be used on the main page on selected anniversaries. Many FA/GAs can be, but at the moment, SA is not well-known and has no selection process; unlike DYK and ITN, you can just turn up and serve yourself. This is leading to lots of unsourced, messed-up articles getting on the main page. One admin Ragib (talk · contribs) has been reverting an article he contributed to, Operation Searchlight, which has lots of references of officers involved in the war/battle, citing WP:OTHERCRAP. Anyone with a FA or GA with a relevant date, you can get yourself 5000 hits for the day, and the article can go on there each year, unlike TFA and DYK, and raise the standard of material on the front page as well to make Wikipedia less of a joke, there are many unused articles that are far better than unsourced and unvetted and self-addable start class articles going around on the front page YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

GA pass off the back of a lorry

The review of Black Holes and Revelations is almost sneaky vandalism. I'd GAR it but am already business with a GA review. --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how it was passed almost two years ago by a user with a dozen FAs to their name, I doubt it can be considered "sneaky vandalism"; lazy, yes but vandalism, no. I agree it could use a GAR, however. María (habla conmigo) 17:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fashion designers

I recently nominated a fashion designer for GA, but had trouble deciding where to place the nom and it ended up in the miscellaneous section. I'd like to nominate a couple more fashion designers for GA in the future and wondered if someone can advise me where to place them and if they pass where the reviewer places them. Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I 'want' to put it in the arts and architecture section, since fashion design is an art of sorts, but that's a stretch admittedly. I was stumped about this myself and had to think about it for a bit. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I considered "art" myself but I wouldn't be overly happy about putting him in the "artist and architects" cat at GA if I were to review, which I probably once I've had my dinner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you go up the category tree, you find Category:Visual arts occupations as a parent of Category:Fashion designers, so there is some support from another part of the 'pedia to place fashion designers in the arts and architecture section. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I had a look through the GA's at the WikiProject Fashion and there is one fashion designer listed. On the talk page it says she was placed in the Social sciences and society category, however, she doesn't actually appear to be listed there. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Look under "Businesspeople" Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If I were searching for an article about fashion I would be looking into both "Art" and "Culture and society", but probably not into "miscellaneous". --Elekhh (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, could noms for designers be placed under Business? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer art over business because it seems a slightly more logical place for a reader to look, but I'm not entirely sure on either. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be searching there... Elekhh (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports venue location

I am in the process of preparing a sports venue for a GA nomination, but I have one question. Which section do I put it in, the Sports Section or the Architecture section? Please advise. Chris (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say sports and rec; that's where they've went on the past. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Sports and recreation seems the logical place to put it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

GAR

The attention of uninvolved, experienced reviewers would of great benefit at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo/1. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | April Fool! 15:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick note

A quick note, and I'm so sitting this one out: WP:JARGON, one of the style guidelines mentioned at WP:GACR, has just been redirected on the theory that it can be covered by other pages. I can imagine that some would like to object; OTOH, it's been folded into WP:MTAA, and that may be good enough for everyone. See discussion at WT:JARGON. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Also see discussion here and the following discussion, which covers WP:PEACOCK and WP:AVOID. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

removing articles from nomination

I just removed two articles from nomination. Turns out they are "lists" and should not be in the GA mix. Should I just remove the template from the talk page? Or is there something official that needs to be done? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Dürenstein Order of Battle and Army of the Danube Order of Battle

As long as reviews haven't been started on the articles, just remove the template from the talk page. Nothing official that needs to be done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And leave a note on the article talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Section backlog tags

I'm wondering what the criteria is for placing the "extremely large number of pending nominations" notice on sections. It's currently on four categories: Music, Theatre, film, and drama, Sports and recreation, and finally War and military. While it should certainly be on the first two (59 nominations/14 being reviewed (Music) and 62 nominations/17 being reviewed (Theatre, film, and drama)), I'm not so sure about the latter two. While I understand these two categories often become as backlogged as the first two, it would be OK to remove the tag for the second. Sports and recreation has 31 articles, 18 not being reviewed, and the oldest unreviewed article is one month 11 days old. Great progress has been made in War and military: 33 nominations, 15 left alone, oldest nomination 25 days old. So, is anyone opposed to me taking of the backlog tags on those categories? Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

? How to let potential reviewers know a nominator will be away

I nominated Bridgwater on 16th March. At the time I didn't know I would need to be out of the country & have no internet access from 9th to 16th April and therefore will not be able to respond to any issues raised during those dates. What is the best way to let any potential reviewer know about this? I have a few more ready for nomination but will hold off from nominating these until I get back.— Rod ^talk 17:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It might be done before then (but not by me - possible COI). I suggest you add a note on the WP:GAN page adjacent to the nomination. Pyrotec (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And on the article talk page.–– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have picked up the review, and I have noted the dates of Rod's absence. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Slow down, I'm trying to catch up :-) Pyrotec (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories with huge lists of noms

3 categories are ridiculously long. For each of these, I suggest GA reviewers note any issues that may contribution to the problem. Then we could ask the relevant Wikiprojects to comment, and hopefully to improve the situation. Or, if someone else prefers another approach, let's discussion that. --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Music

• One person has almost a score of nominations (almost one third of the list) and doesn't do reviews. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That is allowed. They can run into problems if all their articles get reviewed at once, however. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

War and military

• I think that the large numbers of nominations in these categories reflects the interests of editor contributing potential good articles. Also, for Music and Film and TV it is easier to find sourcing online. I also note that when I started reviewing just over a year ago, the stats showed about 1 in 420 articles were classified as GAs, now it is 1 in 388. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think Jezhotwells is correct. The easier it is to acquire proper sourcing, the more content that will be produced (and nominated). Music/Film/TV seem to be less time-intensive (many articles can be produce via online sources) while other articles (on, say, science or history) require books-upon-books to be consulted before the article is comprehensive. Additionally, I'd say that the people who invest the time to go beyond what is available online (to search numerous books) are more likely to take the time to go to FAC. --maclean (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sports seems to get as many nominations as any of these categories but also seems to get more reviews resulting in 'little' backlog. --maclean (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Biology/medicine was also going through a spell of speedy reviews. It has slowed up but I intend to recitfy that in the coming days...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

War and military can be quite specialist- for example, there are a lot of articles on ships (I gather WPMILHIST are trying to build an enormous featured topic out of them) but I'm always hesitant because I wouldn't know how to go about verifying it's statistics, what kind of information one would expect in a ship GA and most of the references are offline so I tend to leave those to someone who knows what to look for. As for the other 2, it's simply because a lot of editors like to write about subjects that come under the broad banner of "popular culture" and we have so many GAs/GANs on them because they're easy to write about and there's no shortage of online sources. I'll try to clear most of the songs and biographies from those sections with the backlog elimination drive because they're fairly easy to review. Might be worth going to relevant Wikiprojects and trying to recruit new reviewers. Some are better organised than others, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I like Jezhotwells, maclean and HJ Mitchell's point that it's relatively easy to produce good articles on "popular culture" because there so many online sources. I guess that these editors are not doing their fair share of the review - I'd suggest 2 reviews per nomination (1 passed, 1 failed). These new reviewers don't need to get into concern about WP:COI, as the Music editors can review Theatre, film, and drama, while the theatre, etc. can Music.

The abundance of online sources may be less attractive to reviews, as reviewers should check as some of the online sources, while they can just WP:AGF with hardcopy sources.

We don't seem to have suggestions about the backlog in War and military. Perhaps we should ask the relevant Wiliproject(s) if they can suggest about the backlog.

maclean also noted that Sports seems to get as many nominations as any of these categories but also seems to get more reviews resulting in little backlog. Why? It would be particularly intersting to get comments from reviewers of Sports articles.

I suggest reviewers need to be strict about hold status (yes, I've been a serious culprit). So I suggest we have some rules of thumb about some long types of article could be in hold - e.g. 1 week is enough for Milo of Croton but articles about major geographical areas are usually monsters (MF pointed that to me a few months ago) and 3 to 4 weeks may be about right.

