Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WP:GA/R

We're one recommendation short on several nominations. It would be very much appreciated if even one editor could look over the articles (starting with those at the bottom) and weigh in with their opinions so we can determine consensus and clear the log. Regards, Lara♥Love 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note that not all articles that appear to fail to meet the criteria must be nominated at WP:GA/R. If you see an article that clearly fails to meet GA standards, be bold and delist it immediately. Lara♥Love 05:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Autumn 2007 GA Review Drive

It looks like the backlog at WP:GAC seems to have picked up again this past month. In response, I've started a proposal for a fall 2007 review drive. You can review it here. Please feel free to make suggestions and/or revisions. Discussion can be done on it's talk page. The drive would start on September 1, which is one week away. So it would be good to get everything finalized in the next 3-5 days, if there is interest in pursuing this. Dr. Cash 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have placed this drive on an indefinite hold for the time being, due to the current 'sweeps' process going on, as well as to allow more time to work on the proposal. Dr. Cash 05:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at GA/R

There's a massive backlog over at WP:GA/R. Alot of reviews either need more votes or have been improved so they need to be re-reviewed by original voters (and also need more votes). If you have a second, please take a look. The oldest active reviews have been put into a nice little table here, which should help clarify what articles need what kind of a attention. Thanks! Drewcifer 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Project GA query

Some articles were rated GA by a project without going through a GA nomination. This is fine; a project rating is separate from the general GA system. Then a well-meaning editor notices the article was not listed on WP:GA, and adds it here. How do we want to handle these? Gimmetrow 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In this regard, the WikiProjects should treat GA in the same manner that they treat FA – don't review by themselves and nominate the article at WP:GAC, as they would nominate it at WP:FAC. If an article is tagged with {{GA}} (or the {{ArticleHistory}} indicates it's a GA), but you cannot find any evidence of a valid review, the first thing I would do is to take a look at it, and see if it meets the GA criteria. If it does, then leave it tagged as such (you may optionally want to make a note and leave your own 'review' on the talkpage. If it doesn't meet the criteria, nominate it at WP:GA/R, and supply your reasons there. Dr. Cash 05:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I though the standard was the same for GA as A class and FA. It must be reviewed to attain those ratings. LaraLove♥ 06:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Oh, and on a side note, I don't list them at GA/R. I just change it to B. If it looks at first scan like it might pass, change to B and nominate at GAC. That's my opinion. LaraLove♥ 06:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would immedietly delist any such articles, and I believe I have on several occasions, they are very easy to spot in the log once someone actually tries putting the GA template on it. I have let a few articles "slip by" on occasion if I think they obviously meet GA standards though, no need to deny recognition to articles based solely on buearocracy.... Homestarmy 21:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, having seen some opinions, my thoughts ran closest to Homestarmy. There are projects which use "GA" as an internal rating intentionally independent of the WP:GA process. These *project* ratings should not be disturbed, in my opinion, so contrary to Lara I would not change project ratings to B. But I don't think these articles should be listed at WP:GA, either. I have left a couple in place that seemed to me clearly quality articles, but there are currently a couple on the list that are, well, not quite so clear. Some of these do not show up in the V1.0 bot logs because they *only* have project templates with a GA rating, not the general GA or AH template. Also, please be aware that in the past, the GA process did not require a review for passes, so you really should check when it first got a GA template before doing any "automatic" delistings. Gimmetrow 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems mucky and confusing to me that projects are using a rating that is more often understood as te result of wikipedia-wide assessment. Isn't enough to have stub/start/B for internal assessment of articles then go to GA and have A for better than GA?--Peter cohen 11:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. GA is associated with a process. Even if it's only on the project ratings, it gives anyone who sees it the impression that it has successfully completed that process. And we don't want people using any articles that fail to satisfy the criteria as examples of what GA is. LaraLove♥ 11:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's confusing, but it's happening. Gimmetrow 22:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe there must be a task force to stop this, so I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA ratings task force. Please consider joining. Regards LaraLove♥ 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

*smirks* That's a great idea. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I went to your GA ratings task force page, Lara, and it sends me to the SARCASM page -.- I agree this is quite a problem. Take a look at Talk:Ethanol for example. We gave it a GA rating but the chemistry project gave it only a B rating, also note the fact that the Nature magazine points out 5 errors found in the ethanol article so it sounds like the chemistry people gave the article an accurate rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OhanaUnited (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, I realized why it got a GA rating. The nominated time is December 2005, before the criteria was out so we need a complete review, rather than a quick one, on this article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Chemistry Wikiproject doesn't use the GA rating in their template. Which does raise the possibility that if the ratings in the templates are all changed, we may come across some Wikiproject that becomes unhappy with us....The way I see it, the ratings in those templates aren't very important for us, its the GA template/articlehistory event and listing on the main GA page that's important. Homestarmy 15:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A WikiProject unhappy with GA? Surely you jest! That would never happen. LaraLove♥ 15:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the "task force" would like to look at Achilles and Nazism. These are currently listed at WP:GA but the bot does not pick up a nomination or review. Gimmetrow 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. LaraLove♥ 15:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Mathematics WikiProject came up with a solution to this problem by introducing a Bplus-Class: this is for articles which the project considers to be of approximately GA quality, but which are not currently good articles. Then the GA-Class articles are those of Bplus quality which are also good articles. This could be suggested to other WikiProjects which use GA-Class for their own purposes. Geometry guy 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me to be horribly redundant, and sort of goes against other debates that I've seen advocating eliminating some of the V1.0 ratings, most of which advocate either elimination of A-class, or combining A-class with GA-class. If someone in WP Mathematics really thinks an article is of "approximate" GA quality, then why bother with "B+" and instead just nominate the article at WP:GAC to find out for sure? Dr. Cash 03:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Becuase WikiProject Mathematics has gotten burned badly with inline citation stuff. Hence the existence of the Scientific citation guidelines. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make it right. It's going to lead to horrible confusion, especially if/when it propagates through the ratings system to other wikiprojects. "Bplus" class really, really needs to be eliminated NOW. Dr. Cash 04:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

B+-Class was created as a reaction to a perceived problem with GA (the emphasis on inline citations), I'm not sure that asking to eliminate the class will be received well by the relevant projects. What can be accomplished is to find a way to merge both classes that will appeal to everyone: the science WikiProjects, and the GA projects. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the propensity of "ordinary" reviewers to review mathematics' articles is relatively low, the project can actually game the system by nominating the articles for GA and reviewing them on their own, as long as GA standards are held, i.e. the reviewer did not contribute to the article and maintains a sound amount of impartiality, and also uses WP:WIAGA, which provide for the inclusion of scientific citation guidelines. So, I don't see a problem. I have even once suggested it might make sense for GA reviewing to somehow be delegated to WikiProjects (again, making sure the standards are maintained), which could help speed up the process and also ensure the reviewer has the knowledge of subject necessary to judge against some criteria, such as completeness and reliability. PrinceGloria 05:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm heading to bed now, but the list comparer in WP:AWB should make it easy to find any stray "GA-Class" articles that aren't GAs. Just compare a list made from Category:GA-Class articles with a list made from WP:GA; Anything appearing in the former but not the latter should be a mistake - I think. I'll have a go at this tomorrow if you think it's useful. Walkerma 05:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, I already do this with a script. That's how I find these articles, and why I asked the question. Gimmetrow 16:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought that this might elicit a response! It is not just about inline citations: the perception at some technical WikiProjects is that GA inevitably emphasises form over content in technical articles. This is understandable, as most GA reviewers are generalists who are not necessarily in a position to assess whether technical content is good or the article is broad. Consequently at GAR (in particular) issues such as the lead, consistent formatting of references, prose style, frequency of inline citation etc. tend to dominate the discussion. Whether this is really an issue or not, WikiProject Mathematics has effectively given up fighting against it, and accepted it as inherent, by introducing Bplus as a minimum content requirement for GA. This also allows articles which are basically good, but don't dot every i of the criteria, to be distinguished from the poorer quality B-Class articles.

There would be great resistance (and has been in the past) to any merger of GA with A-Class, because many technical WikiProjects have set-up their own in-house A-Class review systems, which effectively ensure that the content is close to FA standard. Several people, including myself, have argued that the Stub-Start-B-A system is actually orthogonal to the GA-FA system, since the former is content driven, while the latter is largely policy and form driven, at least for technical articles. If you think about, it does make sense to separate the quality control of an article into those issues which require expert input, and those issues which require community input, even for non-technical articles.

In this case the use of a Bplus Class is very natural. Geometry guy 08:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Errm, last time I checked, it is not fine for a project to assign GA status without going through GA... um the link is... Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment where it explicitly says: "...Two levels, GA and FA, are not assessments that can be assigned simply by a project member." -- Ling.Nut 08:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. It is not fine, but it happens. It would happen much less if the good article process were more separate from the WikiProject assessment scale. Geometry guy 08:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The FA rating is not separate, but it is never (or almost never) assigned by individuals or wikiprojects.
• Let's speak utterly, unbearably frankly here. The problem that has caused all the uproar regarding GA since the beginning of time... is... in a single short English word... pride. Editors' work gets rejected from FA from time to time, but they seldom mind, 'cause that just adds to the prestige of FA as "the best." When articles get rejected from GA, however, editors scream bloody murder: "Who the F*** are you to reject my article? Can't you see it's brilliant?" because GA is two levels below FA and a rejection means that an article is... less than.. average, I supose. So everyone wants to bypass the GA system 'cause they don't wanna be rejected in the attempt to achieve a "passable" rating.
• yes the other problem(s) are:
  1. The "One reviewer = crappy system" perception.. and in a related prob
  2. The fact that the "One reviewer" may be an over-eager neophyte.
• I didn't have any feelings about B+ until I read this thread.. I agree that it just adds confusion and will be exported to other wikipedias.. --Ling.Nut 09:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are other ways of indicating whether the content is of GA standard. Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen/Comments and Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen: Composition of the music/Comments contain comments by the three internal reviewers if articles rated as B. In the first, we think some substantial work on the content is still required and it is obvious the article isn't near GA, in the second there is excellent content and fixing the WIAGA requirements is what I'm emphasising. Okay other projects currently "own" more than 36 articles and won't have three people reviewing all articles, but the one reviewer can still provide guidance on whether working on content is still the main concern for a B article or whether wikifying it is. A Good GA reviewer, if one who is not a specialist, would not the existence of a comments page from previous reviews and visit that to see if contents issues have previously been noticed and whether they have been addressed.

I do want to keep A grade. {assessment 3: testing] contains a pilot assessment of Parsifal picking up some issues which FAC might not spot. Having an article at A with comments on its contents does let the generlaist reviewers know what experts think on the contents.

Ps. WP:Wagner shouldn't really be this tiny, there are plenty of performers, such as Hans Hotter, primarily known as Wagnerians and we haven't yet tagged their articles. Similarly, Some subjects will merit separate in depth articles which don't yet exist, such as List of Leitmotifs in Der Ring des Nibelungen. I expect approaching 100 articles will be the ppropriate size of the project.--Peter cohen 09:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Geometry guy puts it very elegantly using geometry (what else!), when he says that GA/FA is orthogonal to Stub/Start/B/A. Ideally the ratings schemes would have two different dimensions, but that would bring its own problems. The A-Class does at least allow us to have an article where the content is judged by experts to be complete, but the format needs a bit of cleanup - something the GA system doesn't allow (thus we can have something be A that failed GA on a technicality). I think it's fine for any project to have B+ or C or anything else they want, as long as the bot compiles it as part of the statistics. I think the Maths B+ works fine for Maths and the Mathematicians understand it, but the bot serves to ensure compliance with the Wikipedia-wide system. (Incidentally, the French Wikipedia uses the same assessment scheme with "Bon Article" for GA, and they have assessed almost 100,000 articles).

As for the perceived flaws in the GA system - I agree that these are often true, but most of the GA reviews in recent months I've seen have been excellent. Once a "tradition" of such excellent reviews has been established, the negative perception will be held by fewer people, mainly those with hurt pride. As I see it, we are getting to a position where we have subject experts analysing the content and GA experts ensuring good formatting, referencing etc. and we really need both if we are going to overcome our pride and attain the ideal of the "perfect encyclopaedia". Walkerma 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that GA is getting better all the time and negative perceptions will fade with time. The work on sweeps is very impressive and will do a lot to clarify the GA standard as one which is consistent but not unreasonably high. In reply to Peter Cohen, the Mathematics WikiProject has approximately 3000 assessed articles and was aiming for twice that (out of about 15000 articles related to mathematics). Those involved in sweeps know only too well that reviewing 3000 articles is a substantial task! So the finer graining that B+ provides is potentially very useful for identifying at a glance the articles which are close to GA. This information feeds into the commented tables and categories where articles can be found organized by subject, importance and quality. Geometry guy 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got to admit, the distance between Start and GA-class is pretty broad. There are so many B-class articles out there... Wrad 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A solution to the math/technical articles problem with reviewers demanding more citation than necessary for such articles is simple. Point out the Scientific citation guideline to them and if there are further problems, drop a line on my (or another established member of WP:GA) talk page to deal with it. LaraLove 17:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse transparency

If wikipedia is going to have article rankings (how those are arrived at is an entirely different question), those should be easily available and transparent to the public. A reader should not have to click to the talk page to find those rankings. All rankings, from stub to FA, should be easily recognizable by a reader (currently, only stub and FA are).

If the consensus is that GAC, FAC, etc. are too contentious and are ultimately meaningless, then all ratings should be erased from articles until some sort of agreed-upon rankings system can be put in place. Awadewit | talk 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an extremely good point. LaraLove♥ 11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel something of the kind, too. I would also like to see some kind of "this article has been checked for facts and sources at a certain point in time, go here to see the reviewed version". --SidiLemine 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The ArticleHistory template does have fields that will link to oldid's of pages when a certain event happens, and there do seem to be some ways to finding those oldid's automatically when events happen some time in the past... Homestarmy 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are definitely on to something. If Wikipedia is so concerned about being a serious source for reliable information (ie WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CITE, etc), then why not point out right away an article's quality? That way it makes it obvious to even the casual reader (most of whome won't go onto the article's Talk page) how close the article really is to meeting Wikipedia's self-imposed standards. Transparency, as you so elequantly point out, is key. And if people don't feel comfortable with the current rating system then let's figure something else out (though for the record I think the current system works great, and is being improved every day). Drewcifer 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The introduction of Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions will have a big effect on this, if handled right we can introduce transparency - at least for the "[Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions|Quality Versions]]" part. Any system for transparency should be integrated with the new flagging feature. The French Wikipedia conference next month will be debating these issues of validation, please come if you speak French and you can make it. Walkerma 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that ratings are an important part of not only determining quality, but improving it. It gives editors a goal to shoot for. Now, if we made the ratings more public, that would only improve the rating system, as wikipedia would need to base it on more solid requirements. Transparency seems to be the rule elsewhere on wikipedia. Why not here? We can start by putting green pluses on the upper right of all GAs... If they aren't really GAs, that would make it easier for someone to spot it and delist. Wrad 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think once we've worked through the GA Sweeps a bit we should really have a good discussion about adding the GA-Plus Icon to articles. Personally, I like the idea. Though it still seems to be be an issue some people object to. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we do it as we do the GA sweep? If it passes the sweep, surely the symbol should be put up. Wrad 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment: for readers or editors?

There has been much discussion above about the idea of putting a GA icon (the green dot/plus, or some other symbol) on mainspace pages of good articles. I have read the arguments, but not contributed, because for me there is a more fundamental question: are article assessment processes such as WP:GA primarily information for the readership to judge article reliability, or are they primarily mechanisms for the Wikipedia community to improve article quality?

It should come as no surprise from the way I phrased the question that I believe article assessment is primarily for editors, and that I think it would be a big mistake to ape FA and put a green dot (or some other symbol) on article pages. In doing so, I seem to be in disagreement with the aspirations of many of my friends here, so I need to explain my case carefully.

Before I do so, let me get one issue discussed above out of the way: transparency. Wikipedia is pretty transparent: apart from the machinations of the cabal, anyone can check how we operate. The talk page is accessible to any reader, the talk page templates provide links to information about how we assess article quality.

If we want article assessment to provide more quality assurance than this for the reader, then we are actually asking for certification. In my view, this is impossible without stable versions of articles, because anyone can edit an article, and after the GA review (etc.) has passed by, the quality can (and often does) deteriorate. But also the reader often judges an article by different criteria than we do: they are looking for the most accurate information they can find; instead, we want the most accurate information that can be verified from reliable sources, with no original research. (This came up a couple of days ago, when Georg Cantor appeared on the main page and one reader responded thus. S/he may be right, and Cantor hid his Jewish background to get a job, but we don't have any reliable sources to back up such an argument. Nevertheless, the reader regards this as another example of the unreliability of WP.)

In my view, article assessment is primarily about providing mechanisms to help improve articles, by setting standards, providing incentives and reviews, and providing information to help editors find articles that need improvement. I think GA is an excellent example of this ethos. If we confuse this with quality assurance for the reader, the process will suffer.

One could argue that FA suffers from this confusion, and I believe it does. The justification for the FA star on the article page is pretty marginal: I accept it because it is marketing; FAs represent our best articles, the goal that most of our articles aspire to, and are the ones that can (and usually do) appear on the main page.

So let me get to the issue: why is the green dot a bad idea. Various reasons have been given:

• GA status is conferred by a single editor rather than community consensus;
• the standard is too low in various respects (e.g. citation);
• it is self-reference in mainspace;
• GA is already too much like FA;
• GA is not, or should not be like FA.

Each of these reasons has some point to it, but also, as discussed above, they are also flawed in various ways. I guess I agree with some of them, but which ones I agree with varies from day to day.

However, for me, the main argument against the green dot on article pages is the way it distorts the process by the response it creates.

1. I have seen many reviewers here complain (with justification) that regular editors of articles are often more interested in getting the green dot than improving the article. They argue over the criteria instead of fixing the problem. This will get worse if the dot becomes a status symbol on the article as well.
2. The discussion of the green dot has generated all sorts of incentives above to improve the GA process. These ideas may indeed improve the process, but the motivation is wrong: the underlying current is to fix the above alleged "problems" with GA so that it becomes "acceptable" to put the green dot on the article, just like the FA star.

This is wrong! GA is about improving articles, not green dots. It is a fantastic process because it is unbureaucratic and lightweight.

• A single editor can review and list an article!

Fantastic. Okay, sometimes an editor gets it wrong, but here is the good news:

• A single editor can delist an article!

This to and fro actually generates consensus between different reviewers and the regular article editors, but when it leads to disagreement, there is even better news:

• We have an excellent process at WP:GAR for resolving the issue.

There are improvements to be made, sure, and I think the sweeps idea is excellent, especially if an automated page can be used to make it a continuous process rather than a huge periodical effort. Because anyone can list or delist, this kind of informal checking by expert reviewers is free of bureaucracy. In contrast, if we wanted to use sweeps as a process for making GA appear reliable enough to merit a green dot in mainspace then we would face the issue of how to select, in a transparent way, the experts who can certify articles - a bureaucratic nightmare.