GA review is not an article service - this was discussion in autumn 2009, can one remember it? In principle articles should be 100% ready before review, and I suggest any less than 90% is inadequate. I'm now telling nominators that, after I've commenting on several defect of a type (e.g. sources don't actually support the article), I'll tell the nominator to find and fix all defects of that type in the whole of the article - within the hold period - and if there are not fixed when I do a random check, the article fails. --Philcha (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe giving lots of time is very helpful in getting articles done..A prime example is the WWII GA review that took along time to get done and if it was not listed during all of this time, we would have never gotten so many editors interested and involved. I do agree that articels should be more ready, however we dont want to bite editors when they submit an article, resulting in them never submitting again. I do believe what has been going on to allow time is great in getting more collaboration and eventually leading to GA status for more articles. What we need to speed things up is more people that submit lots of GA article and get them passed right away - since they know what is needed - to go and review other articles in the fields they are familiar with..Moxy (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that editors who write good GA's do get them passed quickly. Having reviewed quite a few WP:GANs, if I see a nomination from a good GA writer at the bottom of a long que I'm tempted to review it first: in some cases one, two or three hours after nomination. But then I have little interest in certain categories, so I don't even tend to look at them. Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Another one of MF's comments elsewhere was that that longer a review takes, the most likely the result is a fail. The time for a review partly depends on the size of the article. But if a review takes longer than is usual for articles of that size, the article has probably not been prepared thoroughly for review. --Philcha (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

Am I right in thinking that pg numbers in citations are a requirement at GA, or is it just desireable? Jhbuk (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

For books, yes; also journals, pdf files, etc, if there are several pages or more. (See WP:verify and Wikipedia:Citing sources). Pyrotec (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You are currently carrying out WP:GAN reviews. Why are are reviweing if you aren't familiar with the requirements? Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am familiar with the requirememts, but I haven't, until now, come across an article which cites books but does not give page numbers. Jhbuk (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Shigeru Miyamoto

THis artical has been in nomination there for a time and pepole do not review it insted go to the one behind it. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the backlog is quite substantial at the moment, so it'll take some time for someone to get to most articles. Also, people will review whatever they want so if they choose another article in the same category, it's up to them. Gary King (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Real Global Warming Disaster/GA1

This review looks very much like a "favour" being granted to the article's nominator by a co-conspirator. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I`m a co-conspirator? :-), hardly. I know my review was quick but as i said i would revisit it when time allowed. It is not a favour at all, i think jprw had done a great job bringing that article up to scratch, and i am actually hoping to do the same for The Hockey Stick Illusion as he has for this one. You might also not he asked several editors involved in the climate change articles to review it, not just me. mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• The nomintor asked (at least) two editors to review it: one declined User talk:Viriditas and one is reviewing it (well sort of) User:Marknutley. I quote: "Having reviewed this article i am impressed by how well researched and written it is. I will expand upon this once i have a little more time, but for now my vote is for GA status". Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Alao this one: User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen. Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am now reading through WP:RGA so i can do it properly, i had not reviewed an article before and figured it was a case of leave feedback and say yea or nay mark nutley (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I suggest you either pass the baton to another editor who is familiar with reviewing Good Articles, or else ask someone on the GA Mentors list to closely follow you during the reviewing process. I'm not sure why the nominator did not think to explain the GA reviewing process beforehand, or why they felt the need to contact so many users to do the deed, but if you still have interest in providing the article an impartial review according to the GA criteria, you need help. This is obviously a contentious issue, and one that a new reviewer should not take on single-handed. María (habla conmigo) 20:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Very good advance. I'm not going to offer to review it, as I'm hardly likely to be seen by the Nominator and reviewer as unbiased, but there are others who would help. Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Good advice indeed, i will remove my review until such a time as i have read the WP:RGA fully, if i`m going to do it it should not be half assed, thanks guys mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As further reviews have appeared (well one) from editors choosen by the Nominator and specifically asked to provide a review on the /GA1 page, I've pre-empted the Reviewer and failed the nomination. I have advised both the nominator and the reviewer that they can take my decision to WP:GAR, but I would hope that common sense prevails and the article is renominated at WP:GAN to allow a "fair and independant" review to take place. Pyrotec (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources for articles about fraternities and sororities

I have concerns about the referencing of these articles, which appears largely to rely on material published by the organisations themselves. I have raised the issue here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Fraternities_and_sororities. Comments welcome. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

<answer copied from the noticeboard> " All your questions are answered at WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. Dlabtot (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)"

2nd opinion on what to do with Illegal logging in Madagascar

I began reviewing this some time ago, but got completely sidetracked when I raised discussion on what the scope and title of the article should actually be (see the talk page and associated RfC). Ultimately trying to figure out the best way to go forward on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Art of the Sucker Punch

How is The Art of the Sucker Punch showing up on the oldest nominations list without appearing on WP:GANR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Manually added (looks correct as well, don't see any pre-March 20th that are unreviewed). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I added it by copying GAN to a spreadsheet and sorting, as the bot will not update until 09:00) today—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezhotwells (talk • contribs) 03:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That does not explain why it was not in today's or yesterday's WP:GANR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We're reviewing articles faster than can be in the top 10 most unreviewed, and since the article are under 30 days old they're not going to be in that section either. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

O.K. I forgot that an article by someone who has only one or two nominees would not show up anywhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to review too many articles at once

The reviewer of Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008 was not specific in the terms (which he referred to as jargon) that needed to be clarified in the article. I asked him what needed to be clarified, and he just ignored me and closed the nomination. I suspect this particular editor is attempting too many GA nominations at once. I applaud his effort, but it's quality, not quantity. And I admit, I was a little harsh on him, but I really didn't care for how he did the nomination, I've been through a few of these in the past 2 years. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The review has been closed; however that was an experienced reviewer, he has according to his talkpage done 182 GANs and 162 GA sweeps. You have several choices, improve it as requested, resubmit it at WP:GAN improved or not, or take it as it is to WP:GAR. Pyrotec (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, try WP:PR before attempting to go again for GA.Pyrotec (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer points out a lot of very good areas for improvement. The article is jargon-ridden and uses unnecessarily complex wording. We are writing an encyclopedia for the public—not an academic paper—and should write in a style that is easy to comprehend, also for those not from the United States and not particularly interested in politics. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Where was the jargon? He never cited specific examples of what terms he considered jargon. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a detailed list of phrases containing jargon and poor grammar to be seen in the review at Talk:Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008/GA1. As the nominator said, "I laugh at, and am offended by your suggestions. If people want to learn more, they can click on the links, this article is not supposed to explain every single term used, for the small minority that probably should be using Simple English Wikipedia. You have a lot of nerve holding up this nomination for your personal style preferences." and "Lastly, I don't really understand what terms you all believe need to be clarified. I tried to clarify the red state example.", I considered that they were not prepared to work on the suggestions offered and thus failed it. Please take it to WP:GAR if you want a community re-assessment. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your "suggestions" were statements with question marks, and phrases taken out of context. It probably would've been better if you actually read the article, as it is quite clear that you did not. I asked for a list of terms that you felt were jargon, and you failed to provide that. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very clear to me that Jezhotwells did indeed read the article. I took a look at it and thought it was crafted in political-speak unclear to the average reader. Your "laugh at, and offended by" comment crossed the line of civility. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an attempt of forum shopping OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What terms are jargon? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just an independent view -- I've read the article, and I too am puzzled as to what the objectionable "jargon" is. Where red states are mentioned, they are described. Hopefully words such as "opined" are not viewed as jargon. I think Saturn has a point here -- it should be easy enough (if there is jargon) to delineate where it exists. That in turn would make it easy to fix. Let's work forward, folks, and get this up to GA.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

  It appears fairly obvious from the review page that the Nominator had little intention of agreeing to anything which involved changing the article. Expansion was asked for, given and meet mostly, but not always, with a blank "I disagree" or "expand your comments" from the Nominator. This section, here, does not appear to have any constructive value but appears merely to be a forum in which the former Nominator can get more objections to demolish. If the article is to progress to GA, the way forward is WP:PR, WP:GAR or WP:GAN. Perhaps more unfortunately, any future GA review of this article is likely to anticipate a hostile Nominator and respond accordingly. Pyrotec (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So it's illegitimate to ask a reviewer what they mean, and for them to clarify their comments? I've been through many GANs, and this was the only one where the reviewer was not specific in his criticisms.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-sense. I quote:

1. The whole article is written in political jargon-ridden manner that is not necessarily accessible to those not familiar with US political reporting. It could be improved considerably by being rewritten in clear, plain English.

   Remember that this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Please be more specific. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

   You confuse Simple English with Plain English. Speciifc examples below:

   Two weeks prior to his withdrawal, Bayh filed with the Federal Elections Commission as an exploratory committee, under the header Friends of Evan Bayh. "He filed .... as an exploratory committee". That is not good English. How can an individual file as a committee, and what is an exploratory committee?