The pressure that a mainspace green dot puts on GA is already clear on this talk page. It will only get worse if such a green dot is implemented, and Wikipedia will lose many of the benefits of a valuable process. One of the reasons GA is (or has the potential to be) a better process than FA, for mass improvement of article quality, is because there isn't a shiny star on the main page of a good article. Geometry guy 20:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! I think you stated your contention about as well as anyone could, and you have definitely convinced at least one party that your reasoning is valid. John Carter 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The great secret of what you disagree with me on is finally revealed! I would like to reply to some of the points. First, we are no longer friends! ;) No, but seriously. The green dot proposal is one of the newer proposals. Sweeps started before that, along with many other changes, so you have the time line wrong and are confusing the ultimate goal. The goal is not to improve the project so we can have a green dot. It's to improve the project to the point that we warrant the use of the green dot. Perhaps that reads the same, but it's entirely different. The ultimate goal is to improve the project to the point that it becomes obvious to the community that GA represents quality. There is little chance (and by little I mean no) of getting the dot if we don't achieve that goal. However, getting that dot would be a milestone. The point where the community officially recognizes that GA is not what it was a year and a half ago. That it is something to be respected, something to aspire to.

And as far as editors getting all excited about the green dot on the article page as a self-reference, that doesn't make sense to me. That's not to say you're wrong, but I don't get how it's a self-reference. I have my GA and FA stats on my user page, so anyone who visits the page sees it. They know that's what I've contributed to. If we used the green dots on the article pages, a user could go to Fall Out Boy, for example, see that it's a GA, but they'd have no idea that I worked to take it there. Just the same, if they went to Parapsychology, they'd have no idea that I or any of the other many editors that contributed helped take it to FA.

Last, for my reasons of wanting the star, it's more for the project and the readers. If we could use them now (which I've accepted we can't), it would be a fantastic indicator of what articles have passed sweeps. But, past that, I want readers to instantly know, as they do with FAs, that they are reading a Good article. This would also be good for instances when more experienced editors are reading GAs; if they know that it's listed as a GA, but find upon reading it that it fails the criteria, they may be inclined to improve or delist it. However, without the green dot, if they didn't visit the talk page, they wouldn't know it was a GA and no action would be taken. I think the many advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I also think that within a few months, any arguments against it could also be applied to FA's star. LaraLove 05:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Another random comment: my original purpose in designing this javascript was to allow editors to easily see, exactly as you suggest, if an article's assessment is reasonable. Anyone who thinks that visibility of assessments is important for editors and for the internal workings of wikipedia, but is not appropriate for public display, may want to try it. It adds assessment "metadata" to the article page. –Outriggr § 05:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Two random comments:

• 1) For Geometry guy: Don't make too much of the screed left at the Gregor Cantor talk page. If the information doesn't exist in reliable sources, what's the problem? The internet is full of people with agendas to push, and just because some nutjob leaves a long rant on the reliability of wikipedia because it doesn't include his/her favorite cause celebre prominantly enough doesn't mean a damn thing.
• 2) I agree with Geometry guy 100% on this one. The only assessment that belongs on the article space is the FA star. We should only commend our best possible articles. While no article on Wikipedia is ever "finished"; FA articles are "publication quality"; they are ones that one would expect to find in a well-respected print encyclopedia. GA articles aren't there yet, and shouldn't bear any special badge until they get there. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, like Awadewit, I think that not only a green dot, but a symbol on every article stating its rating is needed on wikipedia because of transparency. A reader has a right to know how good the article she's reading is. All this stuff about motivation seems a bit silly to me. FAs have only gotten more and more professional after the star, not less. Why would GAs be any different? Editors still have to go through the process to get the plus, just as with FA. They don't like the criteria, then too bad, they don't get the plus. On the other hand, it has potential to motivate editors to improve articles, as their rating (whatever it is) is suddenly so prominent on the page. I really don't care what the motivation to improve is on wikipedia, I just care that the work gets done, and I think transparency will help that. I'm positive it will. Wrad 05:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I need to clarify a few points. First, some minor ones: by self-reference, I mean references to Wikipedia in the mainspace: the FA star is a self-reference, and so are many article page templates. The objection is that these should be discouraged, but this is not my objection, and doesn't play a significant role in my argument. Second, I agree with Jayron that the Cantor thing is not a big deal: I just gave it as an illustration of the different ways that readers view quality because they are not familiar with Wikipedia policy. I agree that most arguments against a green dot can be made about the FA star, but that is not my point either. Whether you regard the FA process as "professional" or "more concerned with minor semantics, wikifying text, and copyediting, than actual content" is a matter of opinion. It is what it is, and the FA star is part of that, for better or worse.

Now the main issues. I know that the sweeps idea precedes the green dot discussions. I hope I have been clear (in many places) that I think the sweeps are an excellent way to improve GA consistency, and that I think improving GA consistency is a worthy goal. Indeed, Lara's goal "to improve the project to the point that it becomes obvious to the community that GA represents quality" is also one which I consider extremely worthwhile.

However, for me this goal is not the same as "to improve the project to the point that we warrant the use of the green dot". I hope it is clear why: the goal of the green dot distorts the process of project improvement. The green dot puts pressure on the project to make "improvements" which it would not otherwise make, many of which may not actually be improvements. Let me be clear: my objection to the green dot is not (primarily) the five bullet points that I listed, but the fact that attempting to address some of these issues will damage the GA process. I think that the sweeps themselves are an excellent improvement, but would argue against adapting them into a certification process for the green dot. I would also argue against two-editor reviews. Ensuring that GAs represent quality is quite different from demonstrating visibly that the GA process ensures quality. The former can be achieved organically by the current system, because an article can go through multiple reviews; the latter requires more bureaucracy.

A green dot on article pages will put pressure on GA to be more like FA, to "improve" the criteria and make GA a more professional standard. I don't think that's a good thing. GA needs to be a benchmark of consistent quality, sure, but a standard within reach for most editors and articles, not unreasonably high. That's why the criteria focus on the most important quality issues, and the process is lightweight. It would be sad to lose that.

As for transparency, I am not against it, but I think article certification for readers is completely different from article assessment for editors, which is more about improving quality than assuring it. A green dot confuses these roles. Geometry guy 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, needless to say, I completely disagree. I don't see how a green dot will encourage change in criteria. FA has the star, we'd have the button, that doesn't mean we have to further evolve into what FA is. I think it would be completely stupid to attempt to be more like FA. There are already editors who think this project should be deleted. Being like FA would be a good reason. No point in two of the same project.

That aside, I also disagree with your comments on two reviewers. Perhaps I'm reading that incorrectly, but it appears that you're saying it would be two reviewers for show and that it is unnecessary because we currently have it within the project for articles to be reviewed by multiple reviewers by sending the article through GA/R. Two reviewers most certainly would not be for show. I didn't propose that idea to shut people up. The point was to improve the quality of reviews. Having done the quality reviews of over 200 articles in the last backlog elimination drive, it became clear to me that some reviewers aren't picking up everything they should. Having two people do the reviews would undoubtedly improve that. It was also proposed as optional. A program that reviewers could participate in should they feel so inclined.

To address your last statement, I, well, disagree. It's use would be as an identifier for readers. For editors, it would ensure quality by encouraging improvement and maintenance. LaraLove 12:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again the FA people trying to discredit GA by preventing GA having a green dot on article mainspace. I'm going to use someone's example as I read before. Why is there silver and bronze medal in sports events? Because they can encourage those to get the gold medal! Now put it back into Wikipedia and you'll see GA is like a silver medal and FA is a gold medal. When an editor gets an article to GA, it more or less prompts this user to go a mile furthur to make it to FA. Without that, there're less incentives for people to make FA. I would also like to remind you that time has changed. GA has changed a lot since its proposal. We no longer hand out GAs because those articles will never make it to FA. Geometry guy, some of your concerns such as "no community consensus" is somewhat correct, that's why we're proposing to change that (see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#One reviewer or two?]] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you just made my point for me. You misread my argument. I am not an FA person. I am a supporter of GA, not FA. I am trying to explain why it is not in the interests of GA to ape FA by putting a green dot on the article page. I think the GA process is great, and I am not concerned about the fact that it does not apparently involve "community consensus". (In fact it does involve community consensus in the same way that editing an article does: anyone can list or delist, just as anyone can edit; consensus thus emerges, rather than being written into the rules.) I am concerned about the fact that proposals to change GA to meet such fake objections will damage everything that is good about GA. But I have made my case, and I will not make it again. Geometry guy 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I'll go on record again as being against the green dot at this time, simply because so many folks are against it, making it a huge distraction from far more important work. And for the record (one more time), I am pro-GA and have not yet spent much time in FA-related forums. Sorry I can't particpate much in this one either right now; maybe in a few weeks. later! -- Ling.Nut 23:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with OhanaUnited on this one. Check out the Manchester article, I recently passed this, and they've immediately begun working hard towards FA Status. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 06:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I too am starting to get annoyed at how increadibly long and involved a fight over a small green dot is getting. I almost hope that anyone thinking of MfDing GA actually tries to use "There's no stamp of recognition in the top-right corner, and therefore, the community doesn't respect GA" as an argument, it would be so ludicrous, there'd be no trouble at all in ripping it to pieces, and GA would be quite safe from such a sorry deletion attempt. I also think there's way too much reading into what a GA dot would mean to a reader or editor here, there's many ways someone could interpret the green dot, and I don't think many of those ways would hold ramifications as extreme as instantly causing the community to recognize GA as a brilliant system or cause a reader to instantly agree that an article is good. (Especially if they aren't familiar with what marks on the top right of a page mean, which I think is extremely likely) I'd sort of hope a reader would think an article to be Good after reading it and coming to that conclusion because of its high quality, not because there's a green circle in one corner. Homestarmy 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The concerns brought up above are pretty valid. That said, I do think we could resolve this issue by deploying a read-only version of User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js (that is, a script that can detect an article's rating, but not edit it) and deploy it on MediaWiki:Common.js or some other public place, if we want the ratings to be for readers as well as for editors. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If rating display is going to be public, there's not much efficiency in having a script making a behind-the-scenes http request to the talk page template info to get its information. It returns us to the issue of just putting the rating on the article page, I think! I had hoped that the people who care (regulars, reviewers) would just install something like my script so that they'd have the info they need, without affecting the "public" display of the page. What I didn't realize is that you don't often find in the same user one who cares about implementing article assessment systems and engages in article content development—the latter being very important, in my mind, to engender more appreciation for content creation among "reviewers". (A disconnect that is, incidentally, having significant ramifications on retaining good article writers, but if I go any further I'm rambling. :) Anyway, the older script I made is "read-only". I could bring it back to life/alter it, if we need read-only. –Outriggr § 08:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost feature?

It has been suggested that the Signpost include GA stats in the Features and admins section. VanTucky ^Talk 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Feature good articles daily

Just idea I had. Since a Featured article is placed on the main page daily maybe we could do something simaler for GA. Not quite sure where they would be featured because obviously they can't on the main since GA are not offical. Buc 12:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea in theory, but I'm not sure how to go about it. The main page looks pretty full as it is, so adding this there would mean that we'd probably have to take something away. Plus, we really don't want GA to simply be another FA. To me, it seems like FA is the place to go if you think your article is good enough to be featured on the main page, and want it there. GA is the place to go to get good, quality feedback on your article, and you think the article meets reasonably good standards that it can serve a useful, encyclopedic purpose.

For some articles, GA is a useful stepping stone on the road to FA. But that's not always the case. There's quite a few GAs out there that I highly doubt will ever be FA (most notably, Criticism of Wal-Mart). But an article doesn't really have to be featured to be actually useful to the reader,...

It would be nice if GA got a little more recognition on the main page, though. Maybe in the "Today's featured article" block, we could have a little link. Like, after the link to "more featured articles", it could have "Good articles" next to it? Or maybe have the total number of FAs listed, as well as the total number of GAs, similar to the way the total number of articles is displayed prominently on the page? Dr. Cash 19:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If this were to happen, WP:GA is the best we'd be able to do. We'll never get on the main page. I doubt we'll ever even get a link. If this is something that gains consensus, we'll need people to maintain it. We'd have to figure out a non-bureaucratic process for choosing which get featured. There would be a lot to it. I think we've got too much going on as it is. Considering the constant backlog at GAC, I think we should stick to the main issues for now. Keep that as a possibility for later. Lara❤Love 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how it would help wikipedia as a whole to do this, either. Wrad 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

One option would be to do what some other portals do and just have them on random rotation. That way there would be no "decision-making" involved. And I do think a box, maybe a bit smaller than the DYK box, could probably be added somehow. It might involved creating DYK-ish "hooks" for some of the articles, but it could I think fairly easily be done. John Carter 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a good question to ask is

What would we most want to achieve with a daily good article?

I would suggest that it is not attracting the attention of casual readers to good articles, but attracting the attention of Wikipedia editors to the good article system. GA, as a brand, does not have the greatest reputation right now, and it is desperately short of reviewers. Anyone here work in marketing? How could the GA product be marketed better within Wikipedia so that more editors were attracted to become reviewers? Where would be the best place to showcase a good article? Would it help to do something at WP:GAN to encourage more nominators to become reviewers? Geometry guy 20:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How about a green dot in the upper-right hand corner? (lol) Wrad 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't work in marketing, but the best way I can think of is to expose GA to a wider audience through a previously-established medium. The Features and Admins section of the Wikipedia Signpost seems like a good fit for a log of promotions and demotions of GA articles. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be an excellent idea, yes. It would also be very useful to several projects, which may not be able to continuously monitor the ups and downs of their articles. I think that might very easily stimulate more interest in good articles. John Carter 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that if GA's are shown off somewhere, that means somebody or somebodies will have to take the time to maintain all that so something silly doesn't happen. For instance, if just random articles were displayed, then articles sneaked onto the list yet are terrible would be displayed, or articles which should be speedy delisted anyway would be displayed. Then someone would probably need to consider the consequences of showing off articles that might have very objectionable content in them, or are self-referential, a job similar to one of Raul's roles as FA director. So this proposel would probably take a good bit of effort to make it work properly, and if a location can't be found where the effort invested is worth much, I think it would be a bit of a waste... Homestarmy 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the "random generator" should show us what will be up in future weeks so that we can review the articles a bit before they go up. Wrad 23:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to show a GA per day on main page. Chinese Wikipedia (and probably other languages too) is doing this. We don't need to update this every 6 hours (like DYK). It just needs to be updated daily. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Ladder

(self-nom) I propose a streamlining of the GA system. The area for good article nominations shall be broken up into seven main sections:

EDIT: I must of been on something today :/ ? Kmarinas86 03:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

===Unreviewed===

===Stage 1: Acceptable images===

===Stage 2: Broad in coverage===

===Stage 3: Verifiable===

===Stage 4: Neutral===

===Stage 5: Good writing and style===

===Stage 6: Stable===

All GA nominations are introduced into the backlog section. When the article merits movement onto the next stage, it should be moved to the next stage. Before the article is approved of GA status, it is unnecessary to categorize the article. Categorizing the articles before hand discourages people from reviewing articles they have little experience in. With this new system, one may only have to address issues topic familiarity in stages 2, 3, and 4. Any articles that are in 1 and 5 may be reviewed by those who know little about the subject. In this way, each reviewer can make his or her contribution to an article's assessment without being expected to review every aspect of that article. Because categorization would be done after the article has passed, the nominations within each section should be listed in alphabetical order. If a reviewer thinks that some article does not meet a certain criterion, the listing should be placed in a stage prior to that criterion. In this way, we can see how articles stand with respect to the GA criteria.Kmarinas86 21:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another benefit of this system is that it encourages people to send their work only when they are sure they can make it through all stages. I will now explain the reasoning behind the ordering of stages outlined above.

Image criteria < Broad Coverage

The image criteria is not dependent on the topic's coverage.

Image criteria < Verifiability

The image criteria is not dependent on the references and in-line citations, although image captions may use them.

Image criteria < Neutrality

If an image is non-neutral, the article would not have reached the stage of neutrality.

Image criteria < Writing and style

If an image caption or description is poor, the article would not have reached the stage of good writing and style.

Image criteria < Stability

Adherence to image criteria is not dependent on the article's stability.

Broad Coverage < Verifiability

Many articles are broad in coverage but have sections which are missing inline citations.

Broad Coverage < Neutrality

If the article ignores significant subtopics, such as reception or criticism, then the article probably violates NPOV.

Broad Coverage < Writing and style

Without broad coverage of the topic, it becomes less certain that efforts to improve the writing will be fruitful. Writing and style is improved if the subject is described with more depth.

Broad Coverage < Stability

If the article is incomplete, it will likely lose stability as the gap is being filled.

Verifiability < Neutrality

Without verification from reliable sources, non-neutral assertions are more likely to appear. Verification by reliable sources increases the chances of neutrality.

Verifiability < Writing and style

Verifiability is part of the Manual of Style (WP:MOS).

Verifiability < Stability

An article that is already cited properly will have greater chances of being stable during assessment.

Neutrality < Writing and style

The article's neutrality has a profound effect on the articles prose. Articles that violate NPOV are likely to have many style issues in writing.

Neutrality < Stability

If the article is non-neutral in tone, it is likely to be unstable as a result of attempts to make the article more neutral.

Writing and style < Stability

If the article's writing and style is being copyedited, for better or worse, then the stability of the article is at risk.

All the best, Kmarinas86 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't a streamlining, it's a vast slowing down of the system. Having to be checked for each criteria one at a time is an absurd idea, and backlogs are for the oldest unreviewed articles, not the newest. The way to get the system streamlined is for there to be more active reviewers. VanTucky ^Talk 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Multiple criteria can be checked at once, depending on the reviewer. All the Good Article criteria have to be checked for. This system reduces the chances that criteria are skipped by reviewers that lack skill. Those who are not expert reviewers may reduce their roles to stages where they are best at. Some people are not advanced at checking for prose, while others are great at it. I have stopped giving reviews because of my weakness in developing good prose. I have had to go through the GA process five times or more just to get one article passed. With this system I proposed, I can reduce the number of attempts in the future, since I will be better guided.Kmarinas86 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• The present problem is not low-quality reviews or a high rate of reassessments. It is a large backlog. Not even FA nominations go through criteria in this fashion, and GA is intentionally much more informal a process. If a reviewer is not confident on a certain issue, there is currently a very easy process by which they can request help from other reviewers. I think the fact that it is seldom used is a good indicator of the general confidence of reviewers. Slowing down the review process for quality control is the last thing we want to do right now. VanTucky ^Talk 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with VanTucky. This would not streamline the process anyway, it makes it more confusing, filled with instruction creep, and less likely to be used by anyone. If I came here and saw this kind of system I would immediately determine that the process isn't worth my time and effort. IvoShandor 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with both of you. I look at the current system and decided it wasn't worth my time and effort in reviewing. I don't expect myself to check for all GA criteria, especially the writing and manual of style bits. But if such a system were there I would certainly return. Instruction creep is problem whether this idea is accepted or not. It will not get worse after a plan like this is implemented. In fact, categorizing the article in the nominations page appears to be the result of instruction creep. Why categorize the article according to Wikipedia:Good Articles if it is not going to pass GA? There are too many sections in the nominations page and it complicates the whole process. Please reduce the number of sections ASAP.Kmarinas86 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• The process of finding a reviewer is very difficult. It takes months just for a reviewer to come, and even then he or she may not check for all of the criteria and decide to pass it. There is no reason for reviewers to waste time in contacting other reviewers. If it passes already to stage four, then someone who only cares about the last three stages can help. Someone might be out of town, claiming that his review will come within one week, but then he forgets about it, and then suddenly other reviewers take responsibily, but then after feedback comes too late, and then it will have to be resubmitted again without a prior on hold period.Kmarinas86

• Finding reviewers doesn't hardly ever take months. Even at the worst stages of the current backlog, a single month was the absolute maximum. Honestly, you're completely exagerrating the problems with GA. Wikipedia, being a completely volunteer process, will always have the problems you're speaking of with the "out of town" commentary. Generally other members of the project are very good about picking up on reviews that have been dropped. Again, quality is not the problem right now, it's volume and speed. VanTucky ^Talk 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not a reviewer! The problem here is that, you wouldn't have any articles to review if this were implemented. I for one, and I suspect others, am not willing to jump through these kind of hoops so an article I have worked on can be declared good by someone who probably knows nothing about the topic. IvoShandor 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely. During one of the first backlog elimination drives, I participated in reviewing several articles. But did not want to declare all of them good myself, since I considered myself inexperienced. However, I was sure I could look for the articles' standings on image criteria, broad coverage, verifiability, and neutrality. But I did not consider myself to be proficient in prose or in MOS.Kmarinas86 22:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• "Finding reviewers doesn't hardly ever take months. Even at the worst stages of the current backlog, a single month was the absolute maximum." Not even true. What about Polish October, 2007 Little League World Series, The Fabulous Kangaroos, 2005 USC Trojans football team, Green Wing Special, and Jack F. Matlock, Jr.?Kmarinas86 22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Um, not sure if you're familiar with the stats of GA, but a few articles out of the hundreds that pass through here is still hardly ever. Anyway, that's really a side debate. Creating more bureaucracy is not desirable. With your addition, GA review would proceed at a snail's pace, and we simply cannot afford to let that happen right now. VanTucky ^Talk 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I still disagree. It matters that the criteria are properly checked for before they become good articles. Too many articles have been delisted after passing its nomination. While the proposal may seem to be slow, in the long run, it means that the good articles are more likely to remain as good articles. Think about the steps:

1. A nominator places their nomination in the Unreviewed section.
2. Five minutes later, a newbie observes the correct image use, so it goes to the section label Acceptable images.
3. The next day, someone checks the broadness of ten articles within Acceptable images, the ten articles now move to Broad coverage section.
4. The following day, an expert on a topic checks for the verifiability and neutrality of articles in the Broad coverage section. Some of the articles make it on to the Verifiable section while others make it to the Neutral section.
5. In one day, someone proficient in English reviews the prose of all the articles in the Neutral section, and puts half of them in the Good writing and style section. And now that they are already stable, these articles can pass.

Kmarinas86 23:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• You prove my very point. This recreation of the review process would require a long time, rather than help end our backlog. Quality control is perfectly reasonable as is, and necessitating more time is just not going to happen. VanTucky ^Talk 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is more efficient if people check for a single criteria in many articles at once than to check for all criteria in a single article. That's why I have the impervious conviction that my way is faster.Kmarinas86 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• Right. A system which is ideally described as taking more than a week to pass a good article is not fast. It's exceedingly slow. It may take some for reviews to occur presently, but once a review happens it is way faster than that mess. Besides, making a review start with images and such precludes the necessary quick-fail function that so speeds up our process. VanTucky ^Talk 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I was giving a conservative estimate of one week. But as you know, reviewers come and go during the day, and it often takes longer than a week to make the first response. The way this is set up right now with categories causes potential reviewers to help only if the subject catches their eye. But with the proposed system, it is possible for one to check 30 articles for adherence to image standards and broadness of coverage in 1 hour—without their lack of interest in the subject getting in the way. That completes stage one and two, and there are only 6 stages, the last one being really short!Kmarinas86 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• The quick-fail procedure stays.Kmarinas86 23:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I feel the need to mention my thoughts. I just started reviewing GA noms a few weeks ago. I have done about 6-7 so far and have only passed one of them (after I put it on hold). The one I passed was in an area I have no expertise or much interest in (fictional television characters). I reviewed the nomination because it was in the top 5 that needed to be reviewed and (to be quite honest) I wanted my article's nomination to proceed more quickly. But what I realized is that it's quite easy to review articles so long as you take a critical eye to the criteria. After a few of my own reviews I started looking at other people's reviews and noticed one that passed that shouldn't have. I nominated it for reassessment and within a week it was delisted. I think everyone here is bringing up a few points that need to be addressed:

1. We need more people to review GA nominations
2. There are a high number of articles needing to be reassessed
3. We want to make sure inexperienced reviewers can succeed at reviewing GA nominations

So, I think - rather than Kmarinas86's restructuring - we should change a few small things. To address the first issue, we need to both make the process easy and give it dignity. Many of the people over at FA think our purpose is useless (and they want to recruit us to review FA nominations). So I think we should make a quick list of things newcomers can do to help. They could look at a few recent reviews and I think that would help. Also, I think we should require all users that submit a GA nom to review at least one article before theirs is considered. I'm not sure if this is plausible, but maybe we can have a few notes at the top like "Most GA nominations fail" (if that's true, which I believe it is) and "Want to have your nomination reviewed quicker? Then review other articles and yours will be moved up". But we want to make sure that those that nominate don't give horrible reviews.

In addressing the second point, one thing we can do is make a fast-track for articles that clearly shouldn't have passed GA. The article I nominated for reassessment was unanimously agreed upon within hours, but we had to wait 7 days before it was officially delisted. Also, I think the list for newcomers might help - checking recent reviews gives them a good idea of how to proceed. The problem is that people don't want to read all the policies that they should know in order to review a GA nom. So maybe we could give a sample nomination that is good. This would also help addressing the third point. We don't need to require all newcomers to review these samples or look at recent reviews, but I know that if I wanted my article to be reviewed faster I'd look at a sample and start reviewing. Just some thoughts. -- Noetic Sage 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"The problem is that people don't want to read all the policies that they should know in order to review a GA nom." That's why new reviewers should be given a method by which they can do a partial review of the article which will be recognized by other reviewers, so that expert reviewers do not have to always have the look for image acceptability or coverage of the topic. In this way, they can check for verifiability, neutrality, and prose, which I'm sure may be more interesting task for some of them.Kmarinas86 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not sure if this is plausible, but maybe we can have a few notes at the top like "Most GA nominations fail" (if that's true, which I believe it is) and "Want to have your nomination reviewed quicker? Then review other articles and yours will be moved up". But we want to make sure that those that nominate don't give horrible reviews." The problem is that this is instruction creep. The nominator would be suggested to review other articles. But he or she may not want to do that. Also, it make be a sort of false promise if in fact the review process does not happen quicker for that person. It sort of the "pick me" bias that doesn't really speed up the reviewing.Kmarinas86 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This idea is about as bad as a "jump to conclusions mat"! Seriously, it won't help speed up the process, and make things far more confusing than they have to be. Plus, it would eliminate one of the best features of WP:GAN, IMHO -- the listing of GA nominees by category. I wish FAC & PR would go with this setup, because it makes things a lot easier if I can jump right to a category that I'm familiar with and see what articles need to be reviewed there, without having to pick them out of a list of 50+ nominees. If this ladder thingy was implemented, it would either eliminate the category view altogether, or make it much more difficult to view both the ladder and the category listings of articles. So, I have to strongly oppose this idea.

On another note, it's worth pointing out that apparently FAC is also having some problems with a general lack of reviewers, and I needn't say that PR has been having these issues for quite awhile. So I think the best solution is to focus on just trying to keep the backlog as low as possible, and try to recruit more reviewers. Step 1 should be continuing on with the WGA sweeps, and step 2 should be holding another backlog elimination drive, hopefully within the next 2-3 months. Drastically altering the entire way GA nominations are handled is not going to help this in any way.

Also, if a reviewer isn't quite comfortable with evaluating ALL of the GA criteria, there's a second opinion option now which can be utilized to seek the opinion of a more experienced reviewer. Just don't forget to tag the article & its listing at WP:GAN with the second opinion tags, so that other reviewers know that you've partially reviewed the article. And it would help if you'd also make as many comments on the article yourself as you can, so that the other reviewer can double-check your evaluation of some criteria, and review the rest more easily. Dr. Cash 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Experienced reviewers exist, but they too sometimes feel that they cannot review the article. If they do not know the subject matter very well, why should they be forced to check for factual accuracy? If different parts of the reviewing process were undertaken by different people, and the progress simply marked by what criteria they have proven themselves in, then a lot or virtually all of inexperienced reviewers could jump on the boat and participate. This is not hard at all.Kmarinas86 00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

1. A nominator places their nomination in the Unreviewed section.
2. Five minutes later, a newbie observes the correct image use, so it goes to the section label Acceptable images.
3. The next day, someone checks the broadness of ten articles within Acceptable images, the ten articles now move to Broad coverage section.
4. The following day, an expert on a topic checks for the verifiability and neutrality of articles in the Broad coverage section. Some of the articles make it on to the Verifiable section while others make it to the Neutral section.
5. In one day, someone proficient in English reviews the prose of all the articles in the Neutral section, and puts half of them in the Good writing and style section. And now that they are already stable, these articles can pass.

Kmarinas86 23:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like this would be better handled by some kind of checkbox system rather than moving the articles from section to section. Wrad 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea! It should be a standard template on article talk pages (if that were possible). If the progress has to be done in order, a radio button might do.Kmarinas86 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, the checkbox system would be cluttered, especially if you put it on the good article nominations page. I would prefer that articles which have attained same level of progress would be in the same category. While I appreciate the categories found on Wikipedia:Good articles, I find them to be annoying on the nominations page. There are so many categories and distinctions that I am forced to discriminate against those articles which don't appeal to me, even though I could help with part of the reviewing process, which is impossible under the current system. I can't imagine why those who are an expert in a topic even need the categories displayed on the talk page. Just as there is LONG tag, one could easily put a custom tag such as Biology or Pets next to their entry. So that way, the cluttertastic categories (and TOC) on the nominations page would be rendered obsolete.Kmarinas86 00:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem, only a backlog, and this will only slow down reviews. The reason for the backlog is that we are getting more nominations than usual which isn't a bad thing as it means that more articles are becoming "good". T Rex | talk 00:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem that I see with having a whole host of different reviewers is that it makes the problems themselves difficult to address. When I do a review, I cover all the areas and the nominator is welcome to contact me at any point to ask me for more help or clarify issues that I have raised, whether or I have put the article on hold or have failed it outright. With multiple reviewers, I can see disagreements arising, where a topic expert disagrees that the subject is covered broadly, there is now a contradiction in reviews – the nominator can't go back and ask the broadness reviewer what to do about the lack of broadness because the past reviewer has already thought that the topic was broad enough. The current reviewer may be able to help, but now the nominator has met with conflicting reviews.

I also disagree with the notion that most GA Nominations should be failed. Out of the 11 articles I have reviewed fully (not counting quickfails), only four of the eleven were failed outright, always because they were missing something clearly too substantial to be solved in seven days (stability, citations and two for broadness of coverage). The other seven were put on hold, four of which have passed as of this writing. Of those four, mayyyybe the first one I did when I wasn't experienced might be a sketchy pass, but I would defend my other three passes and three holds firmly. I'm more worried that good articles are being failed instead of held, to be honest, because the reviewer assumes that the person can't make the necessary changes within seven days. I've nominated three articles for GA thusfar, none of which deserved to pass right off the bat, but also none of which I felt deserved to be denied a hold, at least given my understanding of the criteria. Hard to tell, since only one has been reviewed thusfar (and passed after a quick hold), but as a submitter of an article, I expect that whoever reviews my article will give me useful insights, see the work that I have done so far, and give me the opportunity to improve based on suggestions. Out of the four that I have failed, one is already back as a GA nominee based on my suggestions, which speaks to the average author's commitment in getting their article promoted and thus their willingness to accomplish the addressing of comments by a GA reviewer in a timely manner.

If we want to clear up backlog, I actually do like the idea of having someone scan through the list and do quickfails once per week, but I ask why someone can't just do this of their own free will? I'd do it, but I'm hesitant in quick failing for various reasons that I won't get into. Also, other things can be done, like at least two nominees have notes asking that the article not be reviewed for several weeks. Shouldn't we just consider these nominations withdrawn? (Especially since, for at least one, it was added by someone who is blanket nominating all "high profile" articles that they can find, some of which have already passed the A Class review). Cheers, CP 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If an article has a note on it asking that it not be reviewed for a few weeks, it should be removed from the list and then renominated once the editors feel that it is ready for nomination. Dr. Cash 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. I've removed one for that reason, as have you I see. Cheers, CP 04:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that instead of arguing about all of this we could all be reviewing articles. I still think telling new reviewers to check some recent reviews (which we could have a bot compile and link to) before they review would be helpful. But regardless, I think we should each commit some of our own time to eliminating the backlog. It's clear nobody but the original proposer of this category system wants to use it, so let's move on and get some of these articles reviewed! -- Noetic Sage 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree. But for new reviewers like myself (I've only done three) it'd be a great help to be able to see what the community regards as good reviews, not recent reviews. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Amen Noetic. Kmarinas, you've obviously got some great intentions for GA, so if you want someone who can help you with reviewing articles of which you are unsure I'd be more than happy to assist. VanTucky ^Talk 22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no-no. First, creates a bigger backlog than it is now (as if the present backlog is not large enough). Second, even the stingy FA system doesn't use this. Third, too burecratic. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ideas for streamlining

Here's a simple idea: What if we had a weekly "Quick-fail" screening? One day a week where the focus is on weeding out all the obvious fails from the nomination pool? I think that would help a lot. It would give us a better idea of the work we have in front of us. Another idea: I have noticed that some subjects are covered by more reviewers than others. The literature section is rarely backlogged, for example. I have put several articles through it in a matter of days. Sports, Video games, and television sections are another story though. Maybe just a friendly invitation to related wikiproject would help. I enjoy having people interested in literature review my literature articles, and this would promote the same for these subjects. Wrad 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem then lies on who is doing the quick-fail screening and where to put the articles that pass it. Without guidance, a single article may survive the quick-fail process innumerable times.Kmarinas86 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Easy, keep the GAN page the same as it is. Fail the ones that don't pass, keep the ones that do. Anyone can review. Same as it's always been, just a more focused effort. Wrad 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with what to do about articles that pass this quick-fail screening. I think what Wrad is advocating is that someone or two (preferably the more experienced reviewers), go through the whole list at least once per week and quick-fail articles that obviously don't meet the criteria. Articles that pass this will just be kept on the page, awaiting the full review. Dr. Cash 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, he's got the idea right. Basically it would just reduce clutter. Wrad 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess having an article go under multiple quick-fail tests (one each week) would be useful in the case that the article suddenly went bad, but you would waste a lot of time if a good majority of articles were not quick fail. Also, if multiple people participate in this, you will have to mark which ones already passed quick fail. Otherwise, many times more work would be done than what is necessary. People would be encouraged to just stick to the full review, one article at a time.Kmarinas86 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to mark it, you would just have to look at the nomination date to be sure it was less than a week old. No multiple tests at all. Also, editors would confine themselves to certain categories to avoid overlap. Wrad 00:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's good.Kmarinas86 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty simple idea, but I for one would breathe a sigh of relief knowing that there weren't any real problematic articles in the list. Wrad 00:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

An idea

What about about inviting the nominator to evaluate the review, perhaps on a scale of 1-10, after the nomination is closed? --Malleus Fatuarum 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Where would we have such a rating system? Another big question is how long would archives be kept? VanTucky ^Talk 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are technical questions, easily solved I would have thought. The nominator's ranking could be added to to the article history template for instance. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be somewhat difficult to make mandatory, but I think a voluntary evaluation of the review by nominators would be a good way of providing feedback on the quality of reviews and reviewers. Good idea! Dr. Cash 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For what purpose? It's a subjective thing. Every nominator would have a different opinion on what constitutes what rating. Some nominators don't even know the criteria, which is made obvious by their nominations. Some may take failed reviews personally, so their rating would be biased. What would this accomplish? Lara❤Love 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lara on this one. It seems like it would either just be an ego boost or an excuse for trolls to try and boot reviewers with bad ratings. Either way, it would be meaningless, as most nominators don't know the criteria to begin with and often take reviews personally. VanTucky ^Talk 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, too, but I agree with the purpose - to give new reviewers an example of a good review so they know what to do. Maybe we could have the guy that awards the Good Article award of merit (or whatever it's called), who seems to already rate reviews, and take a few anonymous samples of what he thinks are great reviews. Then we can use that as a sample but it will not be attached to anyone's name. -- Noetic Sage 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It would give some feedback on the reviewing process, something that seems to be rather lacking. It's commonly done with training courses for instance, where delegates are given the opportunity to assess the experience, even though by definition they aren't qualified to make an assessment of the instructor's technical knowledge, for instance. But it isn't a stick to beat reviewers with, it's an opportunity for nominators to evaluate their experience of the process. What's to be afraid of? How can the process be improved if you don't know how well it's doing now? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment while the ratings would be subjective, so are the reviewer's readings of how the article stacks up to GA criteria. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

One reviewer's rating will be subjective, 1,000 ratings will likely even that out. But I'm puzzled by these objections based on the assumption of bad faith on the part of the nominators. Isn't that contrary to the wikipedia ethos? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

After spending some time reviewing articles it is not hard to see that some nominators don't care/don't know the criteria. WP:AGF only goes so far sometimes, but it is hardly the majority of nominators. T Rex | talk 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I've made a proposal to add to the quick-fail criteria at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing good articles#Addition to the quick-fail criteria.3F VanTucky ^Talk 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Kill Elvis (GA collaboration of the week)