   As word increased of Bayh's intentions, political scientists opined on the detractions of a run. Citing the fact that his eight years as governor may be nullified by its distance in time and that his visibility in the Senate was low, critics pondered whether moderate voters may be more inclined to line with possible candidate Mark Warner of Virginia. "Opined on the detractions."? "his eight years as governor may be nullified by its distance in time"? "whether moderate voters may be more inclined to line with possible candidate Mark Warner of Virginia" maybe "line up with or even plainer "vote for"?

   Throughout the month, he visited Iowa, delivering a speech in Black Hawk County in front of 60 people, reflecting similar rhetoric from the 2004 Kerry campaign, including energy independence, fair trade, the federal deficit and the handling of the war in Iraq. "Reflecting similar rhetoric"?

   At the event he accused President Bush of dividing the nation and stated that he believed Democrats could win in red states if they stood up for "American values." Need to explain the significance of "red states" and "blue states".

   A large portion of his time in the first month was spent positioning himself. "positioning himself"?

   Late in January, Bayh gained the position as speaker at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in North Carolina for the upcoming April. The gain came as a loss for North Carolinian John Edwards, who also was considered a potential candidate for the Democratic nomination. "gained" "gain" Not really the right word here. "was invited to speak at" might be better? Need to explain the significance of this dinner - I see further down that there is another such dinner in Michigan.

   On a larger scale, Bayh commented on the rebuilding of the area, conveying that it "is a test of America." "On a larger scale"?

   He returned to Iowa in mid-August, with a packed schedule that included fundraisers and a news conference for the "Wake Up Wal-Mart" organization. During the event, Bayh tried to appeal to populist voters stating that "Wal-Mart has become emblematic of the anxiety around the country, and the middle-class squeeze." What is the "Wake Up Wal-Mart" organization?

   Later in the month, he made a stop in Nevada to discuss senior issues with Nevada's gubernatorial candidate Dina Titus. "senior issues"?

   The Democratic takeover of Congress during the 2006 Mid-term elections was a victory for Bayh, who had helped three Iowan congressional candidates win their races during campaigning, and whose efforts culminated in a Democratic majority in the state's legislature. Confused sentence starts with Congressional elections, ends with state legislature elections.

   In regards to the election, he stated that "we (the Democrats) won by turning the red states of the heartland blue." "In regards to"?

   On December 3, 2006, Bayh announced that he would form an exploratory committee in order for him to travel and raise funds more effectively for a presidential run. How does this committe help achieve this?

   Upon this revelation, the candidate appeared on This Week, articulating that Americans "need someone who can deal with the dysfunction here in this city (Washington D.C.) so that our government begins to empower our people to fulfill their potential...if I can be that individual, so be it." "Upon this revelation"?

   The followed weekend, Bayh visited New Hampshire to discuss energy independence, global warming and the war in Iraq, however this trip did not gain much media attention, whose focus primarily shifted to Senator Barack Obama, and his two sold out appearances in the state. Obama's name had just recently been mentioned as a potential candidate, in steep contrast to Bayh. "The followed weekend"? "however this trip did not gain much media attention, whose focus primarily shifted "? "Obama's name had just recently been mentioned as a potential candidate, in steep contrast to Bayh."?

   Two weeks following his announcement, Bayh withdrew from the race, citing that "the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue." How about just using the word "after" rather than "following"?

   Nine months following his withdrawal, Bayh endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton, stating that he believed she would "run a campaign that is both tough and smart when it comes to protecting our nation's security." Again "after" is better and clearer.

   Consider studying User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. This and the other essays on this user page give good sound advice on writing articles.

I laugh at, and am offended by your suggestions. If people want to learn more, they can click on the links, this article is not supposed to explain every single term used, for the small minority that probably should be using Simple English Wikipedia. You have a lot of nerve holding up this nomination for your personal style preferences. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

end of quote. Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense. Where is the jargon in the cited passages? Is the word "following" jargon, or is it simply a style preference? Most of these "suggestions," simply have standard English verbs with question marks, which is meaningless to me, or statements that are taken out of context. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn has not mentioned that the reviewer asked for a 2nd reviewer - who also said the artcile should be failed. --Philcha (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the problems I mentioned:

• Much too much jargon, both in American English and in politics (especially American). The majority of readers of EN.WP are non-Americans - they are users of 2nd languages. --Philcha (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
• The followed weekend, Bayh visited New Hampshire to discuss energy independence, global warming and the war in Iraq, however this trip did not gain much media attention, whose focus primarily shifted to Senator Barack Obama, and his two sold out appearances in the state. Obama's name had just recently been mentioned as a potential candidate, in steep contrast to Bayh has horrible sentence structure. --Philcha (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)  Done
• In Throughout the month, he visited Iowa, delivering a speech in Black Hawk County in front of 60 people, reflecting similar rhetoric from the 2004 Kerry campaign, including energy independence, fair trade, the federal deficit and the handling of the war in Iraq:
  • I'm a Brit, and IMO "throughout" in this context means "in a continuous period". Did the speech in Black Hawk County in front of 60 people take all this time? --Philcha (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)  Done
  • reflecting similar rhetoric ... is meaningless. It tells readers nothing about Bayh's campaign is different from his competitors'. --Philcha (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the issues and I wish they were raised more clearly in the review. However, I really need specific examples of jargon if the article is to be improved.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well its back again at WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Good article nominees awaiting review

I am going through this category, finding articles where the nominator forgot to list at GAN and adding them to WP:GAN; also some articles under review where the status=onreview has not been added and correcting that; I am also finding articles where they have been marked under review at WP:GAN, but no review page has been started - if these are more than 2 weeks old, I am notifying the reviewer and removing the on review (or in some cases the on hold tag) so that someone else can start the review. Please feel free to shout if you think this is wrong. The stats might vary a little strangely whilst I am doing this, but should be done in an hour or so. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, all done - slight reduction in articles awaiting review count. Quiet a few new listings at GAN, oldest is September 2009. There are a large number of articles marked as under review at WP:GAN, but without a review page having yet been started, which accounts for the apparent discrepancy in the number of un-reviewed artciles. If the review page is started then the number will drop sharply as the categorization depends on reading the status field in the GAN nominee template. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are some more to list at GAN: 2007 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season,2008 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, Carnival of Carnage, Jason Jones (programmer) and M-derived filter. Some articles at GAN are without the category: Alice de Janzé, Easy (Sugababes song), Jon Scheyer and Pittston Coal strike. Paro Taktsang should be removed from GAN, its a redirect page. 85.65.69.166 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to transpose that category to the GAN page. Maybe all the way at the bottom so they will be more visible and easier to identify next time? --Kumioko (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that, all fixed now, I think. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion re 2005 Cronulla riots

Hi all. I'd like a second opinion for the above article. The article is reasonably written and thorough in its coverage of the actual events, with detailed references. My concern, expressed at the review, is that there is a significant scholarly literature on these events, using them to discuss a range of social, political and cultural themes, and none of that literature is cited, nor its contents discussed. The query I have raised is whether this means the article does not meet 3a: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". So far, I have argued that the main ponts from this literature must be included; the nominator has argued that that goes beyond the actual events themselves and thinks the article meets 3a as it stands. I can see arguments on both sides, so I am receptive to what others might put forward. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have since identified other problems, but my query remains. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. I agreed that academic content is needed, and noted another couple of points. --Philcha (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Patrick White (ice hockey)

Hi. Can someone take this off the GAN list and add it to GA for me? My computer can't cope with the page anymore. Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dana boomer (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Themes in Avatar GAN

I wonder if there is anything inherently non-GANish in Themes in Avatar that the article is getting consistently passed up on in GA-reviews? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I very seldom review films at GA, just one in over 250 reviews (and that was back in October 2008) and I've not seen this film, but if you're that concerned ...... Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, Pyrotec. It is my first GAN, and its getting overlooked here made me sincerely question if there was anything inappropriate with the nomination in the first place. Looking forward to your review. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge WP:NEO, WP:PEA, WP:WEASEL and WP:AVOID into one guideline

Please see Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. I've posted here because one of the guidelines GAs must comply with per criterion 1b. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Appending "Review" to Article "Talk" Page?

A discussion is in progress at Talk:DeSmogBlog to which an in progress review (Talk:DeSmogBlog/GA1) has been "transcluded". I have read the guidance at WP:GAC and it appears that this additional incorporation of an "in progress" review to the article talk page, beyond the normal "GAN" template appended to the top of the talk page, is neither recommended nor, to my knowledge, have I ever seen this done before.