The Good Article Collaboration of the week project is dead, dead, dead. Elvis Presley has been the "project of the week" for 2 months now. Everything regarding that project should be either archieved or deleted, unless anyone is planning to resucitate it. Yamanbaiia 15:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think with the large backlog at WP:GAN, most participants are more concerned with reviewing articles than improving existing articles. Plus, with the sweeps going on, that's taking some time as well. It's ironic though, that the collaboration program died with Elvis, who is still very much alive! I just saw him last week in the airport! ;-) Dr. Cash 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A nice irony. Does anyone have any ideas for bringing the Collaboration of the Week back to life? Geometry guy 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon has gotten some good outside help for their collaborations by making a post on the mailing lists about every new collaboration. VanTucky ^Talk 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's good, but the problem here runs deeper: very few people nominate or vote for the next collaboration. What can we do to change this? Geometry guy 23:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Collaboration should be tagged historical until such time as people are interested in it. When it first started, i'd do a few small things to the article, and Terrat would do a few small things, and there was basically nobody else doing anything on a consistant basis, so I stopped eventually. Homestarmy 23:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, based on experience with the math version of this, what I suggest is to rename it as "Good article collaboration of the month" and nominate a coordinator, who updates the collaboration each month and advertises it on user pages. Geometry guy 23:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of having to go through a voting process to decide the collaboration, why doesn't just someone informally pick an article, and then we work on it. Seems like a simpler way of doing things VanTucky ^Talk 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed there needs to be a better way to do this. Perhaps a collaboration renewal project to bring back the GAco? Tarret ^talk 01:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How about if the GA Collaboration was always a GAN Oh Hold (or perhaps a GAR)? The goal would be to improve the article so that it can be passed. Advantages: presumably there are already regular article editors who are willing to help; also it would probably be good for the image of GA if the process as a whole was seen trying to improve and pass articles in this way. Geometry guy 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That might have the potential to be effective. Homestarmy 00:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and perhaps we can have a group of people work together to select the next article and perhaps a collaboration taskforce? Tarret ^talk 01:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

GA symbol in article corner

I'm sure that this has been brought up before, but why do good articles not have a good article symbol in their corner like the FA star? This symbol would show readers immediately that the article is a good one and would help to promote this project. Just a random thought of the day. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this a bazillion times before, and consensus over time discouraged it. An FA represents Wikipedia's very best work, unlike GAs, and therefore FAs get the recognition while GAs don't. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:43, 24 October 2007 (GMT)

My mistake. I noticed the nice label saying "use of icon" in the archive corner just after I posted this. Sorry to bother you (though I do still disagree). Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So do I, but it seems like an argument that can't be won right now. Too many entrenched positions against allowing any sign that GA is an "official" wikipedia review process. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent formatting on project page is difficult for IE users

I checked. This [1], was not vandalism. I don't think this new formatting thing is a good idea. In Firefox, it views fine, and I see what you were trying to do. In Internet Explorer, it is all screwed up, and virtually impossible to read/manage/add yourself as a particiant, etc. We should allow it to be reverted back to the version per my above DIFF. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

I hadn't actually noticed this change before, but it does look great in Firefox. Which version of IE are you using? In IE7 it is readable, although there's a huge blank area before the scrolling section starts. EyeSerene^TALK 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, I am using IE 6. But the point being, Wikipedia should be accessible to all. Oh well, no biggie, I suppose I could always sign up with Firefox. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Obtaining Firefox isn't much trouble, but I agree that's not the point. Ironically enough, I've seen articles pulled up at GA for using scrolling, fixed-height reference sections for this very reason ;) EyeSerene^TALK 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I rolled back the formatting changes, and was virtually instantaneously reverted, so I am not going to push it. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

Much as I like to blame the incompetance of Microsoft for many things, we should make things portable if we can. If that means dropping the scrollable table, so be it. Also, we should make it easy for editors to add themselves to the list. Transcluding from a subpage is a good idea, but I would also suggest using a template to do the formatting, so that a new editor just has to enter the data into the template, and not worry about the divs and spans. Geometry guy 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me (using templates and blaming Micrsoft). We really don't want to be putting people off joining up. EyeSerene^TALK 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please message me on my talk if someone decides to do this. If not, I will most likely continue to keep up my own personal policy of reviewing two GA noms for every one of my own articles I put up for GAN, but anyways, thanks for listening. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC).

I'm the one the changed the formatting on the participant list. My primary reason for doing it was to put direct links for the user talk pages & contributions in the page itself, instead of just the link to the userpage itself. This would hopefully result in increased communications and collaborations, and make it easier for us to use a semi-automated script (like AWB) to launch something like a GA project newsletter, which could increase participation. I reverted VonSavage's revision because (a) it went back to an earlier version of the page without the extra links and (b) I fixed one of the table entries that was bad, thinking that was the problem. The list as it's written now seems to be a good compromise between both, so that's fine. Although, IMHO, people using any form of IE really need to get a better browser and get with the times,... ;-) Dr. Cash 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it in IE and it was bad, in case you didn't see it. Although, it looked awesome in FF. I changed the list to be the way it is for the task force pages. One thing I would like to comment on is the manual changing of user names. I appreciate the work you put into it, but it got a lot of the user names wrong. One was left out that I've now found and replaced. There are currently two that are wrong, but one of those is an extra name... meaning that there is currently one more participant than on the previous version. So I'll have to go through and figure out who's missing on the new list from the previous one.

As an aside, I noticed last month that a couple of projects sent out newsletters letting everyone currently listed know that they needed to re-add their name in order to update the list for current participation. This may be a good idea for as considering the list is fairly long and some of the users have retired or otherwise ended their participation in the GA project. Lara❤Love 04:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the "project participants" whose names and talk pages are redlinked (i.e. they've never even been welcomed, much less contributed here). Some of them don't have any contribs at all. Shouldn't they just be removed from the list? VanTucky ^Talk 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, those are the two that were incorrectly manually changed. I didn't delete them because I was hoping Dr.Cash might remember who they were. But the names aren't close to any existing names not already appearing in the current list, so I have no idea. I'll go ahead and delete them and in a few hours (after some sleep), I'll go down the two lists and figure out who is missing. Lara❤Love 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I went back and checked the older list and re-added a few people that were missing. The two lists should be in synch now. Dr. Cash 07:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just about to do that. :) Lara❤Love 15:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject GA Newsletter?

With the participants list in better shape now, it should be relatively trivial to be able to compile a short newsletter, which could be distributed via talk pages using a semi-automated program like AWB. Is there interest among participants in something like this? Perhaps sending something on a monthly basis would be good to keep reviewers interested in the project and help reduce the backlog? If people are interested in such a newsletter, what would you like to see in it? Dr. Cash 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, assuming people can be found to contribute as it might be rather unfair to expect one or two editors to take on the extra work. As for ideas:

• A selection of recently-listed GAs (maybe one or two per cat)
• Reviewing masterclass (maybe pick an aspect of one of the criteria and explain in detail how it can be applied to an article, or tips from reviewers on issues they've found they need to watch out for)
• Reviewer of the month, maybe chosen from the top four/week as posted on the GAN talk page
• Announcements for collaborations, drives etc
• Maybe a 'Most backlogged category' or something to help focus reviewer attention?

...just my 2p worth ;) EyeSerene^TALK 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. O₂ (息 • 吹) 23:38, 25 October 2007 (GMT)

That's a good idea. I'd be willing to help with that. Lara❤Love 17:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I've got another couple. Firstly, looks like there are nearly 3000 GA articles (currently 2996)? Obviously there will be some delisted, but give or take we may crack 3000 sometime over the next week. Has there ever been over 3000? We should consider doing something to celebrate this, maybe dropping a line to Wikipedia Signpost, and seeing if they will profile the project? Any ideas, thoughts? - Shudde ^talk 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea about getting in touch with the Signpost. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the Signpost going to start covering the GA project in its 'Features and Admins' section anyway? Maybe it's a good time to gently nudge them on this, seeing as how will break 3000 pretty soon,... Dr. Cash 22:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's at 3,004 right now. We've been hovering around 3,000 for a while. Between GAN and sweeps, it's teeter tottering, I think. Quite a few articles are being delisted through sweeps, many of those promoted before the criteria. So it will probably hover for a while longer around this. Still, it seems like a good place to start off with a featured spot on the signpost, and the kickoff of our own newsletter. Lara❤Love 04:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the edit history, it looks like the 3,000th article is New York State Route 9A, promoted to GA status by NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} at 23:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC). Dr. Cash 06:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the GA count will drop below 3000 now. It hasn't really been hovering aroung this figure. In fact, despite GA sweeps, the GA count has been steadily increasing. It hovered around 2950 for a short while, but not for long. GA sweeps made a big impact on the September statistics: the GA count still increased, but only by 64 articles. This month we are heading for a solid increase of around 120-130 GAs. The most challenging statistic, however, is the backlog, which has not dropped below 180 since early September and has been hovering around 200 since then. Geometry guy 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory errors

I am going to begin consolidating the GA articlehistory errors here in one thread, in the hope that the GA Project find a way to lessen the need to keep up daily with the {{articlehistory}} errors introduced by the GA process. The articlehistory template was originally designed to track the featured article process, and it works well for that process; since it has expanded to GA, though, daily maintenance is required to remove GA errors. I post the sample issues here as they occur in the hope the GA Project will initiate some process to remind GA reviewers to read the instructions at Template:ArticleHistory and to instruct GA reviewers on how to build articlehistory. It would help if GA reviewers would scroll to the bottom of the talk page after building an articlehistory to make sure the red error category isn't lit up. Nothing that I have done for months, including notifying individual editors and keeping a list at the ArticleHistory talk page has helped to lower the rate of GA articlehistory errors; I truly don't know what else to do. Maybe if you all would just go back to using the old GA templates, since there doesn't seem to be any means of consistently getting GA reviewers to understand how to build ArticleHistory?

• Incorrect topic, not in topic list SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Invalid link, format, no topic supplied btw SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Incorrect delisting, error due to incorrect status parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC) (Note that Wikipedia:Good article reassessment has no instructions at all about what to do with {{articlehistory}}, like change the current status to DGA when adding a template). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Should mention it's not only articlehistory, occurs equally on GA templates (which I find when prepping WP:FACs for GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Wrong result, wrong current status on GA fail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Incorrect delisting, wrong action, wrong status, no date, no removal of now defunct GA cats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It would help if GA reviewers were made aware that they were required, as an additional step in the process, to scroll to the bottom of the talk page after building an articlehistory, to check for errors. Perhaps not all GA reviewers are mind readers. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I added that to the GA instructions quite a few days ago; it might help if the GA folk would either train reviewers on how to build an articlehistory, or go back to using the old GA templates, and leave articlehistory to the featured process or to certain GA people who go through afterwards and convert the templates to article history. It just doesn't seem that a process that allows anyone to list or delist lends itself to the syntax needed for articlehistory. In the featured article process, only one person promotes, and three people can demote, so the process of building the {{articlehistory}} template doesn't fall to an ever-changing group of editors; it's an issue that needs to be somehow addressed, and I've tried to offer several ideas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are articlehistory templates continuously updated when new templates contain information that could be added into another entry? If so, then people passing or failing an article wouldn't have to use ArticleHistory, they could just wait for something to update the template with whatever information is in FailedGA, DelistedGA, or GANominee. However, the same can't be said for Good Article review events, since that doesn't have a template.... Homestarmy 16:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy, I'm not clear what you're asking; if you can rephrase, I might be able to answer. If you're asking what I think you're asking, it's the same thing I'm saying; that is, GA could go back to using the older templates on pass, delist, review, etc. (which require no learning curve) and bypass building articlehistory. Articlehistory could be left to those who know how to build them correctly. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what i'm asking. Did someone change the instructions to say otherwise? It's news to me. Homestarmy 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I can see User:SandyGeorgia getting more and more red in the face here. :) If you look at the template you'll see that GA Nomination isn't a part of the article's history, the template is for completed events. I do take issue with SandyGeorgia's general tone though, implying that only a very few of the annointed priesthood have the ability to update the article history correctly. The problem is that the relevant instructions to GA reviwers are hidden away in a footnote. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I certainly have no idea what you're saying here, Malleus Fatuarum, particularly about the "annointed priesthood". There are a good number of GA editors who know how to build articlehistories (or who ask for help when they need it), but based on the daily errors that have to be corrected by others, there remains an issue that needs to be solved. Also, I disagree that the *only* problem is the footnoted instructions; another problem is the volume and complexity of the instructions on the WP:GAC page, as well as the fact that anyone can pass or review a GA without necessarily understanding or reading how to build articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The parameters are all there on the template page ;) Since I've started updating talk pages using AH as part of the GA sweep, there haven't been any problems. It's even useful in that it forces one to look again at the article history; I've found a few that had broken oldids in the GA template (due to page moves, errors etc). I do agree though that it's not ideal for GA. The main issue I've noticed is linking to the talk page GA review, which I'm guessing will break if and when the page gets archived. EyeSerene^TALK 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand SandyGeorgia's frustration, as this has been an ongoing problem for quite some time now. Our instructions, last I read, were for everyone to use the GA template. I'll double check and I'll change it back if it's been changed. I'll also post a note to the reviewers doing sweeps to make sure they're doing it right and checking the categories before they save, as I see two of the above errors were made by them. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Lara❤Love 17:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to get another bot like Gimmebot that runs regularly to update GA templates into AH templates? Lara❤Love 17:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Lara (see the latest, there always were and still are problems with the templates as well). As to another bot, I think GimmeBot covers everything needed. I'm not sure how he decides when to run GAs though. I pick up two things: those that show up in the error category and those that show up when I run through new FACs to make sure there are no GA errors for GimmeBot. When the Bot is closing FACs and hits these errors, Gimmetrow has to stop, and that's time consuming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So, here's the daily example of the issue. I'm prepping this article for GimmeBot (translation, I'm making sure there are no GA or peer review errors on the talk page, as those will stall the bot; I clean up the talk page while I'm there). Even the templates aren't used correctly.[2] I don't participate in GA, but now I've got to go figure out what the correct topic was supposed to be; can someone else do this, and isn't there a way to get this automated or to have someone check the GA passes daily to make sure they are done correctly? The GA reviewer does not have to add the GA to articlehistory; they can simply use the old templates. GimmeBot can convert the template, but even the templates are often wrong on GAs, so GimmeBot has to stop, find the correct info, before FACs can be archived or passed. Will someone please adjust the topic here? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(butting in) Easy fix—changed to Engtech. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been fixed. However, the topic is not a critical parameter at the moment, and one solution is simply to blank it: if I were to code a bot, I would simply blank any incorrect topics. There are lots of articles without topics at the moment: see Category:Uncategorized good articles; {{ArticleHistory}} is probably too sensitive to a parameter which is completely harmless if it is incorrect.

In the long run, in an ideal system, the nominator should provide a topic, and the article will not get listed at GAN until the topic is valid, but that requires another discussion, and we are not there yet. Geometry guy 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a solution, but I'm afraid if I do that, it may create extra work for Gimmetrow, because when the bot hits, he'll go looking for the topic :-) I'm not sure it returns an articlehistory error; I just try to make sure everything is in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess we have to coordinate with Gimmetrow. I already tried to remove some unnecessary topic error checking from {{ArticleHistory}} but Gimmetrow put it back. He may be right, but at the moment all the topic parameter does is put GA's in a subcategory and provide an editor-friendly link to the right part of the GA-page. For non-GA's it does nothing. Geometry guy 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Those GAs eventually become FAs and FFAs with topic parameters, and I would rather they stay "right". My view is it's easier to do a little work now and then than a big project a year from now. As I see you've noticed,[3] these templates are vandalized occasionally. Gimmetrow 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The topic parameter is not used by FAs and FFAs; it is also vandalism-proof, but I take your point. I was tempted this afternoon (UTC) to use it to display the topic instead of the gacat on FAs and FLs, but it makes no sense to do that until classification schemes are harmonized. Anyway, I'm happy to support your approach, as long as we are agreed that it is a conscious decision, and will result in more errors for the moment. Geometry guy 00:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GA versus A class rating

There has been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#A-Class reviews about how to deal with the existing need for reviewers for the various projects which try to engage in them. This includes the project I do reviews for, the Biography project. Someone else has suggested that it might be possible to as it were integrate the A-Class rating and GA-Class rating, with reviews being done for the new rating. Based on the current setup, I assume the final rating might be called A-Class, but that's open to question. Would the members of this project have any interest in perhaps integrating the extant A-Class reviews in with the GA reviews done here, one way or another? John Carter 21:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the subject was first suggested to me elsewhere, I have recently started another discussion on it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#A-Class reviews. Any input either here or there would be quite welcome.

John Carter 20:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there?

A list somewhere of the syntax for the {{GA}} template topic cateogorization (i.e. Socsci etc.)? Some of them are the complete topic name, but others are abbreviations that I had to find though a backwards search. VanTucky ^Talk 02:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is, at WP:GAPQ#Categories. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The template actually accepts both abbreviations and full names of topics and is not case sensitive. If there is an abbreviation which you would like to add to the template (e.g. "Soc sci" with a space) let me know, and I will add it. Geometry guy 10:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Psychology missing from that list, or did I overlook it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in Socsci. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

how much experience do you need

how much experience do you need to be a good article reviewer?

I have never reviewed a nominated article before. Good friend100 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

None really, you simply need to have a good grasp of the criteria and fair analytical skills. If you're concerned about the quality of your reviews, you could try examining some to get some ideas about what its like, the log is here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Good articles by quality log, and you can look at some of the talk pages of articles that have been recently passed or failed. Reviews do tend to vary greatly however, some people use templates, while others might prefer long paragaphs of analysis. Homestarmy 15:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, I think I will start reviewing. Good friend100 15:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GA's next big milestone

Having just recently attained 3,000 Good Articles, it's interesting to note what the next major milestone will be. Oddly enough, I don't that it will be 4,000 GAs; instead, seeing as there are 1,689 Featured Articles, I'd predict that we'll have twice as many GAs as FAs sometime when we hit 3,500 - 3,700 (based on the current rate of growth of FA in relation to GA). I'm thinking that this will probably happen sometime around early 2008, January or February, possibly? Dr. Cash 06:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New template for GAN reviewers

{{User Good Articles reviewed}}

This way if you like to review articles from WP:GAN, you can keep track of how many you have reviewed on your user page. I was thinking of creating a category to go along with it. Thoughts, input? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

Most people lost track of how many they reviewed already. It's nice to have this template, but I don't think a lot of people can give an exact #. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I linked "this user" in the template to this page, Wikipedia:Good article nominations/List of reviewers, which lists that info for those that choose to list themselves there. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

Nice idea. EyeSerene^TALK 15:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea for those that want to keep track of this info. Personally, though, I've lost track of how many GAs I've reviewed, so I doubt it would make any sense for me to use it; but I won't stop others from using it though! Dr. Cash 07:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Makeover

Further to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter, I thought it would be a good idea to give the WikiProject pages a bit of a makeover. The first step is to move the formatting out of the individual pages, so that a uniform look can be achieved by just changing the formatting in one place: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Shell. I've made a first attempt at a new look there. Geometry guy 18:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week

Since this is moribund, shouldn't Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week be removed from the Wikipedia:Community Portal, or will Elvis never leave? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sign at the top right hand corner

why don't we have the green plus sign at the right hand corner of a good article? That way, readers can know what is a good article and what is not, just like the FA status articles, which have the bronze star. Good friend100 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For an increadibly long and boring list of reasons, we don't use a GA sign in the top right corners of GA's. It's all in the archives in a GA related page somewhere, but I assure you, its all very uninteresting. Homestarmy 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The GA and WP1.0 hierarchies

Editors here will probably be familiar with the fact that the hierarchy used to list good articles on the GA page is closely linked with the hierarchy used by Wikipedia 1.0 to organize articles for release versions of Wikipedia on CD. Originally good articles were listed under 28 categories, corresponding to the FA categories at the time, which are similar to, but not identical to the current FA categories. These got broken down into subcategories as the GA list grew. In early 2006, Wikipedia 1.0 had an extensive debate on how to organize articles in a hierarchy. They borrowed a lot from the GA list, but settled on a hierarchy with 10 top-level topics. GA adopted the 10 topics, and much of the Wikipedia 1.0 hierarchy, later in the year.

So, why do I mention this? Well, although WP1.0 and GA agree on the 10 top-level topics (now used in the topic parameter of the GA templates), they have diverged at the subtopic level, with the result that, for example, films are listed under Social sciences and society here, but under Language and literature in Wikipedia:Version_0.5. I suggested to WP1.0 that we try to harmonize the two schemes at the subtopic level, and iron out one or two anomolies that exist in both schemes. This has been received positively, and so a page has been set up to discuss how we might do this at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Hierarchy. This process would definitely benefit from some wider input, so I would welcome comments and contributions from editors here.

If successful, the project could result in a more stable hierarchy for the GA page, which at the moment evolves as individual editors propose or make changes. Geometry guy 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been no comments on the proposals to realign the subtopics, so I will proceed on the assumption that this is uncontroversial. Any complaints along the lines of "I can't find "Anime and Manga" any more" (because it gets split into animation and cartoons, under film and literature) will be referred back to this discussion. ;-) Geometry guy 13:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

new text added to "Good Article passing" section

• Hiya, where are those quick-fail criteria? I'll find 'em. :-)
• Anyhow, given the tremendous zeal that a large number of people show in deleting images that don't have ironclad licensing info (signed by the presidents of three separate countries and certified authentic by at least two members of the Harajuku Girls), not mention the relevant text in WP:WIAGA and I assume the quick-fail criteria, it seems necessary to say something about licensing... Note that although that seems to be a direct quote of someone's brief review (?), it is not located in TALK and is not the original comments, but instead is used as an illustration of a principle. Therefore I don't think adding text to it violates any rules or guidelines about changing others' comments. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Item 2 here. Geometry guy 13:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of GA?

Since joining this WikiProject in June last year, I have followed the FA v. GA debates with interest. Writing a GA (about the Singaporean film I Not Stupid) has made me a far more experienced Wikipedian, and having just returned from Wikibreak, I think it is time to air my views.

Perhaps we should ask ourselves: what is the purpose of GA? If GA does an exceptional job at fulfilling its purpose, it would be indispensable and silence its critics (namely, the FA regulars). Our task would be to ensure that GA does an exceptional job in fulfilling its purpose (once we agree on its purpose, of course).

For example, if the purpose of GA is to be friendly, especially to newcomers, we should give reviews that are friendly and helpful. Instead of merely filling {{GAList}} with "aye"s and "nay"s, and bombarding the nominators with an alphabet soup of policies, we should explain clearly how the articles meet (or do not meet) the criteria, so newcomers will understand what makes a GA, and what does not. We should also consider lowering the GA criteria slightly, so we could promote GA as a realistic goal for new article writers, and a way to spare them from the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. (As I mentioned earlier, in the process of pushing I Not Stupid to GA status, I learnt a lot about Wikipedia's content policies.)

Of course, GA may have more than one purpose, and GA's purpose may differ from Wikipedian to Wikipedian. A young Singaporean who fights systemic bias by contributing to articles on the Little Red Dot, I believe that GA helps fight systemic bias. Several aspects of the FA and GA criteria lead to systemic bias in the selection of FAs and GAs, but in those aspects, the GA criteria is far lower than the corresponding FA criteria, making it easier for articles on typically under-represented topics (such as Singaporean topics) to achieve GA status. Using Singaporean topics as an example:

• FA demands that "the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". GA demands that "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". As most Singaporeans are not native speakers of English, it would be nearly impossible for them to write FA-standard prose. However, with a little help, some of them (like myself) can write GA-standard prose.
• FA requires that an article be "comprehensive", GA requires that an article be "broad in its coverage". FA standards of referencing are also higher than GA standards of referencing. Referenced information on Singaporean topics is scarce, making it nearly impossible for Singapore-related articles to meet FA standards of referencing and be comprehensive. Broadness is easier to achieve, and with lower standards of referencing, GA standards are a more reasonable goal for most Singapore-related articles.
• FAs require images; GAs do not. Finding images for articles on Singaporean topics is difficult. To compound the problem, semi-free images (such as "for educational use only" or "for non-commercial use only") images are prohibited, and the policies governing the use of fair use images are far too restrictive. For many Singapore-related articles, there are simply no appropriate images to illustrate the topic. This would disqualify those articles from FA status, but they can still achieve GA status.

I must stress that there is nothing wrong with the FA criteria being systemically biased. Articles that represent the best of Wikipedia should have prose that is of a professional standard, be comprehensive and well-referenced, and contain images. However, it is simply unrealistic to expect certain articles to meet the FA criteria. Should that discourage article writers from contributing to such articles? No - they can still aim for GA status.

What could we do to ensure GA continues to help fight systemic bias? Further lowering the GA criteria that lead to systemic bias is not viable; said criteria are already low enough. How about collaborating with WikiProject Countering systemic bias and other WikiProjects on typically under-represented topics (for example, WikiProject Singapore), encouraging them to write more GAs? A brainstorming session might yield more ideas that we could put to good use.

Hopefully all of you will understand the essence of this long post. Find out what is the purpose of GA, then do an exceptional job in fulfilling that purpose, so as to make GA indispensable. Tomorrow I have a chess tournament, so I need to sleep now, and may not reply until Monday.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I can see there is no difference between the image requirements of FA and GA. If there is no appropriate image for an article FA does not require one to be included. To your second point, being comprehensive means covering the available literature. Unless a topic is so recent that the literature simply hasn't been written yet, or a topic has so little material available that it is better off merged into a broader article, the issue you raise shouldn't stop an article from reaching featured status. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting in so much detail. GA has many purposes, and different editors emphasise different aspects. The original goal was to provide a way of recognising good short articles, which were (at the time) regarded as ineligible for featured article status. Times have changed. I think you have highlighted a key mission of GA: to provide a straightforward standard of quality that is easily accessible to every article, no matter how long, how advanced, or how familiar. I also agree that GA should be accessible to every editor, and be friendly and supportive towards all efforts to improve content. These two features surely help to counter systemic bias, and if WikiProject Countering systemic bias has any suggestions for improvements to the GA process, then they should certainly be aired here.

Regarding images, the GA approach to an image for which a fair use rationale cannot be made is to remove the image from the article, but to ignore this as an issue for GA status. Regarding comprehensiveness, FA is a great asset to Wikipedia as a magnet that encourages editors to achieve an ultimate goal. GA can provide encouragement on the way, but also a basic standard for articles which/editors who cannot or don't want to go the distance. There are one or two FA regulars who snipe at GA, but most do not, and I was sad to see you (J.L.W.S.) sniping back: incivility can happen anywhere when the stakes are raised; I don't think it happens at FAC any more than it does elsewhere. Geometry guy 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For me, the most important aspect of GA is WP:WIAGA. Its a set of standards that are attainable for the average editor, and it gives concrete and reasonable goals for writers to aim for. Without these goals, writers have little to decide if they are doing a good job. The FA standards are often unattainable except for people with access to copious references and with impecable writing skills. GA standards give reachable goals for article writers; without these goals, there would be nothing for most editors to use to decide if they were on the right track or not. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur strongly with Jayron and Hildanknight here. GA, to me, is also about motivating those editors who can write FAs to do so (heck it worked for me - after doing about 5 GAs I finally managed to get an FA out), and also for motivating those who can't quite reach the FA pinnacle (such as Hildanknight) to still contribute to our project. Where would be without that motivation? Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 08:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

GA need not have one purpose. It clearly has multiple purposes, as your replies have highlighted. These include providing motivation, being accessible and being friendly. Perhaps GA regulars could compile a list of several main purposes of GA. The goals should complement each other.

Knowing what the purposes of GA are gives us a sense of direction. For example, if GA is intended to be a stepping stone to FA, arguing for the green plus to be prominently displayed at the top-right corner of all GAs and displaying GAs on the main page would be a step in the right direction. However, we should not do so if we wanted GA to be simple and unbureaucratic.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Simple and unbureaucratic" has my support every time. Geometry guy 18:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:D EyeSerene^TALK 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If everyone agrees with "simple and unbureaucratic", we can add that to the list. How about "friendly to editors, especially newcomers", "providing motivation", "an accessible standard" and "fighting systemic bias"? Does everyone agree with those purposes? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a 'Freudian typo'? EyeSerene^TALK 09:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is then this is surely an example ;-) See the related discussion at WT:GA. Geometry guy 13:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to get the joke. What is a Freudian typo? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See Freudian slip. You (unconsciously/accidentally? :-) ) described GA as "bureaucratic" rather than "unbureaucratic". Geometry guy 08:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops...fixed. Now, does everyone agree with "simple and unbureaucratic"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes ;) EyeSerene^TALK 11:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

'Collaboration of the day' proposal

What would the community think of a bot generated 'Collaboration of the day' generated by random reference to each day's placement of the GA-Hold template? There would be no manual maintenance involved. One 'lucky winner' might get some outside help in fixing the few remaining problems a GA-Hold article has by advertising that article on the Community Portal. The GA project also get advertising. A daily changing request would not overly emphasize any one article but would randomly showcase all sorts of articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The method wouldn't be much different than the daily random article display found at many project portals. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

Collaboration of the week would be better, in my opinion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GAC Question

Is there a place where I can list, or a user that I can ask to look over 2 articles, one a city and one a state to see what I need to improve before I nominate it for a GAC? Ctjf83 ^talk 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Peer review: pick one of the articles and list it for peer review, but discuss the second article in your listing. The process is quite flexible, and might generate good comments on both articles. Geometry guy 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW notice

WP:PW has had 5 articles in GAN for months now, and I would like to give notice to anyone who would want to review them:

1. Briscoe Brothers
2. Don Kent (wrestler)
3. King of the Ring (1994)
4. Mickie James
5. WrestleMania III

Cheers, Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 00:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} deprecates other templates?

Editors may be interested in the discussion that is starting here. Happy‑melon 12:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing on the purpose of GA

Per the thought-provoking discussion I started above, I think we should conduct a few straw polls. These straw polls will help us agree on what the main purposes of GA are. Of course, straw polls are not binding; they are merely a tool to help us gauge consensus.

To propose a new purpose, simply add a new subsection with a couple of sentences about the purpose. If you agree (or disagree) with a proposed purpose, simply post in the relevant subsection, making your stand (and reasoning, if applicable) known.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple and unbureaucratic

GA aims to be simple and unbureaucratic. The process of nominating and reviewing articles should be simple; bureaucracy should be kept to a minimum.

Fighting systemic bias

GA aims to fight systemic bias. The criteria should be accessible to short articles on typically under-represented topics, as well as broad overviews of large topics.

1. Support The Singapore-related articles I contribute to will never reach FA status. Therefore, GA gives me a realistic goal to aim for, encouraging me to write high-quality Singapore-related articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dating GAs

It has been pointed out to me that the absense of a date parameter in {{GA}} causes problems when replacing the GA template with {{ArticleHistory}}. The missing date is also inconsistent with {{DelistedGA}} and {{FailedGA}}, which have an unnamed parameter for the date of review or delisting. I have therefore updated these templates to provide a consistent format. In particular, reviewers can now add a review date to {{GA}} as an unnamed parameter if they wish. If others agree, I will update the guidelines at WP:GAN to reflect the introduction of this parameter.

If desired, I expect a bot could sweep the existing GAs to add a review date using the oldid information. Geometry guy 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines have been updated. It is not necessary to sweep existing GAs as the oldid information is sufficient for a bot to retrieve the date where necessary. Geometry guy 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Auto-reassessment in projects after GA pass

This idea came up over in WikiProject Video Games where it was noted that if you looked at the total number of articles by assessment, you had many at FA, about as many at GA, lots more a B, and increasing numbers down the assessment scale, but only a very small handful at the A level. Now, there's no requirement that an article that wants to go FA needs to stop at A first (or even GA), but spot checking other Projects, the assessment counts are very similar, with A-class articles outweighed by GA and FA. More than likely, there's a good number of GA articles that are really A articles, but just haven't been put in for reassessment yet.

Looking at what GA and A assessments are, GA is a WP-wide assessment, typically with the understanding of what is typical for an article of that type, but more looking at general criteria. A is a project-specific assessment, done by two or more people, to make sure the article meets all the goals of that specific Project, but typically with the assumption that the article is already a GA.

So here's my suggestion, which would require a bot and some knowledge for each project where assessment requests are made: when an article is passed as a GA, a bot will determine this new status, and for each project the article is in, will submit a "courtesy" reassessment request. It's still up to the projects to judge those as A-class, or if the editor jumps it to FA before the assessment, no problems, but this would basically help projects to create more A-class articles, as well as to help remove the Wikiproject-specific issues that may come up in FA. --MASEM 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While I applaud the smoothing of FA process, I find the A class particularly difficult. In general most project specifics will be solved between B and GA class; and are no longer relevant to promote to A class. In my experience A class is mostly used as a formalised peer review on the way to FA. This is what makes it all difficult in the progression. Stub-Start-B is ok, and within project. After that you have to step outside (a good thing don't get me wrong) to get GA class. Then back in for A, or wiki-wide for peer review..... Complicated and not straightforward. I think most editors just try to jump from GA to FA straight a away skipping the A level, or remaining at GA. Perhaps we should reconsider the whole A class status. Arnoutf (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The only major thing A-class provides is the first level of multi-peer review (all classes up through GA require only one person to assess it). Certainly re-evaluation of the A-class is a possible issue, but if A-class is kept, I think this is still a good idea (again, we're not automatically making a GA into an A, but just letting the project know they should reassess it, possibly making it an A-class) --MASEM 02:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Should records of previous failed GA nominations be left on talk pages after an article passes GA?

I've been speaking to someone about Talk:Troilus. He reports having been confused by the fourth box showing the GA nomination failure. Should this be kept indefinitely? Or can it be removed now the article is settled at GA?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's best to combine the multiple GANs into a {{ArticleHistory}} box. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David, I have combined the two GA-related boxes.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to the GAC nomination and listing process

I'm sure many project members have useful ideas which I would love to hear here. Happy‑melon 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

GA article length

I notice that many WP:GA nominations fail because of their length (e.g. Mani Madhava Chakyar - 46K). I find this curious though, given that a number of featured article nominations (e.g. Ernest Shackleton - 48K) are longer, without this being an issue for them. Why the double standards? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that many GA nominations fail because of their length, and I don't see where anyone has made that complaint about the Mani Madhava Chakyar article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Not sure what you're getting at here - Mani Madhava Chakyar hasn't been reviewed yet (although it's on the list).

Regarding article length, this is something of a holdover from the days when older browsers had problems displaying long articles, hence the echoes of a recommended size limit you'll see in various places. Excessive length can sometimes be a symptom of other problems in an article (for example lack of focus or bloat, perhaps indicating that sections need pruning or splitting off into articles of their own), but should never be a problem in itself. To be honest, I've never seen an article failed for being too long. EyeSerene^TALK 14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So all the "LONG" tags on the nominations page don't necessarily mean these articles have failed GA? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're coming from now! The short answer is, no they don't. The LONG tags are intended purely as a guide for GA reviewers so they can see at a glance whether or not an article is likely to be quick to review. It's not a system I'm particularly fond of, because reviews depend on so many other factors than just the article length, but many editors do find it useful. Hope this helps ;) EyeSerene^TALK 09:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, that explains it then. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Improvement Month

With the growing amount of articles at WP:GAN as well as the large amount of article at WP:PR I would propose we host an Article Improvement/Review Month to help give critique to these articles and encourage the improvement of others. Tarret ^talk 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Query

Not sure I'm in the right place, but I submitted Neilston as a GAC over a month ago. A reviewer came along and put it on hold until issues were addressed on completeness (which isn't part of the GA criteria as such - broadness being the key factor). I took the feedback on board and addressed it. He said he'd return on the 2nd Feb, but he didn't so I messaged him. He's editted since, but not returned back to furthering the nomination. I've asked for additional comments at the GAC main listing page, but still haven't had any feedback. Is there anything else I ought to do, or should I just be more patient? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Take it to WP:GAR: disappearing reviewers are well within the GAR remit. If you don't get listed, you will at least get some good feedback. Geometry guy 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)c

Issue resolved. Sorry about the delay. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(revise post ec) The GA reviewer has now commented. Please discuss any remaining issues with the GA reviewer. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed solution to Backlog Problem

I and several other people on IRC have been discussing the possibility of reducing the backlog. Some of the ideas which come to mind, mainly, is a person who submits an article for GA must, in turn, review an article for GA. Thoughts? Suggestions? This is only a suggestion, and is only to lessen the amount of workload for normal reviewers. miranda 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it might depend on whether you wanted to increase the number of reviews, or the number of good quality reviews. But I'd imagine that if every member of the GA project just reviewed one article a week, the backlog would soon disappear. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's a nice idea, but in practice would just scare away nominators. Sadly, I think the majority of nominators would rather refrain from making nominations than be forced to review. I really think the key is to do what we've talked about a lot, but not acted on much: recruit a few more devoted reviewers, especially in key topics such as sports. Having a single good sports reviewer alone would reduce our backlog enormously. Overall, I wish "1 nom = 1 review" was the way it worked, but I don't think it's practical. VanTucky 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to have a GA designate from every wikiproject. That would be nice. miranda 22:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, or some kind of liason. I'm currently the "GA liason" for the Wiki Winos, but since I'm suggesting nominations and improvements for them, I expressly stay away from doing the reviews myself. Even if every project had someone doing what I do for the wine project, it would at least cut down on the number of quick-fails and such. Projects carefully selecting their noms would make reviewing a lot easier. VanTucky 22:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But then again, most articles are under the scope of several projects, so if someone REALLY wants to nominate an article, there would always be a way. I think that the whole problem is in the page layout, a simple list of users willing to answer new reviewers questions and a couple of "we want you to review an article" banners would certainly be a lot more inviting than no fun and a whole lot of rules to learn. The newcomers should be hugged, loved and then slapped with the MOS.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 23:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, treat new reviewers like puppies :) I for one have always offered to coach new reviewers in my messages about the backlog in reviews - add me to the list. VanTucky 00:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

(←) I agree with other comments that we cannot require nominators to review, but we need to do more to encourage them. Concerning the relation between WikiProjects, I believe that the sentence at WP:Reviewing good articles which states "Reviewers... should also probably avoid reviewing articles that belong to WikiProjects they are active members of." is a stronger prohibition than the consensus of several recent discussions here. For one thing articles don't belong to WikiProjects. For another, for some articles, it is invaluable to have a reviewer with some expertise. In relation to the present thread, relaxing this condition might also encourage more reviewers from WikiProjects because they would feel able to review articles that they are actually interested in.