This appears to be going above and beyond both the concept and wiki process guidance offered in WP:GAC. Comments? JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the diff, GA reviews are transcluded to the talk page by a bot. It should happen with every review, or else the reviewer would be asked to add it manually. In the past, before reviews were held on sub-pages as they are now, reviewers would simply began new sections on the talk page under "GAC Review" or a similar header; as such, current reviews have always been present on the talk page, and are sometimes quite helpful in inviting additional feedback from those who stumble upon the talk page. I had this happen during one of my recent reviews, Production of Watchmen, and was thankful for the outside help. María (habla conmigo) 22:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll add on here. Prior to this GA Bot, the reviewer was required to manually transclude the GA review page to the article's talk page. Hence there were instructions on how to do this at WP:GAC. The instructions have since disappeared given the introduction of the Bot. If you go to WP:GA and randomly select a Good Article, go to the article's talk page and many (though not all) of them will have this transcluded review. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this line of questioning. No offense I just want to know where this is going. Transclusion with the GA Bot is now painless and requires no extra work on the part of reviewers, it helps maintain the transparency of the review process. Keep this in mind as well, without transclusion, editors who watch the page would not know that a GA Review is taking place because the review is done on a separate talk page. Transclusion triggers activity on the article's talk page, which puts all interested editors on notice that a review is occuring. I see no harm and only benefits to transclusion. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit further, this information on "transclusion" appears to be available only (unless I've overlooked it somewhere) by an expansion of the June 2008 Good Articles Newsletter. As "transclusions" have been integrated into WP:GAN since that time, shouldn't that information be reflected, in some fashion, within WP:GAC? JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the bot is flagged, meaning the edit won't appear on a watchlist under standard settings, somewhat reducing the benefit of the bot's work. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the info. It might be helpful for the uninitiated like myself if that information were to be incorporated somewhere within WP:GAC?

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with this line of questioning. No offense I just want to know where this is going.

There is an existing element in this review that, I think, warrants addressing. The "guidance" under "Good Article Nominations" states...

"Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article."

The rationale for that "guidance" appears to be rather evident, as does the "spirit" in which it is offered. While I've no idea as to the character, breadth or depth of User:Guettarda's participation in the "climate change" debate, it is readily apparent that he/she is a regular contributor to that discussion which raises the obvious question of bias and the propriety of his/her "reviewing" a tangentially associated, pro-"climate change" blog.

As one can see within the existing talk, his/her participation in the article composition has already occured and, if I might characterize it as such, is a bit "elevated" already...

"My initial question still stands: what the hell do they mean? "Widely used"? Great. But that still doesn't mean we should be adding uninterpretable information to articles. Does a larger number represent more traffic or less than a smaller number?"

I'm simply not convinced, in fact I am of the opinion that User:Guettarda is simply too close to the subject matter to be "reviewing" this article under the "spirit" of WP:GAC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing? I'm not reviewing the article. Guettarda (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Guettarda isn't reviewing the article. H1nkles is reviewing the article, Guettarda is simply contributing as another editor, the same as yourself, Jake. It is quite allowable for another editor to join in the editing of an article that has been nominated for GA - the only prohibition is that editors who have significantly worked on the article not review the article, which Guettarda is not. Dana boomer (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. My apologies then. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that you were the reviewer based upon your objection posted to my talk page. Just a misunderstanding and, again, my apology for the error. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related note: should the transcluded review page template be removed after the review is over? I don't do this, but I've noticed that some reviewers do. Lampman (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I mostly add the {{ArticleHistory}} template and then remove the transcluded review page template - it is still accessible by clinking on the link, its just not transcluded into the talkpage. Pyrotec (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion: Santa Claus Lane

I am reviewing Santa Claus Lane (review here). I don't feel that it meets category 3a as I don't think that it is broad enough in its coverage. The nominator disagrees with me and as this is one of my first reviews, I would appreciate other opinions. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 08:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Reconsidering

Protein allergy was quick failed this morning because there was an under construction tag on it. The editors had put that up during the GA review process by Jhfortier, who was making suggestions for improvement of the article, pending its GA review. Ike9898 quick failed the article apparently without consulting the talk page, where there is an ongoing and current conversation about the article and its merits, and how it can be improved. This is apart of a university assignment, and I'm encouraging the editors involved in the creation of the article to collaborate and improve. This action does not encourage collaboration. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I just solved the problem myself by reverting the quick fail, and placing the article on hold. Jhfortier, who is working with the editors, will make the decision. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see how such a mistake was made: the initial reviewer (Jhfortier) did not follow the directions to initiate a proper GA review. Not only was the #:{{GAReview}} tag not placed under the article at GAC, but the review is not taking place at the /GA1 subpage; it was added to the bottom of the talkpage instead. Were I to stumble upon the page, I also would have assumed it was not currently under review; that's what the "follow this link" prompt tends to imply, anyway. An honest mistake which reinforces that one must always RTFM. :) You may want to see about relocating the true review to the /GA1 page. María (habla conmigo) 16:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this Maria.ike9898 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, the review I did (and I continue to work in collaboration with the original editors) was a peer review, not a GA review. If the editors who submitted this for a GA review (something which, as stated above, I don't quite think it's ready for yet, although soon perhaps) then a reviewer who has not significantly contributed must be enlisted. Jhfortier (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this was my confusion. I apoligize, Jh, I thought, given the headings of comments, that the discussion about the article was part of the GA review. If someone could withdraw the nomination, that would be good. I'll talk to my students. Clearly the article isn't ready. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Automatic updating version

I don't understand what is going on. It does not seem to be automatically updating.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What is considered a backlog?

With the current GAN backlog elimination drive winding down, I wanted to ask out there how many unreviewed GANs would be considered to have a backlog? I would say somewhere around 50 or perhaps less. What do people think? –MuZemike 20:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more complicated than that. I suggest that you need to look at topics individually and the time that it took to get a review. Typically, before the start of this review, about 10% of the WP:GANs were On Review, about 10% On Hold and about 80% sitting there waiting; and those ratios were fairly constant. However, some topics never really had a backlog, others had backlogs of three months or more: and we know which ones they were:- military, music, video games, Sports and recreation, etc. I would have suggested that 50 Geography & Places, for example, sitting there doing nothing would be a serious delay; but 150 in other topics, such as military, or Sports and recreation, would be "quite normal". Pyrotec (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mean time between nomination and start of review (how long, on average, did the nominations actually chosen for review in the last week/fortnight/month wait to be picked up). If it's more than <some time period> (I'd say about 14 days) there's a backlog. As Pyrotec suggests, this could be done by subject area, assuming the data gathering supports it. (BTW kudos to all the reviewers who participated in the drive.) Magic♪piano 22:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pyrotec's point. One of the problems, IMHO, with many of the nominations in the music, tv, sports categories is that many nominations are in fact frequently written very badly, often leading to conflicts between nominators and reviewers, with the former citing other badly written articles that have achieved GA status. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The historical data is on file: if we look at the Summary at the end of the GAN Report of 31 March 2010, immediately prior to the start of this drive ([10] here), most topics with backlogs had been waiting one month or more. That, as stated above, is too long. I'd also go with 14 days on some topics as a goal. The problem is lack of sufficient reviewers for some topics. I don't do some topics at all because I have no interest in them, others I might do one or two (Ferret fondling in "Sports" for instance, but I don't do Sports). Hopefully this drive will result in some of the new reviewers continuing to do reviews. Unfortunately, the progress made on previous drives, however, was soon lost: I suspect we were seeing that in the last week of this drive (but we have to wait and see). It's worth noting that the two previous drives that I (and others) worked on were not as successful as this one in reducing the backlog: we were down to only 12 unreviewed articles near the end. That was really great. Pyrotec (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:History of liberalism/GA1

The above review appears to have stalled, the reviewer is not responding to comments, citation need tags have not been addressed. I think it should be failed now, but thought I would post here for other opinions. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer hasn't edited since 20 April, and the article isn't quite up to snuff either- and hasn't been edited by a human since 18 April. I'd agree with failing this oen and noting that it can be nominated again as soon as the issues are addressed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I shall be bold and go ahead. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The GA symbol - should it now be on the article page?