In my view, the two main requirements (reviews should be made in good faith, and editors should not review articles which they have previously contributed to) are sufficient to cover this issue. Geometry guy 10:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think nominators who have just had an article pass GA are especially open / receptive to an invitation to review, especially from the reviewer. I also think the offer to mentor / check the first review or two of a new GA reviewer helps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Re encouraging new reviewers: along the lines Ruhrfisch has mentioned, I'm certainly going to start inviting editors to review in the 'GA pass' message I leave on user talk pages, with an offer to mentor if desired. I can't believe it never ocurred to me before... :P

Re articles that come under WikiProjects: I won't be sorry to lose that sentence, Gguy (personally it's something I've always ignored, and I don't think my reviews have suffered for it). I seem to find myself in agreement with you a lot - where do I apply for handsock-hood? EyeSerene^TALK 10:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Issue with GA Review procedures

Please see Talk:Project Chanology. If one editor comes and passes an article and lists it as a WP:GA, can another editor immediately then come along and remove that article as a GA? I had always thought that once listed, the proper procedure would next be WP:GAR, not for another editor to just summarily delist the article? Cirt (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. I would still like an answer to my question from above. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can delist any GA at any time by following the delisting guidelines. However, this should not be a summary delist: editors of the article should be notified of the intention on the article talk page, given reasons, and given a chance to fix the article. If reasons are not given or are disputed, open a WP:GAR discussion to resolve it. Geometry guy 09:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe what has occurred is more the latter half of what you just said, and that's why a GAR has been opened. Cirt (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:V policy

If verifiability is part of WP:WIAGA, why do I constantly see recently passed good articles showing up at WP:FAC that are sourced to non-reliable sources? Do editors passing GA check sources? WP:V would seem to be a minimum standard for a good article rating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviving the GA Collaboration

As there are many B-class articles which can easily become GA-class or better I was wondering if anyone is interested in trying to help bring back the GA collaboration of the week and possibly it might bring more experienced editors to assist us. Tarret ^talk 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The most recent ideas can be found here. In particular, there was my suggestion to help an article "on hold". But it needs someone with time and drive to champion it. I can facilitate but I don't have the time to drive it. Do you? Geometry guy 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would, however there still needs to be a better process of pick the article of the week, if anyone has any suggestions. Tarret ^talk 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about a GA Nomination

I was looking at Oscar Pistorius and thinking about reviewing it. My big concern, however, is the criterion that says that articles should not contain information about an ongoing event. Since Pistorius has indicated that he will appeal the decision to ban him from "able-bodied" races, does this article have to wait until that happens before it can be passed? Feedback on this would be very helpful. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The current consensus on the "ongoing event" clause is that it only applies to articles about ongoing events (like a concert tour or the Beijing Olympics), not articles that have ongoing events within their content. VanTucky 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but will amplify a little. The question to ask, in my view, is whether ongoing events are likely to change the article significantly, or just contribute towards its evolution. I think it is helpful to ask this in two ways. First, in the abstract, would a good article on Pistorius change significantly in the light of current events? If so, then there is no point in reviewing it now, and the right thing to do is to use the unfortunately-named "quick-fail". Second, in the concrete, will the current article on Pistorius change significantly in the light of current events. If it will, but a good article would not, then the article may not be broad, and needs to be reviewed to address this issue (so, don't quick-fail, but review it carefully). If, on the other hand, the current article is fairly robust to current events, then stability is not a GA issue, and the article should be reviewed against the other criteria. Does that help? Geometry guy 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what VanTucky (talk · contribs) and Geometry guy (talk · contribs) have already said above. This sentiment also seems to be the consensus among what has already been expressed by multiple editors at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

GA standards

• Seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  If you think this article does not meet the GA criteria, please delist it following the delisting guidelines. GA standards are achieved by editors being proactive, not lazy. Geometry guy 22:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  This clearly shouldn't have passed. In any case, we can't delist the article from GA right now — it's currently at FAC. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  Okay, dihydrogen monoxide delisted. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  (ironic ec) Sure we can - I have done so. The FAC is highly unlikely to be unsuccessful. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, there's no problem with changing GA status while an article is at FAC. Geometry guy 09:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, while GA also can be stuffed up with cheap passes, it can also be undone quickly as well luckily. One of the problems with FA is that you need about 80% support to pass and usually Sandy waits until it is near unanimous, but to get rid of an FAR you might need 60-70% of people saying it's bas, so there is a bit of an inconsistency there in that something can be determined to be 40% bad at FAR and be kept but if it was at FAC it would be 60% good it would not pass. That means that a lot of weak olden day FAs can be kept at 50-50 even though they would fail FAC if a few people advocate a soft FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Role of talk pages

I have an article on my watchlist that recently failed a GA review. At the moment, it appears that the article failed review because the reviewer:

• was entirely unfamiliar with the topic (e.g., did not know that authoritative sources were actually authoritative),
• felt that a (resolved) content dispute from December 2007 indicated that the article was unstable (now, in April 2008), and
• felt various editors violated WP:OWN by not allowing verifiable errors to remain in the article.

I'm not sure how you can have an "unstable" article with very few changes (fewer than five changes per week for the last year, and no current disputes), but from the remarks left on the talk page by the reviewer, these seem to be the problems. I suppose it's possible that he interpreted a talk-page-only search for ideal statistics as an "edit war"... but I doubt that anyone would name something an edit war when there are no actual edits associated with it.

As you can see, I'm unimpressed with the quality of the review, and I would like to better understand the process so I can figure out what went wrong. The reviewer and another editor have left remarks that indicate that a GA-status article requires a seventh factor: a harmonious talk page with no signs of (for example) editors verifying sources or looking for better ones. Is this common practice? Should we make a habit of archiving the talk pages a few weeks before nominating an article, so that it will look like there's a clean slate? It would be easy enough to do.

If that's not conventional practice, could we get an update to the review guidelines that specifies that GA status is for Good Articles and not for Good Talk Pages? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has NOT failed it is ON HOLD. Please respect the impartial views of 2 reviewers who have contributed to the issue. Realist2 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

These would be the two reviewers who have refused to name the supposedly missing consensus, despite repeated requests from multiple editors? The ones who thought a papal encyclical was an inadequate source for describing Roman Catholic doctrine? Forgive me for not respecting that adequately. I'm actually looking for the views of uninvolved editors. Thanks anyway, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You have manipulated the findings of two reviewers, i have been accused of "not bothering to read the sources" and too "inexperienced on the topic to review it". Your group of controlling friends have successfully shouted down two reviewers. Our findings that that 50% of edits to the article are either vandalism, reversions, pov pushing or outright ownership seem to be accurate, bullying 1, 2, 3 or more reviewers into passing the article WILL NOT work. The article has not failed, its on hold, almost all articles go on hold for a period of time however you and your merry friends seem to think your entitled to an instant GA pass. Realist2 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When I said that I was looking for the views of uninvolved editors, I really did mean that I want to hear the views of editors other than yourself and User:Andreasegde. However, I didn't actually want this to be personal, or even specific to that article, and I'd like to point out that if you hadn't chosen to identify yourself as being involved, no one here would have known my message was prompted by your behavior.

In the bigger picture, I've never submitted an article for GA before, but I have seen several good ones recently. Therefore, if other GA reviewers believe they (or, perhaps more importantly, editors not associated with this project, but who are doing GA reviews) are influenced by the contents of the talk page, then I want to know that in advance. If you'd like to discuss things like whether articles should be blamed for being vandalized, or for reverting vandalism, or anything else, then please start a new section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is much easier to deal with the concrete than the abstract. If you are looking for comments from other editors, either of you, it would actually help to link the article you are talking about. Geometry guy 18:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly summarise what you think the problem is here? All I've got so far is that an article you claimed had been failed at GA is actually on hold. If the article's on hold, then the reviewer(s) must believe that in whatever way they believe that the article falls short of the GA criteria can be fairly easily fixed. So why not just get to work fixing it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As an editor involved with the article under review, I fail to see how this discussion helps to advance our goal, which is improvement of the article (and ideally, promotion to GA status.) - Chardish (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have stressed that it is not failed but on hold, it is common practice. However, insulting two reviewers and demanding a THIRD opinion without starting to make any of the changes we have suggested is NOT common practice. It stinks of entitlement. Maybe reviewers will see our concerns about passing this article, although i warn you, outside views are not welcome, Realist2 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) "Why are "outside views" not welcome? They're welcome, and indeed encouraged, at most other articles. Perhaps you'd like to consider rephrasing that statement? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And 18 minutes after posting that comment, you failed the article without giving a reason. Is it really your opinion that our disagreements cannot be resolved through discussion? - Chardish (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have taken your advise of the other reviewer concerned and failed the article, decision based on consensus of two reviewers who felt that.

• A large number of the edits were vandalism, reverts, POV edits, ownership. Instability was a concern.

• The bullying of us (the reviewers) made it impossible to review the article neutrally

• Our views were not respected, reviewers were accused of not reading sources and being too inexperienced on the issue to evaluate it.

• Edits made by reviewers to the article were reverted.

• A number of citation tags are in place.

• The article was not broad enough.

• Pictures were ok but could have been better. Realist2 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NFP article in specific

We have, unfortunately, got two separate problems mixed together here. Malleus Fatuorum, I'm sure that you can understand why I interpreted Realist2's remark that "After consulting the advise of a more experienced reviewer I am going to have to fail the article" as meaning that Realist2 was "going to have to fail the article." I suspect that you can understand why I interpret this edit as meaning GA failed.

And the answer to your question about why not fix it is because no one has any idea what needs fixing. Realist2 say there is vandalism and reversion of vandalism, which is specifically called out as not a valid reason for failing a GA review. He and Andreasegde further claim POV-pushing, ownership, and lack of consensus, but both have repeatedly refused to provide even a single example of any of these. While I'm not a significant contributor to this article, I share the frustration of being told to fix something without a clear statement of the supposed brokenness.

If you want examples of sentences that clearly assert the reviewers' claims of a missing consensus, I can point you to remarks like "I agree with Realist2 about edit wars/lack of concensus. You only have to read the last few paragraphs [on the talk page] to see that this is clear" (NB: the previous paragraph is a still-unfulfilled request for any single example of ownership and edit warring; the entire two screens above it are about the GA review) and "When a reviewer reads an article (and its talk page) he/she expects to see some kind of continuity and concensus" and a claim that asking for clarification from reviewers "reflects the lack of concensus that an article needs".

So the conversation on the talk page has degenerated to "There's no consensus about this article" — "Everyone here agrees on the content of the article!" — "No, they don't, because all the regular editors disagree with me about whether or not there's a consensus!" I've pretty much given up on getting useful information out of these reviewers. But the last statement quoted above prompted my actual question, which I'll put in a separate section: WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My issue with the NFP article review is not that it was failed, but that it was failed apparently out of miscommunication, out of frustration with the editors involved, and without answering numerous questions posed by the editors. The role of the GA review - besides passing or failing - is to offer specific advice on how to improve the article. I don't feel like we benefited from it. Frankly I'd just like a re-review by someone else; I'd think that'd be the easiest way to proceed rather than beating this unfortunate case to death. - Chardish (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That specific advice has now been provided at GAR. I hope that helps. Geometry guy 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My actual question, which is NOT specifically about the NFP article

As editors with some experience in GA reviews, how much weight do you give to an article's talk page? Do you think that less-experienced reviewers pay too much attention? Too little attention? Since any editor can do a GA review, do you think that the instructions are reasonably clear? Do you, personally, think that an article with a clean talk page has an easier time getting GA status? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, please, that the last question is whether you think an article with a clean talk page actually has an easier time getting GA status, not whether you think it should have an easier time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to answer your specific question no, I don't; it's the article history that matters. And to answer the question that you didn't ask me, I too would very likely have failed this article. It's got the makings of a good article but it's got a little way to go yet, and I wish the editors well with their future efforts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I always read the article first, and form my opinion based on that. I only read the talk page before writing my review to be sensitive to the issues that regular editors are concerned about. Geometry guy 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is reviewing a one-sided process?

This is the first GA nominee I've been involved in as an editor of the article being nominated. The reviewers seem to think that it's inappropriate for the article editors to take issue with the comments of the reviewer. Are editors allowed to disagree with, or ask for clarification on the comments of the reviewer? Is it possible for reviewers to be wrong? Are comments like this appropriate of a reviewer? - Chardish (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It pales in comparison to some of the things you have accused me of. Realist2 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We have some serious problems here. Yes, editors should always ask for clarification or be willing to defend their positions when they don't agree with a GA review. I don't know a lot of the background, but Wikipedia guidelines on civility have obviously been trampled (whether by one, two, three or four editors, I don't know). I am concerned that the article was failed after the debate on this page. That, combined with the reason given for this fail, leads me to think that objectivity is not being used toward the end of reviews. I appreciate the work of reviewers, especially those who are willing to tak on the oldest nominations, but everyone suffers if personal grudges come into play when making reviewing decisions. I recommend soliciting an open-minded reviewer (perhaps from the Good article wikiproject) to look over the article and give a new review (which I believe would also be a good idea for Daara J. Alternatively, perhaps both should go to Good Article Reassessment. If the debate continues any further, I recommend Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And as a side note regarding the Daara J article, I agree that Good Article reviewers are encouraged to make changes when possible. I do so with all of the reviews I perform. I think that posting a message for someone to add a comma makes no sense, when WP:BOLD urges people to just add the comma. It seems, however, that the article was failed to make a point and that the fail needs to be looked at more closely. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've listed Natural family planning at GAR. This talk page can then concentrate on the general issues raised. Geometry guy 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was far from making a point, the person who nominated it requested i not review it feeling i had contributed and improved the article too much to be neutral(seen here), i spent 4 hours working on it(seen here) (as well as the work on the talk page), why would i fail it to spite myself? The reviewer was clearly tired of their time at wikipedia, afterwards he retired using his ip adress(seen here) and pulled another one of his articles of the GA nomination list for no reason(seen here). He was at the end of his rope here at wiki. I didnt lightly fail an article i spent 4 hours working on. The fact that i needed to spend hours on it might indicate that it simply didnt reach GA statues. Realist2 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

While i have no issue with the one article being re assesed the Darra J article does not need to be, i reached my decision appropriately, the story hehind it is rather complicated but the failer was not done to spite the editor i assure you, you might have wanted to contact me directly to explain myself before suggesting such things, if this has been a misunderstanding its completely ok. --Realist2 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If I may say so, sometimes you've just got to walk away. GA reviewing is far more difficult than FA reviewing, because all the responsibility is on you. So when situations like this flair up you can feel like it's you against the world. I've got no doubt that you acted in good faith, and that Geometry guy's decision to list this article at GAR is the right one. I know that it's easy for me to say, but don't worry about it, what's done is done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Im upset about the suggestion that Darra J should be re assessed not the Natural ... article. Darra J doesnt need to be reassesed, i acted appropriatly, i even recieved a barnstar today for my tireless contributions to the article, i spend a lot of my own time on them, i wouldnt then go and fail it deliberately. Realist2 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to this on your talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As i have also replied to you. Realist2 (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I really would encourage both of you to withdraw from this. If either of you, or anyone else, disagrees with the assessment of that article, then just take it to GAR, where it will get a lot more eyes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

wait wait wait, we are just making sure everyone knows where everyone stands, it seems miss communication is 50% of the original problem here. Everything is cool on my side. Realist2 (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done, too. I think a note on the article's talk page explaining why it failed would help clear things up, but I will not be commenting further on this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you wish i will give an extensive conclusion as to why it failed and how to improve it on the talk page. Realist2 (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No need: the GAR is providing such information. This article and its GAN review have caused more problems than they need to have done, but that is part of the nature of the GA process, where each individual GA action may be imperfect; the system sorts itself out by making multiple actions easy. I wish everyone involved all the best in improving the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We are on about something else my friend, lol it all gets so confusing. Realist2 (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A side note on this

For the future if for some reason the nominee asks the reviewer not to review the article because they believe the reviewer is not neutral what should I the reviewer do? I had already asked for help on the article and another reviewer had added their opinion. Of course there are multiple scenarios and a nominater could say "i dont want you to review my article" because they suspect the reviewer will fail it. Some clarity? Realist2 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the reviewer should step aside, and let the article be picked up another reviewer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok just take it off hold and leave it on the nomination list. Realist2 (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking generally, as I thought this was a hypothetical question. I have no idea what article you're talking about. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes its hypothetical, for the future. Ask questions first act later. Something bush never quite understood. ;) Realist2 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This will go on, and on, but this is the last comment I will make. It seems here that someone is trying to prove that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Finish it and move on.--andreasegde (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would someone want to stop another person from being the reviewer? Because you had a grudge? Because the reviewer expects higher standard than average? You can't stop someone from doing something constructive in Wikipedia even if he/she holds different opinions than you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I tend not to write the kind of articles where these issues would come up, I could see myself wanting to ask for an alternative reviewer in some cases if I did; whether I did in fact ask would depend on whether the reason in my head was one that seemed to have wide support among GA reviewers. It would sure make more sense to ask for a different reviewer before the first one did any work, rather than after, both out of respect for their time, and because it biases the process if you can opt out from a review as soon as you don't like the direction it's going. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting prospect, potentially a nominater could ask you to step aside fearing you would fail their article. But what happens when the article really doesnt meet the requirements of GA, the nominater could avoid a failer by requesting a new reviewer until they feel they have the one that will pass their article. Realist2 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I could imagine some valid concerns: I wouldn't necessarily want a person promoting homeopathy to review statin drugs; I wouldn't necessarily choose a person active in the Rational Skepticism project to review homeopathy. An editor who strongly identifies with being gay might not be the best reviewer for Jerry Falwell. Usually, however, GA reviewers self-select for an area that they know something about, so I doubt that it comes up very often. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually if you select something you know a lot about you'll have some bias. I wouldnt dare review an article on The King of Pop. I know a lot about the guy and i could promise myself whole heartedly that i would review it neutrally but i think it would be imposing. A fresh test of eyes helps an article. Realist2 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On an additional side note, you dont have to be gay to judge Falwell in a bad light. Lol most people do believe he's out of touch to say the very least. Realist2 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but I wouldn't want to be accused of the appearance of bias, either, which might be inevitable in some situations (no matter the ultimate outcome of the review). So you wouldn't review Michael Jackson, because a pass might seem biased; you might also not review Music of Mesopotamia, because you're unfamiliar with ancient music, and so a fail might seem biased. But you'd probably have no particular worries about reviewing Elvis or Van Halen, because you'll know something about 20th century music, without any particular "expert bias" on the subject.

And that's my major point: These issues don't come up very often, because reviewers typically make reasonable choices about the articles they choose to review. When they do come up, I agree with Malleus Fatuorum: the reviewer should step aside, primarily to preserve faith in the neutrality of the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would only argue thats needed when the issue is complex, my first review was homosexual transsexual. I am neither but still had no difficuties reviewing it. Reviewers should only specialise on complex subjects that do need understanding. Religious methods of birth control are not complex imo. Realist2 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But whats done is done, the article is being reassessed, if it does pass good luck to you all well done, if it fails i wont say "i told you so", we are all hear to make articles better even if we dont see "i 2 i". I will be happy to offer my assistance if you or the article needs it. ;-) Realist2 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the GA criteria are fairly objective. If there are problems with any objective criteria, then anyone can call them. Some of the criteria, such as neutrality and sourcing, involve a certain amount of interpretation (although it often depends upon the article which criteria are objective and which are subject to interpretation!) It is entirely reasonable for a nominator to object to a particular reviewer. Although the reviewer may well decide to step aside, it is also entirely reasonable for that reviewer to make a review anyway. Disagreements can be brought to WP:GAR, where we try to find a community consensus on the decisions made by individual reviewers. Geometry guy 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx, glad to see someone has remained cool, calm and collected at ALL times in this. Realist2 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject GA Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WT:GAU

I'm going to be putting some major time into the "well-written" part of GANs (and the other criteria too, but I'll be thinking mostly about criterion #1). I also want to start getting a sense of, and describing, how language and style are actually used in Good Articles, which are of course not as stringent as Featured Articles. I would really appreciate participation and comments at WT:Good article usage. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea! The "well-written" criterion is about as subjective as they come, so it might be useful to try to pin down some of what we look for. I suspect there will be as many different writing styles as editors, and almost every GA hold recommends a copyedit. Most of us know good writing when we see it, but reproducing it is another matter ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with me adding this on the talk pages of new GANs?

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article? If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do? Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time.

[See WP:GAU#Survey questions.]

The MoS-editors (people interested in style guidelines) think that there are several benefits. I keep up with style page changes, and I know there are several small things (punctuation, wikification, page layout) where we MoS-editors want to know if wikification guidelines seem picky or wrong; we'd also like to know how people respond to punctuation and language usage recommended by popular style manuals such as The Chicago Manual of Style. My goal is to make a first pass through every new GAN, making my best attempt to catch those things that I know MoS-editors want feedback on. After I do or don't get feedback, and while I've still got the article in my head, I'll make more edits to try to comply with the "well-written" criterion, but I will use a light touch, hopefully to keep the feedback coming. If I can finish the GAN review, great, but I usually won't. I don't mean to interfere with the normal GAN process in any way; anyone should feel free to do a review at any time, to make more "well-written" changes than I have, and to finish the review, and I will continue to monitor feedback. This is an exercise in scientific data-gathering, and also an attempt at civility. GAN reviews are the first place that some editors encounter a list of "you must do this, you can't do that, MoS says so", and I want them to get the impression that MoS-editors are listening to their feedback and that we care. Of course, this impression will be trashed on further exposure to MoS, but at least we'll get off on the right foot :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

:Oh, one more thing, does anyone mind if I put a notice on the Wikicouncil Noticeboard and say it's from WP:WGA, inviting wikiprojects to give any input they like on article layout and style to current GANs at WP:GAU? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please trial the first idea on a handful of GANs so other editors can see what you are trying to do in concrete terms? After you report back on we can then discuss more easily whether to support your suggestions in general. Geometry guy 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh ... The brouhaha at WT:V and duties at style guidelines pages have sucked up most of my time; I'll get to GAU today, I swear. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I tweaked the survey language above, and deployed at all Math and Natural Sciences articles. This is pretty boring stuff, so I don't think this will be a hot-button issue, but if anyone wants to suggest a tweak or object to the effect of the survey on the WP:GAN process, let me know. After some time has gone by and there are no objections, anyone who wants to survey additional GANs is more than welcome, but you can't pick and choose ... that is, do everything in a section (I mean "section" in the sense of how the GANs are grouped, such as "Miscellaneous"), and try to keep doing everything that shows up in that section, for as long as the survey runs. I'll do extra sections myself if I can. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done some re-writing at WP:GAU, feel free to suggest improvements. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

Although there's a risk of biasing the WP:GAU survey if I say what it's for, it's certain that the sample will be considered too small and unrepresentative if I only ask the questions in 19 Sci/Tech/Math articles, so here's a quick progress report. This phase of the survey will end on April 30, and there won't be another phase unless/until we have more questions that need answering. I had considered doing some editing in the articles being surveyed myself, in order to prompt responses, but I would rather put time into indexing style guideline archives, and anyway, there is a presumption in survey methodology that any interference biases the survey, so I'm keeping a low profile in GAN articles until May 1.

You can see the survey questions here. No one has suggested that the questions had any negative effects. 11 of 19 articles surveyed show responses, one editor per article. 10 of the 11 responses said that they welcomed additional feedback on their writing. (If this holds up in a larger sample size, that is one very important result, contradicting what some believe.) The only specific complaint about "fussy" MoS rules has been the rule that no-break spaces should be employed between units, and I'm very much hoping this will be a non-issue soon; an automated solution is being discussed at WT:MoS#No-break spaces discussion continues at bugzilla.

So ... any objection to my posting the same questions in more GAN articles? - Dan (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Automating No-break spaces

There are certain places where we're supposed to put non-line-breaking spaces, such as in between numbers followed by units. There's a proposal at bugzilla to automate this so that we don't have to enter &nbsp; strings by hand. Omegatron responded affirmatively in the bugzilla thread to, "Would anyone like me to survey among article reviewers and MoS editors to see if they see potential problems from a broad rule such as "number space letter never wraps"? He is not proposing a new special character of any kind; he's asking the developers to simply keep lines from wrapping at certain places. We could either go with a long complicated list such as User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js, or we could try something more clever, such as "always prevent a wrap at (number)(space)(letter), with the following exceptions". So, this is the survey, do we have a preference? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#No-break_spaces_discussion_continues_at_bugzilla — Omegatron (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nabulsi soap coverage

Greetings, I was thinking of asking the main contributor of the Nabulsi soap article to nominate it for GA status. However, since there are no good articles on soaps, I was unable to compare any good article with Nabulsi soap. Basically, I'm wondering if it meets the broad coverage criteria. It has sections on the soap's "physical description", "production process", "history" and the soap "today". The article is completely referenced to reliable sources, it meets the MoS, has good prose, free images with suitable captions, its stable but it might be showing a little bias (maybe and anyhow that's a separate issue). I just need to know if it meets the broadness criteria. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article! From a quick read-through, the only criterion it obviously falls short of is WP:WIAGA 1b (lead sections). The lead needs expanding; it should be a summary of, rather than an introduction to, the article. There are some parts that have an overly-promotional tone, and a few minor MoS tweaks are needed. All the best with this, and if you heed a hand or have any more questions, please get in touch. EyeSerene^talk 07:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I had a feeling about the "over-promotional" tone and there's a lot of quoting. Thank you for pointing out this issue and the lead and few minor MoS problems. I am getting that the article meets the broadness criteria though, right? --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Literatur und Kritik

This was listed at GAN today. 34 minutes later, it was passed without a review (another editor simply placed the GA template at the top of the article--no, not the talk page...the article). The article clearly doesn't meet the criteria, as it doesn't have a single in-text citation. I'm assuming the proper thing to do is boldly delisting the article, but I was wondering if the nominator is entitled to being notified in advance. Can anyone help with this? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have failed it due to poor lead and unclear references. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just making sure people see this

I've gotten a lot of positive and no negative responses in the articles where I posted the survey so far, but I haven't gotten any answers above to whether anyone has a problem with me posting the survey in additional GAN articles. If there are no replies, I'll assume we're good to go. - Dan (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GA symbol on article page

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviewer Barnstar

This barnstar has been awarded "unofficially" for over a year, so I've made it official and added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_awards/WikiProject#Awards_by_WikiProject. Hope this help push the cause forward! Best --Eustress (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Er...It doesn't look like a barnstar. It's more of a medal, if you ask me. bibliomaniac15 00:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

June Newsletter

Any word of when the June newsletter is coming out? Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sort of waiting on that one too. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cash, poke me if you're sick of delivering by hand. giggy _(:O) 08:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delays in getting the newsletter out. My computer crashed this week, so things have been a little slow. I expect to get it out this weekend. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the technical articles

At present the articles are reviewed by volunteer wikipedians without any condition. I think in some cases the issues are completely technical and just an expert or somebody who is knowledgeable can judge correctly about them. While only one wikipedian review and judge about the article, it's better to use a knowledgeable wikipedian to do the task. Thus I suggest separating the technical issues and establish a technical review team, that is a group of wikipedians who are experts or knowledgable in some fields. We can also ask each wikiproject to introduce some knowledgable wikipedians.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, please compare the two reviews about Sources of Islamic law. The first one has done by somebody who says I am by no means an expert in any sort of law, let alone Islamic law, but I think that will give me a great "outsider" perspective[4]and the second one has done by somebody who says I'm a Muslim and review the lead from Islamic viewpoint[5]. As you can see these are completely different viewpoints and in some cases we need both of them.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been suggested several times before, including by me. The concept is fantastic and would most likely work. The problem is finding the experts willing to help. I've been out of this project for about 8 months (a message on my talk page led me here tonight), so I'm not sure what happened with my last few proposals, but if a page is created where experts can list themselves under their field of expertise and tandem reviewing can occur, I think that would help solve a lot of the problems GA faces with quality. Lara❤Love 07:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can ask the wikipedians who are active in wikiprojects. I think in some wikiprojects such as Military history we can find several reviewer. In some others like Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology it may be difficult. But it's not a major problem, because few articles have been nominated which relate to such inactive wikiprojects.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Try voice your concerns at the reform page since that is where the centralized discussion of changes regarding GA happens there. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, please add your comments here.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Destroyed village broadness

Greetings, recently another user and I thought about eventually nominating the article Bayt Jibrin for GA status. It needs a lot of organization, MoS fixes, copyeditting maybe some NPOV (haven't read entire article) and maybe some more images. But as far broadness is concerned, what would be required of a village depopulated in 1948? The article currently has a history section with four subsections for each era, a culture section mostly on embroidery and I'm planning to start a demographics and geography section. What else would be needed, keeping in mind the lack of sources for a village that was destroyed in 1948? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The city guidelines found in this wikiproject don't exactly cover "destroyed" or "depopulated" cities; they're mostly there for existing cities. That being said, if you're talking about a city that's no longer really populated, I would think you should be able to find information on its history, and the geography seems pretty standard. Not sure what you would say about demographics; maybe from a historical perspective of the types of people that used to live there? The city won't have any current infrastructure, obviously, and government/education/transportation is largely unnecessary. I would think mostly you're talking about a historical article here. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! A tad-more expansion and a lot more organization of the current history section (and the entire article really) and it will be nominated. I already added a geo section as well as a demographics section but the latter is only focusing on the village's population throughout its history and the number of refugees presently that came from the village. Maybe we could include something about which clans lived in there if we could find sources. But, as far as broadness is concerned, Bayt Jibrin meets that guideline, correct? --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Helpful new userbox

If you place this userbox ({{User Good Articles3}}) userbox on your userpage, it will activate a link to a separate userspace where you can list the articles that you helped upgrade to GA. I created it because I wanted to list my GA articles without having them clutter my userpage. Just thought someone else might be interested.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject or taskforce to deal with the copy edit backlog

Hey all! I've been trying to gauge interest in a taskforce or even a wikiproject dedicated to maintaining and working on the category of articles needing copy edit, which has backlog reaching to January 2007. Already there are a few people interested in the idea; if you're interested or want to help, drop a note at my talk page! When there are enough of us interested, we can put up a proposal for the wikiproject and start working out the details. :) --Samuel Tan 01:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're aware of the recently disbanded LOCE. —Giggy 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team and all of the fine reviewers who hang out at Peer review, WP:FAC and WP:GAN spring to mind. What subjects and what "maturity level" of article do you like to copyedit, Samuel? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 GAN Newsletter is ready for consumption. Enjoy! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Proper category for Flocke

I reviewed the article on Flocke (a young polar bear from the Nuremberg Zoo) today, and I passed it as a GA. I am unsure where to place it at WP:GA, though. When a similar article was passed, it was placed in its own category under the Biology heading titled "Signficant organisms". It has since been elevated to FA and it remains under the "Biology" heading. The "Significant organisms" category doesn't exist at WP:GA anymore (although I suppose it could be re-created), so the closest I could find was "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures", as the closest parallel I could find was Tree That Owns Itself. I'm not happy with this placement, though, as I think a signficant animal is quite different from a significant plant. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently Billy (pygmy hippo) is listed under WP:Good articles#history in the "historical figures - other". That wouldn't work for Flocke though since he's not yet historical. If you added a "famous animals" grouping it would at least have two members. There's certainly potential for more--Clara the rhinoceros, Jumbo, Cheeta, Koko, the Medici giraffe, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

GA icon on articles?

How about taking an idea from the Spanish wikipedia and putting a GA icon on good articles as we do with a FA star? See here for an example. This would help readers separate good articles from lesser articles that have not been subject to review. This would help wikipedia in showing off its better work and reward contributors for their efforts. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the archives here and at WT:GA; this proposal has been discussed at length before. Regards, Skomorokh 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well now I think we shouldn't do that at all! It's funny when a good argument proves you wrong and makes you feel more knowledgeable. Read here for more info regarding GA icons. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of us are working hard to address the issues brought up the last time the GA icon was discussed. Others appear to be sitting crowing on the sidelines. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tease. Skomorokh 00:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Try teasing someone else. Trust me on this one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

About User:Omaga99

I strongly challenge the inclusion of User:Omaga99 in the participants list on the basis of their poor editing record. This user has been suspected of sockpuppetry and other forms of abuse. In particular, this user has only made a "smokescreen" attempt at being a productive editor. David873 (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a very active user in this project, but... I'm pretty sure most (if not all) projects here on WP don't "kick people out". This isn't some exclusive club for super-editors- being a participant just means that you're interested in helping out with the backend of the good articles process. --PresN (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If a user (including its socks) is blocked indef, then we can safely remove that person's name from the participant list. However, David873, you need to provide more evidence than just summarizing your points. Is Omaga editing poorly in general? Or actually abuse the GA system. If it's the earlier, we can do close to nothing. But if Omaga is abusing the system (such as repeatedly intentionally promoting articles that obviously do not meet the criteria) then this project might be able to do something. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The participants list of this project is not an "exclusive club". Anyone may add their name to it. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal article

A Wall Street Journal article that was published today did a comprehensive look at many parts of Wikipedia. I just wanted to point out one section that was mentioned: "Articles get rated now, too: A "good" article must have met the "good article criteria" and passed through the "good article nomination process," always subject to "good article reassessment."" I considered this interesting since the author didn't mention anything about Featured articles. We may actually be getting more admirers of the process (or the author was unaware of what FAs are). Either way, it was interesting to read about it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this! --Eustress (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's not everyday that I read the paper and see an article about Wikipedia. I was even more surprised to see something on GAs! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

August newsletter

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

Wikipedia:Good topics

• Wikipedia:Good topics - A proposed process to highlight topics where all articles are of WP:GA quality or higher. A straw poll is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Good topics#Straw poll which will end on August 24. (Discussion can also take place at Wikipedia talk:Good topics) - Cirt (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Category for Good Article Reassessment

Hi,

I am currently working on a bot that would inform WikiProjects on articles that are nominated in different workflows, e.g. as good article candidates or for good article reassessment. See User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts for details. I have however run into a problem with good article reassessments.

Normally, a bot can identify the nominated articles quite easily by evaluating certain categories; for example, Category:Good article nominees and Category:Wikipedia featured list removal candidates. However, for good article reassessments, this category doesn't seem to exist. GAR candidates are tagged with the template {{GAR/link}}, which however stays on the article even after the nomination is closed (for all I understand), and doesn't categorize the article or its talk page.

It should not be too difficult to modify the template so that it puts all current nominations into, say, Category:Good article reassessment nominees. Would that be OK for you? --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's already such a category: Category:GAR. Geometry guy 19:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this category captures the nomination pages, not the article talk pages. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The two should be isomorphic, but if others want that, it can be implemented. Geometry guy 20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd prefer that, because it saves me from implementing the isomorphism in SQL. :) --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion seems to have stalled on this topic. Is there a consensus to implement this change? --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well there seems to be no objections, and I think this would be helpful. Worst case people might complain after the fact and we could reassess then, but I think it will be fine. Cirt (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Implemented now. By the way, Category:GAR does not cover individual reassessments, while Category:Good article reassessment nominees now does (that's what I actually need); so the map is rather a monomorphism. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Neat. Have the relevant WikiProjects related to those articles been notified? Cirt (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm working on that, but it's not yet finished. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. :P By the way, all this stuff you are doing for the project is very useful, thanks for your efforts. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

sidebar proposal

proposal concerning GA and sidebar here: [[MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar#add_to_navigation 86.44.22.174 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Good topics open for business

I hope the process is fairly self-explanatory :) Please don't nominate topics you haven't worked on. Please address any questions you have about how exactly good topics are implemented here - rst20xx (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories

Shouldn't the subcategories of Category:WikiProject Good articles which are placed on the talk pages of articles be in Category:Hidden categories (using __HIDDENCAT__, or perhaps {{hiddencat}})? Category talk:Hidden categories suggests that this should be done for "maintenance categories, i.e. those which describe the present state of the article". It would allow the good article category to be put back onto the article itself rather than the talk page. GreenReaper (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Good

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: There's only 4,572 of them, shouldn't take you too long. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Only 1470 GAs were "selected". Gimmetrow 00:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dang, you're right. Ah well, no problem at all then. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

JoJo (singer)

Article is up for reassessment, it needs a lot of work. — Realist² 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:JoJo (singer)/GA1 and please help out, both with the review and the article. Geometry guy 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

There have been a number of interesting discussions related to short articles, GAs, featured content and so on. After following from a distance, I've added a proposal to the maelstrom at WT:FAC#Featured_content.2C_editor_motivation_and_GA. It is intended to encourage cross-process and Wikipedia-wide thinking, as much as being a particular idea. Geometry guy 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely support G-Guy's idea, or some version of it. (Btw, why talk about it at FAC? It concerns Good Articles.) G-Guy is proposing that a couple of GAs each day show up on the main page, with less coverage than WP:TFA but more coverage than the WP:DYK articles. I don't know how excited Raul is going to be about increasing his workload, but there's a lot of potential here. If Raul chooses to throw how many times articles are viewed into his selection process, it would encourage people to get some of the most-read articles up to GA. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this could also be a good idea, but I'd like to see a quick review of the article before it reaches the main page to ensure that it actually does meet GA criteria. The application of the criteria can be spotty. A process similar to WP:TFAR might help with that. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think some kind of pre-main page check would be a very good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

←Is this a good idea? Every proposal I've ever seen concerning reviewing has had upsides and downsides, and made some people happier than others. If we do this right, I see potential for everyone to get what they want. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

• I think it's a very good idea, but I have grave doubts surrounding its acceptability, as too many have an almost instinctive antipathy towards any recognition of GAs, much less allowing them space on the main page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see antipathy among FAC reviewers for giving recognition to what's going on at GAN; I see antipathy for ignoring the good stuff going on at FAC. That's why I'm proposing that a necessary step is for people who have some familiarity with style guides, style guidelines and FAC-quality writing review each Good Article that's headed for DYK. This would give editors first-hand experience with the kind of things we talk about at FAC, without having to write a featured article first; the greater exposure to what goes on at FAC would produce more FAC reviewers over time.