Since I know this talk page is often the most active, this is just a cross posting for a discussion thread I have opened at the main project page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Should_GA_and_A-class_articles_be_recognisable_through_a_symbol_on_the_article_page.3F

cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Finishing the GA nomination

I'm planning to review I Never Met the Dead Man but I've just gone to the talkpage and there is no GA nomination link. I was going to just add it myself, but on previewing it, the template of course says "Nominated by Belovedfreak, 6 May..." Is this a problem? Is there any way to amend the template if I do that? Obviously I don't want it to look like I'm reviewing my own nomination.--BelovedFreak 15:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just notified the nominator but they haven't edited for a couple of days.--BelovedFreak 15:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

When you preview it, does it show the entire text of the template? Perhaps you could then edit that text to include the actual nominator's name instead of yours, with the correct date, before saving your edit. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the edit box do you mean? No, it doesn't. I think I can solve the problem using {{GA nominee}} instead of {{GAN}}. I presume that's ok? This way, I can put someone else's name in although the timestamp will still be for now.--BelovedFreak 15:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think so, since there will still be an edit record showing that the nominator placed it onto the GAN page in the first place. But I couldn't say with certainty. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The nomination template now has the original nominator's name, with today's date, and I've put a note on the article talkpage explaining what I've done, so hopefully that will be ok.--BelovedFreak 16:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Stuck review

I have a GAN for Rock Martin here. It quickly found a reviewer who made a series of helpful comments all of which I addressed within a day or so. However, the reviewer seems to have walked away. Despite two reminders on his talk page there have been no review edits by him/her since 27 April, although the editor is active elsewhere. I'm reluctant to pull the nom and start again from the bottom, having effectively lost two weeks already. Anyone care to pick up this review, or any other ideas Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take over the review. I intended to review it already, only to find that ems24 had started the review. Ucucha 23:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Review requested

Is there a GA reviewer available to look at this reassessment? It's been up for three weeks, and there's consensus to delist it, but I'm not sure what the procedure is. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has now been delisted - many thanks to Khoikhoi for stepping in here. Geometry guy 19:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Request advice on Dance in the Dark

Hi, I am requesting help with the GA review of the song Dance in the Dark. None of the references are from articles about the song, as apparently there are no such articles. All the mentions of the song are from brief excerpts (almost all are one sentence or less, and many are sentence fragments) from reviews of her album and synopses of her tours. While conducting the GA review, I found the excerpts were misleading as references for the text.

For example, the nominator maintains that "Containing influences of retro and New Wave music, "Dance in the Dark" begins with a stuttering introduction ..." is correct, including the wikilink to stuttering because one review says " After a stuttering intro of orgasmic groans", and there are no references to the speech disorder of stuttering.

Another example, the complete USA review says, " and the campy, name-dropping "Dance in the Dark", which cops its gabby interlude from Madonna's "Vogue", is a frothy New Wave throwback." But this warrants two separate references in the article to difference parts of the sentence. It seems to me this kind of referencing is misleading.

There is only one reference that addresses the song with more than one sentence.

What is considered adequate referencing for a GA article?

The article is currently at AFD but will be a "Keep". Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look and found:

• about.com says nothing about the song, only the album.
• LA Times is good on the song.
• MTV is good on the song, but repeats the LA Times.
• The next one is LA Times again, and it supports the part about the MAC AIDS Fund, but I think it missed the hazards to women of 53-64.
• mtv.co.uk supports the plan to release Alejandro.

So the first ref, from about.com, is the exception - so far - and I think the about.com ref can be deleted as the next 2 refs are good. Of course as you will need to check the rest.

I suggest that at the AFD you show the LA Times and MTV refs and go for "speedy keep".

I think the article uses too much direct quotation, especially "Condoms aren’t female ... I feel the way you feel", which is long and unattributed. The nom must read WP:COPYVIO and then paraphrase for most quotes, especially the big one. --Philcha (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, the blockquote is an amalgamation of two separate quotes, each attributed to different sources. But thanks for the feedback. Very helpful. Thanks! Xtzou (Talk) 22:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Plea for help! Could someone take over this review at Talk:Dance in the Dark/GA1? Someone needs to look through all of the references and make sure the article is representing them correctly. The editor says he/she has fixed things but when I go back and look, I find sometimes the issues is not fixed. The article has many quotes, some that I added when I found copyvio. I think it would be better if someone with fresh eyes took over this review. Please? Xtzou (Talk) 16:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Xtzou, you seem to doing a good job - and if you compare the start with (so far) the end, you've make the nom listen! If another reviewer took over, he/she would have learn the articles and sources, and the nom might try testing the 2nd reviewer's determination. --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

if

Reassessment

Could someone take a look at this reassessment? It's been listed for a month and I believe there's consensus to list the article as the only user to raise issues is now in support but as the original nominator I assume closing it myself would be inappropriate. Cheers - Basement12 (T.C) 13:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting downgrade of an article

I would like to know how Beyonce's album B'Day passed GA. I've noticed the following issues within 5 minutes:

1. A whole unsourced awards section.
2. A layout that doesn't follow WP:Albums i.e. personnel should appear directly after the track listing.
3. No end of year charts.
4. Unsourced sales and commericial info for example yes aCharts does show the UK debut but it doesnt mention its sales.
5. Some bad/dubious sources e.g. TMZ
6. It doesn't follow WP:MOS regarding quotations.

It should be downgraded until someone corrects it and renominates it after going through the procedure again. I personally am not going to take responsibility for it as i am working on getting I Am... Sasha Fierce through GA. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the article passed in 2008 and it have been vandalaized heavily since then. PS. I have never seen a policy stating that year end charts must be included. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If it did chart on them then it should be added. OK perhaps that one is dubious but there are still fundamental issues with the article. I'm surprised its been allowed to get into that state. In its current state it is not a WP:Good Article. but i dont know what should be done about it.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Submit it for a GAR and let it get a proper examination. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 23:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It was nominated by User:Efe, he have very good contributions, including featured articles like "Irreplaceable" and "Baby Boy", but is been a like a year since he stopped editing frequently or at least as he used to. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's fair enough. It has probably been vandalized a lot since. Well i've nominated it for re-assessment so we'll see what happens now. thanks for all the help.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Couple of questions

Can someone just confirm to me that it's fine to hardcode image size in a GA article? Also, is alt text a requirement for GA? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Alt text is no longer a requirement for featured article and lists, so it is definitively not a requirement at GA. Back when alt text was a featured requirement, it was not a GA requirement either, as there is no mention of it in the criteria. As for hardcoded image sizes, why would you want to have them? To quote from WP:Imagesize:

In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference.

There are some exceptions, such as some maps and diagrams, panoramas and some images that need high resolution to see the relevant details. As the above is policy, why do you feel a need to circumvent it? The GA criteria do not explicitly state that all policy must be followed, but any editor should at least try to follow policy for all content, whether a good article or just a stub. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This was not a question regarding an article of mine, it's in regard to other's articles, as I just started reviewing them. If hardcoded sizes is not explicitly prohibited for GA, then I guess I can pass an article with hardcoded image sizes, can't I? Gatoclass (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage you to not pass article that breach policy. I always insist that articles I review do not force image sizes. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold and changed the article myself. This is a terrible case, where there was used two different forced sizes used (breaching any rule of aesthetics) and seemed to use arbitrary sizes (250px, 280px) which, for instance, make the images appear smaller with my settings. I have a high-resolution screen sitting on a fast broadband connection and need as much image size as possible to see the images properly. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Arsenikk, you just told someone that it's not a requirement for GA, yet you ask the review not to pass that article. Now that's double standard. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Arsenikk, my main priority in an article is the reader. To me that means the image size should be the smallest size that is legible to the reader - and my eyesight is lousy. Making the image legible is most needed when the image and text are co-dependent. --Philcha (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In general, reviewers should not be making editors to follow policies/guidelines that are not listed specifically in the good article criteria. GA specifically does not require articles to follow all aspects of MOS, else it turns into "FA-lite". However, reviewers are obviously able to nicely ask editors to make certain tweaks that make the article prettier. On the image question in particular, have you tried the "upright=" parameter? It makes the image multiplied by a certain amount of the readers preferences; for example, if you have "upright=1.5" it multiplies the image size by 1.5 times the reader's preferences. This allows images to be bigger without forcing a specific image size. It's a tool that I like, but that may be just me... :) Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that breaching policy should not be done under any circumstance (with the exception of WP:IAR, but that is again a policy). For those wondering, the manual of style is a guideline, and WP:ALT isn't even that. The GA criteria do not explicitly say that an article is not to breach the policies related to for instance copyright violation or even notability. Does that mean we should just go and pass such policy-breaching articles? Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The good article criteria specifically say that articles do not need to comply with MOS aspects other than those "for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." In response to your two specifics, I would say that if you don't think an article is notable, forget about its GA nomination and take it to AfD. In response to copyright, I'm not sure if you mean of images or text. If images, I would think that the GAC of "images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content" would apply, or if text, "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations" would apply. Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your feedback. Gatoclass (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

3 articles subject to educational GAN drive

As I have done several times in the past, I am having my students do their writing assignment on Wikipedia, improving articles to GA standard (past assignment, current one assignment). This time my class is working on only three articles: Periphery countries, Core countries and Great Divergence. The students should submit an official GA nomination by Monday, June 7; I will be grading them two weeks later (by June 21) by which time they should have read and responded to GA review. Obviously, two weeks is often less time than it takes for an article to clear nomination backlog and get a review, and hence, the reason I am posting here (as I did before) is that due to class schedule constrains, reviews for those articles have to be expedited (as, simply put, students will not care about the review after the grading deadline). If you would like to help and review one or more of those articles around June the 7th, please reply here! Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take Great Divergence. Just give me a ping when it goes onto the GAN page... Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take Core countries. Same basic idea as last time? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I'll take Periphery countries. Ping me when it goes on the GAN page. – iridescent 22:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll ping you when the time comes. And yes, Nikkimaria, it is the same basic idea! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When the use of Tables are Appropriate in a Wikipedia Article

There has been a lot of discussion in the WikiShips Project pertaining to when the use of tables are appropriate in a Wikipedia Article. One side seems to be arguing that there is never an appropriate use of Tables in Wikipedia Ship articles. I strongly disagree and believe there are certain occasions when tables are appropriate use in Wikipedia Articles.

My contention is that tables are appropriately used in an article when; 1) The information is best represented in a row/column format (i.e., is more readable/legible in row/column), 2) When the amount of information is large and does not lend itself to a narrative format, 3) When the use of narrative would leave the information scattered throughout an article, 4) When the information is historically significant, 5) When the information can to be shown to be commonly represented in table format (i.e., common use), 6) When the information contained in the table is related/correlateable (i.e., not random).

Some particular examples that may help the disussion are as follows. For ships, particular type of information lends itself to a row and column format. These are Battle Stars and Award Criteria, Commanding Officers, Number of Casualties by Operation, Ordinance Expended by Operation etc. This type of historical information would be unclear and unreadable if put into narrative form. In Ships articles this would mean the information would be scattered among many sections.

The question you might ask is why is this type of information even appopriate. It's appropriate because the information historically important, has great value to the reader, and is commonly used in other encyclopedias, books, articles etc, and is most clear when represented in row/column form.

Here's 3 tangible examples of table use to present Ship historical information to demonstrate that the information is historically important and is commonly represented in row/column form. The references include examples of tables of Awards, Commander, Ordinance Expended, Miles Steamed.. etc.

1. Myron J. Smith, Jr. (1983) [1983]. KEYSTONE BATTLEWAGON U.S.S. Pennsylvania (BB-38). Pictoral Histories Publishing Company, Inc.. ISBN 0-933126-27-1.

2. Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual, NAVPERS 15,790 (REV.1953), Part III. - List of Authorized Operations and Engagements, ASIATIC-PACIFIC AREA

3. USS Tennessee (1946) [1946]. USS Tennessee, December 7, 1941-December 7, 1945 (Cruise Book). Clark Printing House.

etc.

Additionally, I'd like to add to the discussion some guidance references on when the use of figures or tables is appropriate. Please note, almost all writing guides contain rules for when tables are appropriate use that uniform with the examples provided.

1. From the Online Technical Writing Guide URL: http://www.io.com/~hcexres/textbook/graphics.html

"Tables Tables, of course, are those rows and columns of numbers and words, mostly numbers. They permit rapid access to and relatively easy comparison of information. If the data is arranged chronologically (for example, sales figures over a ten-year period), the table can show trends — patterns of rising or falling activity. Of course, tables are not necessarily the most vivid or dramatic means of showing such trends or relationships between data — that's why we have charts and graphs (discussed in the next section).

Uses for tables. The biggest use of tables is for numerical data. Imagine that you are comparing different models of laser printers in terms of physical characteristics such as height, depth, length, weight, and so on — perfect for a table.

However, don't get locked into the notion that tables are strictly for numerical data. Whenever you have situations where you discuss several things about which you provide the same categories of detail, you've got a possibility for a table. For example, imagine that you were comparing several models of a laser printer: you'd be saying the same category of thing about each printer (its cost, print speed, supply costs, warranty terms, and so on). This is ideal stuff for a table, and it would be mostly words rather than numbers (and in this case, you'd probably want to leave the textual discussion where it is and "re-present" the information in table form."

2. From the APA Write Style Turtorial URL: http://www.easytechnoskills.com/APA/rules.html

"Tables [3.62 through 3.74]

A decision to use a table or text depends on factors related to the clarity of the information and the number of tables used in a paper. Tables enable a large amount of data to be presented in a concise manner but too many tables can be disruptive to the reader. As a general guideline, tables with two or fewer columns and rows can better be presented as text, while tables with three or more columns and rows are better displayed as a table. Tables are most often used to present quantitative data but occasionally used to present qualitative text data. Sample tables are presented in the APA Manual in sections 3.62 and 3.69. An effective table supplements the text but does not repeat the text word-for-word. Likewise, if every item in the table is discussed in the text, then the table is unnecessary. Tables should be intelligible on their own without needing to refer to the text. Concise labeling of columns and rows can achieve this level of clarity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ussrangercv4 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to a discussion on this topic and hopefully a resolution to the question of when the use of a Table is Appropriate in a Wikipedia article.

Ussrangercv4 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ussrangercv4, this isn't really the place for a discussion of this sort. If your questions is regarding tables specifically in ships articles, the place for the discussion is at the ship wikiproject. If it also includes naval ships, the military history wikiproject might also be interested. If you are interested in tables as a whole, see WP:TABLES for the current guidelines on tables in articles, including a section that details when tables are appropriate. That page is part of the manual of style, and so tends to be the guiding force for article writing, unless a good case can be made for why it should be ignored, per WP:IAR. Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dana thanks for your comments. The discussion in the ships group is turning out to be a lot broader than just what applies to ships articles. One of the comments I received was a reference to this group so that's why I posted here. What I'm really seeking is an opinion from the "guiding force" on article writing as to whether tables are stylistically appropriate in Wikipedia articles and in what cases. What I've been seeing in a particular discussion in Ships group is that some folks are trying to disallow the use of historical information in a tabular form based on "style". There also seems to be a tack that says that technical historically significant information is of little to no value and therefore should not be allowed. I'm not sure if this group is the one who would weigh in on any of these issues or not. I just need to find which board or group can tell us when its recommended to use tables in Wikipedia articles and when it's not. I will go look at the WP:TABLES and maybe post something there as well. Thanks again :) Ussrangercv4 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that tables have to be considered in context. I've seen (and reviewed) GANs in which one or more sections consists of only tables - no explanation either of what the table is showing (such as Long and short scales) - the appropriate response is to consider the article non compliant on "Style". On the other hand, a comprehensive article which contains a section which has a table included within it, but is not over-dependant on the presence of the table, should be considered on it merits. I awarded GA to SS Irish Oak (1919), which has one such table. Pyrotec (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not just for ships and not just for numeric data. In articles about phyla, e.g. Annelida, I add near the top a "spotters'guide" that includes both related phyla (the Lophotrochozoa super-phylum is complex) and the only remotely related but superficially similar Arthropoda.

And in chess articles such as Wilhelm Steinitz I make the results tables sortable. --Philcha (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Pyrotec and Philcha thanks for the feedback. I agree with you both. There should always be introductory text for a table that is added to a section, tables should be judged on their merits and not discounted because they are tables, and when historical information is best represented in row/columns, it should be presented in row/columns and not narrative. I've opened up a discussion in the WP:TABLES group to ask if they can provide guidance as to whether the use of historic data in row/column form can be banned by a group through the use of local "style" rule that states that contributors can only use narrative text or if instead the use of table information should be adjuidicated based on its merits as defined in by WP:TABLES. If you have any suggestions for how to best incorporate tables into the narrative flow, they would be well received. I haven't seen any best practices yet that seems to fit well with ship articles so we've just been plonking the information where it seems to fit best (i.e., the section which sums up the ships historical contributions). I'd like to find a better way to fit overarching historical information like ordinance information or miles steamed or ship commanders into this type of article. Ussrangercv4 (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are page numbers of sources a requirement for GA?