Are we agreed that the first step is to present a persuasive proposal to Mark (User:Raul654)? He decides what goes on the main page.- Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

• Is the decison his alone to make? If so, then he clearly needs to be on board with the idea before going any further. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with heading over to Mark's talk page, as soon as we get some support from FAC reviewers and others. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Obviously I can't speak for those FAC reviewers, they're a horrible bunch. Allegedly. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it will be easier to start small and grow if we don't create new names or processes. If we are just talking about Good Articles, that's the best way to motivate people to write more Good Articles. And we're talking about the WP:DYK section, because everyone knows what that is, just with a bit more detail for Good Articles. I like Karanacs' idea of an equivalent to WP:TFAR, which would help with fairness and with the perception of fairness, but let's make sure Mark/Raul is on board before we try to sell him on a new process.- Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

A lot of people are concerned that the most-read articles on Wikipedia are not being worked on carefully or reviewed, and there's nothing in the GAN or FAC processes that fixes that. If Raul chooses to bias his selection for Good Articles at DYK a bit in the direction of those GAs that are getting a lot of page hits, just like the 0.7 process biases selection, this would address something that GAN and FAC aren't. Is this desirable? I like the idea of a biased selection process a lot better than I like it when I see hurricane and roads editors blamed for writing yet another featured article on hurricanes and roads ... they're not the problem.- Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

I agree, of course, with the concerns above that any Good Article that shows up on the main page should be copyedited to make sure it's engaging and conforms to WIAGA criteria. But if you get people competing for the main page, maybe they'll spend more time trying to make the GA they just wrote look pretty, instead of working on another GA. This kind of trade-off is the oldest debate at GAN. I think I have a solution, and I'm willing to put in the work to make it happen; I'll commit to doing the copyediting for every article until I can recruit people to help, and I don't think I'll have a problem recruiting. There are a lot of journalism students, underemployed freelance writers, and under-motivated but talented Wikipedians who would be very interested in being able to pick a subject, copyedit articles in that subject, get feedback from experienced writers who know AP Stylebook and good writing practices, and then have their work show up on the main page. This is how writing in the real world works, usually: some people crank it out, while other people are fussy and do the polishing.- Dan Dank55 (send/receive)

FAC reviewers are very keen for more people to learn the style guideslines and WIAFA and participate in reviewing. The problem, of course, is that we/they do a lot of preaching to the choir, and not so much community outreach. This is the perfect context for exposing people to the various standards at FAC, without requiring them to write a featured article first.- Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: enhanced notability for featured articles?

Wikipedia abounds with articles that are on subjects that meet the Wikipedia:notability criterion but may not necessarily be all that important. So what I have been thinking is that only articles on truly encyclopædic topics should be Featured; articles on semi-notable topics should still be eligible for good-article status. Thus, Good-Article status (or a locally-awarded assessment of "A") would be the highest award that an article on a semi-notable or obscure topic can receive. This proposal might operate in conjunction with the one mentioned above. What do you think? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, it is a silly idea. Articles are judged by quality, not by what certain individuals or groups consider to be important. What is not important or obscure to you might be very important to someone else. Why should their work by disregarded because you don't care for it? Resolute 14:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Which is exactly why I mentioned one of my own articles as an example of being “obscure.”   69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Elimination drive

I've set up an elimination drive in an attempt to try and reduce the huge backlog at WP:GAN. Peanut4 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No backlog elimination drive till the end of Sweeps. See here and here for the rationale. You can always do reviews on your own though. That hasn't stopped. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You cannot dictate to other reviewers what they want to do, Ohana. If reviewers want to do a b.e.g., let them. A one month distraction is hardly a drop in the ocean of the long sweeps process. Geometry guy 06:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not dictating or suggesting anything close to that. I just want to point out that there are good reasons why we put on the brakes on the one in Fall 2007. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see it as a little flawed logic to prevent elimination drives. The GA backlog is growing and growing. I can't see something wrong with being proactive to try and reduce that backlog. But if you want me to end the elimination drive I will do? Peanut4 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that it made sense to hold off on b.e.g's back in fall 07, when sweeps had just begun, but after more than one year, it's only 35% done. I'm not sure that it makes sense to ask people to hold off on doing elimination drives for 3 years while sweeps finishes. --PresN (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to end. But you have to do a cost vs. benefit analysis. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

In case anyone's interested:

a procedural question

Suppose that a Good Article is promoted to Featured Article status. Later, it is demoted (maybe it is determined that it was promoted to Featured Article status in error, or the application of the Featured Article criteria gets stricter over time, or the article gets worse with more editing). Right now I think that it goes into B-class status. This probably is the best outcome – I seriously doubt that automatic restoral to GA status is a good idea at all – but what is the consensus regarding this? I propose that when an article fails WP:FAR, whoever closes the WP:FARC should consider, on a case-by-case basis, resubmitting the article into WP:GAN. (Articles that fail WP:FAR because of factual error or serious bias should not be submitted to WP:GAN until the error is corrected.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea in principle; the only potential problem I see is that we normally expect the nominator to also be actively involved in editing the article, in case it gets put on hold and failed by default for want of attention. True, a hold is probably unlikely with an article that's already been through GA before going to FA, but it could be an issue. I'm also not sure how Sandy or Raul would feel about taking on the extra work... ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want you can do it youself. You only need to check periodically WP:FFA, as a new article is added to this list, just send it to GAN. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, FARC'd articles do not go to B-class. I have never seen (or at least I can't think of one) a FARC'd article that meets WP:WIAGA. When an article is FARC'd, it's always far enough gone that it doesn't meet GA standards either. This has been discussed many times; they used to be re-assessed to B-class, but since the new C-class was added this year, GimmeBot leaves assessment blank on FARC'd articles. Projects need to look at the articles and decide anew what to do with them, but they are never GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Short articles

Is there any minimum limit to the size of a GA candidate? Many articles are unavoidably short because there is very little data available and, if all of that is used in the article, we could be looking at something which is only 3k or less. But does that disqualify it from becoming a GA even when it meets all of the listed criteria? BlackJack | ^{talk page} 18:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no minimum size. All that's required is that the article deals with its subject's major topics (as opposed to being comprehensive, as required by FA). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus. We've a few short articles in WP:CRIC that are complete in terms of the available data and are currently rated B-class. I'll see if they are ready for GAN. Regards. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a requirement that an article should be "Broad in its coverage". Articles less than 3K are highly unlikely to be broad enough for GA. Even a basic DYK requires a minimum of 1.5K - and even then the wording says "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting administrators." Common sense should prevail, and articles even of 5K, such as William Bedle which has been nominated, are clearly inadequate as we learn little about the subject. This article is Start class ("Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.") rather than C class ("Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.") - and clearly misses out on B class ("No reader should be left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher."), let alone GA class. With a GA article the topic's notability should be beyond question - a nomination, such as William Bedle, that fails to demonstrate notability through broad and clear explanation backed by reliable sources will fail "Broad in its coverage". We are not shown why Bedle was thought to be a decent cricketer. We don't even know basic information such as if he was a bowler or a batter, or if he was left or right handed. SilkTork *^YES! 21:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not confuse WikiProject ratings (which are a matter for WikiProjects) with Good Article status (which is purely determined by the Good article criteria). Geometry guy 22:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked at William Bedle, so have no opinion on that article. Generally though, there is no reason why an article needs to meet an arbitrary 3k word count to be considered "broad enough for GA". DYK may choose to do whatever it likes, but even FA is now having to comes to terms with defining what "comprehensive" means in practice, and whether an article of less than 1,000 words – not 3k – can be considered comprehensive. That's particularly relevant given the history of GA, set up initially to recognise good short articles. Added to which, any attempt to measure broadness by a crude and arbitrary word count is fatuous. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

One complicating factor that has to be borne in mind is not whether there is information missing on major topics, but whether there are reliable secondary sources for that missing information which ought to have been consulted. The recurring example is Plato's birth date. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

A nomination that fails to demonstrate notability through broad and clear explanation backed by reliable sources will fail "Broad in its coverage". This is completely incorrect. Broad coverage (or wide scope) is not necessary to establish WP:N. It is sufficient that a single reliable source has provided a clear indication of the subject's notability and this can be achieved in a couple of sentences. There is no connection between notability and scope. And I agree with Malleus about applying a "word count" which is a ridiculous interpretation.

A GAR cannot be quickfailed because a short article "is not broad in coverage". By definition, a short article cannot be broad in coverage. To fail it for that reason completely defeats the stated purpose of GAR to welcome short articles.

In my opinion, either the reviewer does not understand that short articles are eligible for GAR; or else GAR is superfluous as a mere dress rehearsal for FAR.

We need to decide if GAR is meaningful in its own right and if it does welcome articles that are short by necessity. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To Geometry guy. I was not making a confusion, just giving an example. The example was apt as it came from a project involved in the article in question which had rated the article as Start class. Guidance and advice is always just that - though good advice is always useful to refer to. My intention was to refer to good advice as there seems to be some uncertainty as to what would constitute "broad in coverage". SilkTork *^YES! 11:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To Malleus Fatuorum. I wasn't proposing setting a 3k limit - my wording was: "Articles less than 3K are highly unlikely to be broad enough for GA". The intention was to indicate that very short articles are unlikely to contain enough information to be broad in coverage. I gave as an example the William Bedle article which was nominated as a GA on a cricketer even though the article was unable to inform the reader of very basic information such as if the cricketer bowled or batted, or which games he played in. I believe the thinking being the nomination was that "this is all the information I could find, therefore it's complete", which is understandable. However, we need to be aware that such thinking could lead to articles similar to Hai Phong Railway Station being nominated on the grounds that there is nothing more to say about the topic. I see no reason to object to an article being nominated based purely on size, but we do need to be paying attention to the amount and detail of the information contained within such nominations that they do provide readers with enough information that major questions are not left unanswered. The point about incomplete research is very important - however, that the editor(s) of an article have looked hard and not found more information doesn't make that article "broad in coverage" - it just makes that article deficient in information and therefore unable to become a complete article. This is not the fault of the editors; however, more information may turn up later which can fill in the blanks, and so such articles may later become good articles. SilkTork *^YES! 11:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To BlackJack. Would you like a second opinion on William Bedle? I have no problem with that. Or would you like that I went through the article point by point against the criteria? My view was that because there was so little information in the article it would require a significant build to make it into a viable GA candidate, and therefore would develop so far beyond what it is now that commentary on how it is now would have little usefulness. However, I would be willing to do that if you would find it of assistance. SilkTork *^YES! 12:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as the Bedle article is concerned I simply want it to be reviewed against all the criteria but bearing in mind, as pointed out in the original nomination, that it is a short article because all known data is included. I could add a lot more but it would be irrelevant padding or, worse still, speculation amounting to WP:OR. What you must understand is that GAR was designed for short articles and you need to take on board the footnote attached to GAC#3a. I would not expect an article like this to progress to FA, although the comment above by Malleus suggests that FAR now welcomes short articles.

In fact, given the additional information that the Bedle article provides about Dartford, it does have wide coverage. The known data about Bedle is contained in his obituary and in the additional information unearthed by his club. While I accept that we don't know if Bedle was right-handed or left-handed, it really does not matter. You do not dismiss an article just because a minor detail is unknown and cannot be established.

When you say that "(incomplete research) just makes that article deficient in information and therefore unable to become a complete article", you have missed the point. If there is no other data available, the article is complete and cannot be deficient in information if it includes all known information. Furthermore, completeness is not one of the GA criteria, rather it belongs to A-class review and hence to FAR. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through the points of the article and make comments for you. No problem. I'm sorry that I appear to have been too dismissive of the article.

I'm not as certain as you that you have all the available research. In my experience, there will be stuff out there. What it needs is for someone to go through the local archives, various newspaper and magazine archives, and books on the history of early cricket (that is if they wish to find out more about this man - I admit my own curiosity is aroused, and I live not far from Dartford so could do some of the legwork in the local archives). My point above about Hai Phong Railway Station, is that a Googlewhack article (an article on something for which there is little available information) is fine, as long as the article is broad in coverage - an article that doesn't cover the basic points (for whatever reason, including - but not limited to - lack of research material) is one that is not broad enough and so will fail GA. SilkTork *^YES! 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can assure you that all available data has been used. Numerous people have been involved in cricket research for over a century and all archives have been extensively studied. G B Buckley, who is quoted in this article, was the greatest of all cricket researchers. Contemporary records up to about 1730 are few and far between because the newspaper industry was then in its infancy, freedom of the press having been granted as late as 1696. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Newsletter

Some of you may have noticed that the GA newsletter seems to have disappeared since the last issue (August). Yes, it did go on temporary hiatus. I took a little break from publishing it for awhile due to some other things going on IRL. But it's not gone for good! A new issue will be out at the beginning of November (1-3). If anyone has any ideas or wants to help contribute an article for it, please drop a line on my talk page in the next couple of days.

There may be a few minor changes. Specifically, the GAN Reviewer of the Month may see some significant changes. I started out compiling data from Epbr123's reviewer of the week and selecting one user as the reviewer of the month. When he stopped doing that, I reviewed all of the GA reviews myself, which was enlightening (to say the least), but also took way too much time (part of the reason I stepped back from the newsletter the last two months). I think it's great to recognize some of our outstanding reviewers, but there's got to be a better and less time consuming way to do it! So, the GAN Reviewer of the Month section may not be there -- if anyone has any better ideas, leave them here or on my talk page.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Arts Nomination Categories

Currently the Arts nomination category is divided into: Art and Architecture; Music; and Theatre, Film and Drama. I want to nominate a ballet dancer (Patrick Bissell) for GA status but its not clear which category dancing falls under. The Theatre, Film and Drama category seems to be inundated with film nominations - so, perhaps, could the categories be adjusted? Maybe then the Arts could be divided into Art, Music, Film and Theatre (for plays, dance etc). Does anyone agree with me and could sort this out? --Cazo3788 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

At the moment ballet goes under "theatre and musical theatre", which is part of "theatre, film and drama". It may be possible to find a better organization. Where would you propose to put radio and television drama? Geometry guy 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would propose that radio and television drama would be grouped with the Film category - i.e. this category would be all forms of theatre that do not occur before a live audience (if that makes sense), a kind of 'media' category. Would this work? --Cazo3788 (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

checking in and FCDW

Hey, I kinda stopped doing GA reviews in a mad and egocentric bid to climb the list, so I'm a bit out of the process, but looking back we're done some minor stuff such as add the new multi-parameter templates to slim down some instruction crap, and bigger things like adding the subpage. Since I wasn't really lucid at discussions for the subpage thing, do you think a changes at GA type article could serve as a Featured Content dispatch? Sandy is a bit overwhelmed and stumped for ideas, and since we've got so much on FA it seems only fair to have you guys do some pulling and get your spotlight :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I could write something on subpages and the effect this seems to have had on reassessment (see the last paragraph of this). However, I would rather do this after the election season, which (coincidentally or not) is turning out to be a rather intense period on Wikipedia in general and GA in particular. There's a milestone approaching: soon 1 in 300 mainspace pages will be either good or featured. That would be a nice opportunity to highlight the values that content review processes share. See also this. Geometry guy 20:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really whatever you want to write about; just draft it and pop over to WT:FCDW and let people know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

GA icon

I've noticed this has been mentioned before, but there hasn't really been any great interest. Does anyone else think we should have the in the top right corner of GAs, just like with featured articles? Diego_pmc ^Talk 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. The symbol is invariably "lost" if it's only on the talk page. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

GA rewrie for Hurricane Boris (2008)

Hello, WikiProject Good articles. You have new messages at Yellow Evan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

??? GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it gets quite surreal round here. I think he's objecting to the hold on his GA nom (thread here) EyeSerene^talk 18:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. Should count himself fortunate that the nomination wasn't "administratively withdrawn", or whatever the currently acceptable name is for quickfailed instead of complaining about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The user has a problem using the template. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to amend criteria

I think that point 3 of the GAR criteria defeats the object of encouraging the nomination of short articles. The criterion presently states:

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Although the footnote clarifies that short articles are welcome, it is a footnote and these are not always read. The main problem is the title "broad in its coverage". It is clear that some people who undertake reviews think this means the article must be lengthy. At the same time, broadness contradicts the stated aim of focus. If you are focused, you are not looking at the big picture.

I would replace "broad in its coverage" with something like "focused upon the subject" and bring the salient points in the footnote up into the criterion itself.

The criteria must make clear that GAR caters for short articles. At present, the process fails miserably. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I disagree with your use of the word "scope". I have never seen a GA reviewer criticise an article because of its limited scope. But whatever an article's scope is, its major topics must be covered; focus has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Take a look at Space Science Fiction Magazine for instance, an article that has failed to reach FA, but would, in my opinion easily pass at GAN. Or, to put it another way, if an article like that one couldn't pass at GAN, then the GA vision has gone horribly wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed my reference to scope as it is misleading. An article should cover all of its scope topics but, if the scope is limited by lack of surviving or available data, then there will be few topics and a reviewer must not expect to read a long article. The criterion must express the idea that the subject's major topics, as you say, have been covered in full. There is a big difference between full coverage and broad coverage. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 05:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much interest in this although I could take the silence to mean that no one objects to the proposal. If there is no opposition by next weekend, I will make the proposed change. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't edited the criteria but, to try and encourage discussion of the question, I've copied this topic onto Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The ambiguity in the criterion is sometimes troublesome, but (1) I don't think "Focused upon the subject" is any "better" than the current verbiage in addressing issues of article length, and (2) the problem exists because some reviewers pass judgment by only reading the criterion title ("Broad in its coverage") without reading what that means (i.e., "(1) it addresses the main aspects of the topic, and (2) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, and (footnote) This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." Best regards --Eustress (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've copied your points into the revived discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria where it seems likely that there will be more interest. ---BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving a Good Article

I have moved the Good Article 2000 Football League Second Division playoff final to 2000 Football League Second Division play-off final, per the article sources, consensus at WT:FOOTY and with the consent of the main contributor. Other than the usual page move admin, I'd like to know what considerations should be made for moving Good Articles. For instance the link to the GA review is now broken - should I correct the link or page move the GA review to fit the new article name? (Note the GA review was conducted under the old article name). Also am I expected to update the Good Article list with the new article name? Is there anything else I need to do, or should have done? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding Good Articles to the main page

There is a relevant discussion involving adding GAs to the mainpage going on here Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal#Introducing_GA_to_main_page. Some of the ideas proposed include creating a separate WP:FA-like box to feature the GA, incorporating into DYK or not including GA on the main page at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to limit nominations at WP:GAN

I'd like some of the thoughts of other members of this project in the discussion which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Limiting nominations?. Nikki♥311 17:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

GA community input requested

A proposal to make some changes to the way we review Good Article nominations is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA review reform. All interested editors are invited to participate. EyeSerene^talk 11:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)