The article Elizabeth of Bosnia misses page numbers of sources (all books) throughout, so I posted a remark/suggestion as to this here:Talk:Elizabeth of Bosnia/GA1#Comment on page numbers. The reviewer (as he says it is his first review) roundly answered me that these were not necessary as per Wikipedia:Citing sources. From Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation styles I have a very different impression and wonder why I went to the trouble of giving page numbers myself in articles. I think this issue could benefit from some discussion. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that page number(s) where appropriate means for verbal quotes. If the idea of a book is referenced, it is often not very practical to cite a specific page. Also, if the book treats the subject of the Wikipedia article as a whole book, I would accept less page number citing than a book that is on a completely different topic but has one relevant point of information in a footnote to the second appendix... -- Jordan1976 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this a historical biographical article. Books used have titles like Medieval Queenship; The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 1300-c. 1415; Medieval Coins; The idea of the vernacular: an anthology of Middle English literary theory, 1280-1520; Medieval Women; one book is on Richard II of England. It'd be hard to check references if you have to browse hundreds of pages per citation. Can't imagine this is acceptable in a Good article about history. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Buchraeumer. Page numbers should be provided for a GA article. Gatoclass (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Citing sources is completely unambiguous, and I don't know where this idea that "page number(s) where appropriate means for verbal quotes" has come from. "You should identify any part of a source that you quote, paraphrase or cite; in the case of a book, specify the page number(s)." I don't know how it could be made any clearer. – iridescent 18:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

agree with iridescent. page numbers are always appropriate, unless you're citing the entire book, but even then there is usually a page or a set of pages that sum up the book. Occasionally one cites chapters, but not page numbers, but then should list the name of the chapter (and usually give the page numbers as well). In some encyclopedia articles, it might be reasonable to cite simply the article by name, but even then it helps to have page numbers. Seems to me that page numbers must be provided unless there is a legitimate reason why they are not (book has not page numbers, or it is an electronic source, and you link directly to the page, but even then page numbers are helpful). (Still trying to figure out what part of "page numbers where appropriate" is ambiguous). Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed completely; page numbers for print sources are incredibly important to an article's verifiability. Not only should citations include as much pertinent information available in order to point readers/researchers in the right direction, but it's the academic way to do things, darn it. Jordan1976 above has it partly correct, however, as the passage that Iridescent quotes continues: "Page numbers are especially important for lengthy non-indexed books, but they are not required for a reference to the source as a whole; for example when describing a complete book or article or when the source is used to illustrate a particular point of view." María (habla conmigo) 18:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for clarifying this! Should be clear from the quotes from Wikipedia:Citing sources now. I left them a link at Talk:Elizabeth of Bosnia/GA1. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd avoid single pages and use ranges - for example to avoid quoting out of context.

For journal articles, the biblio details require the full page range, and 99% of the time that's fine. I know of 2 huge monographs, about 75 and 50 respectively, where page ranges are needed.

The problem is books. Even page ranges are unformative unless the reader or reviewer have a recent version of the book. The reader or reviewer may have a different edition or format (e.g. paperback) or some other difference that makes pages unhelpful, while chapter and section names are more likely identify and summarise the content. --Philcha (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ack, not so -- I hope you're not advocating such practices in GA reviews? The ambiguity issue you're describing is the reason why a book, periodical or journal article's entire bibliographic information is included in a "References" or "Bibliographic" section, or amongst the citations themselves. Date, publisher, location, volume, issue, ISBN/ISSN/OCLC... all of these details help the reader/researcher pinpoint exactly which source has been used for the article, so page discrepancies are not an issue at all. Page ranges are not required, although for periodicals certainly prove helpful. Exact page numbers should be used per the Wikipedia MOS, no matter what print medium is being used, unless of course a page range is being referred to. Stating in a citation that the pertinent information in such-and-such article can be found between pages 14 and 67 is not helpful and potentially academically disingenuous. Not the things we should strive for here. María (habla conmigo) 00:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just highlighting a point Maria made: as long as someone has provided correct ISBN's and OCLC's, then a person should have little trouble in finding whether the book copy they own or want to obtain is the same (or not).

In my reading of WP:Citing sources and my experience at FAC, pages are required for all mediums but web pages, and strongly encouraged for online newspapers, PDFs, etc. Also, everything that you can include should be included with the exception of chapter titles (which are only for special cases, like a major section in a book [example, Conway's]). I try to include, at minimum, the author(s), title, publishing location, publisher, year published, ISBN, and OCLC for books; for journals I include the author(s), title of the article, the journal's name, volume, edition, year published, ISSN, and OCLC. I also include a JSTOR or other similar archive link if that is where I obtained the article (examples). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree about JSTOR, DOI and anything than links directly to the source, subject to possible pay-walls. I also include Google Books links if I find useful ones. I've never found ISSN and OCLC found a direct link.

As an editor and as a reviewer I take WP:V and WP:NPOV very seriously, and any MOS takes second place to these. --Philcha (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

While that's all very interesting, this is an actual case of course, and as sourcing for citation needed tags goes on (to address the concerns of another commentator, on the prompting of the reviewer) without page numbers, they obviously continue to ignore WP:Citing sources, as they did from the moment I brought this up at Talk:Elizabeth of Bosnia/GA1#Comment on page numbers (21 May). I thought that addressing this problem there was the right way; perhaps someone else can comment there. Even in case this article gets passed without any page numbers/chapters, it would be a worrying trend for GA quality if editors/reviewers get the impression that this is normal, and proceed likewise in future articles. Please note that Elizabeth of Bosnia, as of this version, has ISNBs on many books, but not in case of (unspecified) Slavic language titles, which also lack publication locations. Thanks. Buchraeumer (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at current Elizabeth of Bosnia and the 1st book has no indication of where the relevant passage is. IMO that's fail on WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If page numbers are required it should be explicitly stated in the GAN criteria, otherwise the criteria are misleading and setting contributors up for disappointment. Frankly a discussion on what Good Article status is for and how it is supposed to differ from Featured Article status would be useful. What's the rationale? Lambanog (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree this would help, although I don't think the criteria is currently misleading. Including page numbers and all pertinent bibliographic details should be common sense, IMO. There's no reason not to include them, other than laziness. "Page numbers are required where applicable per WP:CITINGSOURCES" (or something along those lines) could help steer people toward academic enlightenment. María (habla conmigo) 13:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It sort of should "go without saying" ... Interestingly, the FA criteria neither specifically mention/(require???) page numbers: "(c) factual accuracy, with citations for verification against reliable sources." At least according to this useful page: Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lord help us. When there is a reason not to include them, I'd say, okay, but simple laziness is not a reason to exclude them. If someone cares enough about the article, and has done the proper research, the page numbers should be in the notes. How hard is it to add them to the cite after that? Sheesh. The criteria should not have to state such specifics. Do we need to add that the article should be free of typos, that the subject should be spelled correctly? The specifics of what constitutes good prose? what are appropriate supporting materials, etc.? Does spelling count? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually for this particular bit of info, page numbers, it should be stated explicitly. It should be borne in mind that Wikipedia is a volunteer collaborative project with input from numerous contributors possible. Getting all the contributions to be of a certain standard is a particular problem for this model. There is a dichotomy in play, on one hand the project wishes the contributions to be of high quality, on the other it wishes to be open enough to encourage people who can contribute input to do so and not discourage them with a lot of bureaucracy. Good Articles are not Featured Articles and are not expected to be of professional standard as stated in the definition. Correct grammar I think can be expected of a non-professional article that wants to be passed off as good. I'm not so certain I would demand terribly strict compliance to citation standards. Different teachers and courses demand different citations styles. Many articles get published without citations. Are we expecting people to write a dissertation? If we are then why have Good Article status and Featured Article status? Why not just Featured Article status? Explain the rationale. From what I can gather it used to be inline citations weren't required. Now they are due to increasing standards and because the ability to add them was made easier. If that is now the case with page numbers, and general referencing is frowned upon, then it should be explicitly stated in the criteria. Many professional encyclopedias do not require this level of detail for their articles. Lambanog (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Most professional encyclopedias are not openly edited. Their reliability is based, in part, on the fact that if someone opens one up and scribbles in their own additions in magic marker, it can easily be spotted as bullshit. Wikipedia has a higher standard of referencing because its nature demands it for its own reliability. Let me reiterate above what someone else said. Laziness isn't a reason for letting something "pass". GA isn't a "FA but slightly crappier". All Wikipedia articles should be held to the highest standards of referencing, and at bare minimum if you want the GA tag for your article talk page, you should have page numbers. If you can't be bothered to crack the binding on the book to find the page numbers, why should any reviewer be bothered to pass your article as a GA. --Jayron32 05:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point to differentiate between general referencing via a separate section and inline citations. But that's the point of inline citations: why use them at all if you are not even prepared to give a page number; it doesn't make much sense without pgns. If you can't give the page number because you have only a distant remembrance that this fact was mentioned in that book, or have heard it was in there, then you can't use it per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you found it. Imagine someone would seriously challenge your information: Then you would want to make your point by citing pgns, no one would accept if you said: "It's somewhere in that book, therefore you are wrong." If you have the book at hand, then why on earth not include pgns; it's better for all, it's even an excellent reference for yourself, I for one have been gladly using my own citations in WP articles for finding things in the books I used again. Buchraeumer (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We're supposed to assume good faith so accusing content contributors of laziness is inappropriate and unduly hostile. Indeed good faith to a certain degree must be assumed even with page numbers unless one is willing to obtain all the books cited and verify the references that way or alternatively give preference to more easily verifiable online sources. All Wikipedia articles should be held to the highest standards of referencing, and at bare minimum if you want the GA tag for your article talk page, you should have page numbers. If you can't be bothered to crack the binding on the book to find the page numbers, why should any reviewer be bothered to pass your article as a GA. Because it isn't in the GA criteria and such practice is often nonstandard in encyclopedic articles. Also following such logic, GAs should be abolished because anything less than FA standards is less than the "highest standards of referencing". An explanation of why there should be a GA status in the first place would be helpful. What purpose does GA status serve? Lambanog (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of what guideline or policy X say, but that we've been requiring page nums for a couple of years now. If the reviewer had reasoning why page numbers weren't needed, I think that would be within their rights, but generally we make the writer provide them, since they should be the ones who know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an example will help:

Homer: Your mother has this crazy idea that gambling is wrong, even though they say it's okay in the Bible.

Lisa: Really? Where?

Homer: Uh... Somewhere in the back. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Should this article be up for GA Review/

Hello, I was wondering if Vietnam Airlines should be up for GAR. just in case it is, could anyone please put it up there for me? Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 07:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than a slightly weak lead section, the rest of the article looks good to me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several paragraphs without sources, which should probably be attended to before it can pass. bridies (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your responses. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Parenthetical references or footnotes

Wikipedia:WIAGA says "Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article". I guess "parenthetical references" refers to WP:CITE#Parenthetical_referencing. In practice I guess editors who use parenthetical references use either {{harv}} and its relations or {{sfn}}. Very occasionally an article needs to enclose a list of citations in one ref - an extreme example appears at Wilhelm_Steinitz#cite_note-DateStartSteinitzReign-36. I know that {{harv}} etc. can be enclosed in a list like this - see as example at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Reference_methods/Harvard#Citations_enclosed_in_refs. If "Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article" is taken literally, if an article uses {{harv}} etc. and the editor then finds it needs a list of {{harv}} etc. enclosed in a ref tag, the article cannot be a GA - unless all of the article's uses of {{harv}} etc. are converted to ref tags. Is that we want? --Philcha (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Toolbox

Since mid-2008 I've developed a set of tools and techniques that I've used in editing and reviewing articles - including stuff I've found hard to find from WP "official" sources. You might want to copy it from User:Philcha#Tools to somewhere in WP:GAN: userboxes don't live for ever; and the project should update its copy from the experiences from its members. I hope you find this helpful. --Philcha (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good article template

Consensus has been reached to use the template:

• {{Good article}}

Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles, in the same manner of placement used as {{featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What does it do? I tried it and the only different is that it now no longer links to WP:GA - and that link accesses the GA criteria, which some readers may find helpful. --Philcha (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It adds the little green "+" logo at the upper right, where FAs have the star. Subtle. - PKM (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that a bot request is underway to add this to all existing GAs, and a bot will be far more efficient to add the template than a human editor can be. Philcha, I'm not sure how to interpret your post—the only difference from what? Ucucha 17:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Tried at Wilhelm Steinitz links to WP:GA, which shows a GA star but smaller than in e.g. a GA-review checklist. I checked Starcraft, and its FA star looks smaller than I remember. I use the Modern skin, and I briefly switch to MonoBook, which shows the FA star as larger than in Modern but not by much. IMO both these little stars fail in one of their most important functions, telling the reader which articles are at least fairly reliable and which (the vast majority) should not be relied on. --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We should get a bot setup to add {{Good article}} to all future GAs. How about giving this task to the same bot that updates GA talk pages? Gary King (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Philcha: We could make the symbol larger (it's currently 14px), if others also prefer that. It'd be better to keep it consistent with the FA star (also 14px), though. By the way, the GA symbol does link to WP:GA (or, more precisely, to WP:Good articles/Summary). Ucucha 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(It linking to the latter and not the former due to the former's prohibitive size.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if we should have a description on how to put the template on a newly granted GA-status article on Wikipedia:Good article nominations. As of now there os non. So some newly granted GA status article might not get the new template on the front page immediatly by the closing user.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I mean more specifily the Pass part of the article. For closing users to give the newly GA-status article the new tmeplate it deserves.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus where? I suppose it's too late to open a new discussion about removing it? Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Never knew that WP:Good articles/Summary exists. Thanks Ucucha. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Matthew: The GA project talkpage (55/19) Well, once they're added to all 9000 odd GAs, it would seem more sensible to render them useless than remove them all from a technical perspective; that wouldn't be difficult so maybe you could start a discussion, but obviously there was a pretty big margin shown. Ohana: that's because I move it to that name from "/header" yesterday; it was previously just used as the header (and indeed still is) on WP:GA. Ucucha very helpfully added in the template-foo to make it suit both uses. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• The new template and how to put it on to a newly granted GA status article could be point number 5. on the Pass article list on this talk page main page.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Review closing bot

I tend to find the process of closing a review a bit tedious, as there are a lot of small things that need to be done many places. I also notice that some reviews sometimes forget a point or two on the list (particularly implementing {{ArticleHistory}}). At the featured reviews, there seems to be a bot that does most of the work; perhaps a similar solution could be done here? For instance, a template could be added to the /GA1, initiating a bot to:

• Update and implement {{ArticleHistory}}, including fetching the oldid from the article.
• Remove the {{GAN}} template and review transcription from the talk page.
• Implement {{Good article}} on the article itself.
• Remove the entry from WP:GAN.
• Add the article to WP:GA and update WP:GA/Recent.

If this takes an editor two minutes to do, by the time one has 180 reviews, six hours have been "wasted" moving paper—which could have been automated. Is this a good idea? I know nothing about bots, so it may not even be technically possible. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We had GimmeBot do this until someone got into a conflict with the bot owner (I heard because I had asked the owner about getting it started again) and he/she disabled it for GAs. I think this was bad, too. Perhaps someone else could make a duplicate bot that incorporates all the new options and not get bogged down by unreasonable complaints? Hekerui (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to automate more of the bookkeeping. First some comments.

1. Reviews do not need to use ArticleHistory if they don't want to: GA has its own templates for recording individual actions. Personally, I prefer to use ArticleHistory and have coded two templates {{subst:GAN/AH}} and {{subst:GAR/AH}} to fill it in more easily for nominations and reassessments. These do not find oldids, but I never fill these in: they can always be found later (automatically even) from the date and time of review/reassessment.
2. Some things can be left to nominators - I imagine most would be happy to apply {{Good article}} if they passed and add an oldid if they want one.
3. WP:GA/Recent is already maintained by a bot: LivingBot, operated by Jarry1250. Reviewers do not need to update this manually.
4. Finally, and I want to draw particular attention to this, for over 6 months now, a fully automated version of the GAN page has been running in parallel with the manually edited one, at User:RFC_bot/Sandbox_2. It is updated frequently by User:GA bot (operated by Harej), the bot which produces the topic lists.

The automatic version doesn't completely duplicate all of the functionality of a manual GAN page, but using it instead of the latter would save a lot of reviewer time. Would reviewers like this or not? Geometry guy 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the two versions of GAN are not exactly the same. For example, currently there are five entries under Miscellaneous, whereas under User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2 there are 10 entries. How does the RFC bot get its information?

Also, other than making it easier to initial a "review" or to "discuss", how does it change what a reviewer does? I'm not clear. Xtzou (Talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot gets its information from the Talk page template ({{GA nominee}}) so discrepancies probably mean that this template is missing or incorrectly filled out. If the automated page were introduced in place of WP:GAN, the only change to reviewing would be that the reviewer would never need to edit WP:GAN - those steps would simply be eliminated. Geometry guy 18:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We should definitely at least get a bot to be maintaining {{good article}}, since most reviewers won't know that it is needed. Also, a bot could help re-add the template when it is removed from an article, due to vandalism, etc. Gary King (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Never having to edit WP:GAN could be good or bad. When I edit it, I frequently peruse the entries and see articles I would like to review that I didn't know were there. Xtzou (Talk) 22:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)