Hello, Bobcheezy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! HighwayRainbow Sneakers21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to add to wiki's page on my great-grandfather at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Edward_Guinness%2C_1st_Baron_Moyne#_ref-32
He was an over-achiever who was sadly killed by Jewish terrorists in 1944. I don't mind that, but in adding a lot of references about his earlier life the discussion page has got nasty, as in:
"ridicilous POV based on a minority of historians, perhaps only one
it now looks like a tribute to Moyne the martyr, even though his personal
responsiblity in the fate of the hungarian jews and other european refugees is
fully documented. this was the main reason for the assassination. Amoruso 20:18,
28 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried to attempt to bring back the whole sections being deleted for no
reasons without reverting to the old version. It may require complete clean up.
Amoruso 20:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)"
It seems to me that the page has been used for arguments about anti-semite this and that. I don't mind that, but feel that my great-grandfather's earlier life also deserves to be told.
I don't think it needs arbitration - yet - but when I have reff'ed everything over a day, I am alarmed to see that someone says "It may require complete clean up." The page belongs to all serious published references, surely? I don't mind in the least if people mention his death and the last two years of his life, but I feel the first 62 years deserve serious mention as well.
Welcome to the Pokémon Collaborative Project, we hope you have a fab time editing Pokémon articles. If you have any questions about the articles, style, content or simply what our favourite Pokémon is (it varies, trust us) leave a message on the project talk page. Cheers and happy editing, HighwayRainbow Sneakers21:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Chobin.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I dont know if this is a dispute as such but just the other day [Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog] ended up deleted under copyvio. Citing the reason as infomation taken from a website. Wiki claims that copyright doesnt cover text from public domain so surely this means it's not a copyvio? In any case the notice now on the page says after a week it gets deleted :\. Could you help us save the page, it had so much work done on it that it would be a shame to see all that hard work going to waste Jennytablina22:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please help me. I received a bizarre message from an unknown source on Wikipedia stating that I am believed to be someone else. To the best of my knowledge I am the same person I have always been.
I do not know exactly what this means as I have only been using wikipedia for several weeks but whoever sent the message deleted my edits, which I believe are responsible edits (Patrick Mercer, Force Research Unit). Can you please help nip this in the bud.
The same Wikipedian who accused me of being a sockpuppet previously is doing it again. You told me to contact you if anyone reposts the same message which has again happened and this individual has deleted all my edits from today. He seems to be pursuing some sort of vendetta against another Wikipedian and I am caught in the crosshairs. Is this acceptable behavior and shouldn't he or she be penalized for this?
Dear Bob: Is this person whoever he or she may be permitted to engage in this type of behavior beased on alleged suspicions. How come he or she has never contacted me instead of pre-emptively deleting my edits and forcing me to do them over once you have given me the all clear. This cannot go on indefinitely as I refuse to re do all my work every night because of this individual. My edits should be judged on their merits. And this person needs to be warned that if he or she continues he or she will be blocked. Why do I have to endure this behavior when you have already adjudged in my favor in this ongoing situation?
I hope this will be the last time I have to contact you.
I think I understand now why this is happening. Apparently "Demiurge" resents my having updated something he/she had previously edited, although my edits were not very different from his. I checked out his/her home page briefly and apparently we are both Irish, so we have some shared interests, although mine are more contemporary.
I think he/she should have contacted me rather than behaving as he or she did. As far as other points he mentioned on Bottesini's page in response to my complaint (he seems to be stalking me on Wikipedia): in re breast cancer, I am extremely interested in the subject, having lost a grandmother to the disease and I am very gratfeul that list exists and I plan to add more names to it as the opportunities (unfortunately) arise. Am I the only one interested in this subject?
I am interested in entertainment and politics (as Demiurge accuses me) just as it says on my home page but Brian McCargo, Simon Towneley and Kellyanne Conway are hardly "minor Hollywood celebrities."
Please help with this nonsense so it is not a recurring issue every night.
If you would like to know what Happy Camper reverted, I can post it to your page again. It wasn't spam. It was request for help. My email address is MichaelDWolok@aol.com
The name of the article is Hugh Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation. In order to understand what is going one, someone needs to read my first edit to the article, and Lethe's reaction to my first edit, and his totally dismissive comments on the talk page. He insists that everything I write is patently wrong, even though I have ample support for every one of my contentions. As a matter of fact, there is no dispute among physicists about any of the changes I want to make to the article, that is what makes this so frustrating.
I see much more of what I originally put in the article has been put back after Lethe revereted all of it. The problem is if I add something, Lethe reverts it. If someone else adds the exact same thing, he doesn't. My problem is with Lethe. Lethe says everything I write is patently wrong, even though I provide ample support each of my claims on the articles talk page. Lethe claimed my assertions were so wrong, he could revert them all without bothering to address any of them.
Lethe claimed the word "paradox" and "constradiction" always mean the exact same thing. Instead of editing my additions or modifying them, he always reverts everything I add.
I think it is better to list each point separate instead of lumping them all together. Michael Price says if a person disagrees with one advantage, that weakens the whole theory so it is better to lump all advantages together under a few points. I disagree. If you lump many points together, and someone disagrees with one aspect of one point, many advantages they agree with are lost, as you've lumped many advantages they agree with together with one they don't. If any part of a point is wrong, the whole point is lost. Hence, it is better to list each advantage separately.
Moreover, there is no dispute among physicists about the truth of any of the advantages I listed. I have ample support for each and every point. Everything I wrote is important to the article. I would like to hear one objective party tell me that is not the case. I am ready to support each and every contention I've made. CSTAR who initially objected to my list was satisfied with it after he modified it.
I want to find one objective person interested in the subject tell me that what I wish to add does not improve the article. I provided important, highly relevant quotes by Einstein, David Deutsch, and Richard Feynman that have all been stripped from the article. Anyone should be able to see the difference between what I want to add and what is there now.
Lethe violates all these Wikipedia rules. Is there anything that can be done about this?
To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.
So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism.
Especially, remember to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules. Correcting a newly added sentence that you know to be wrong is also much better than simply deleting it.
You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold.
Avoidance The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to.
Nagel just wrote in the article's discussion page that my addition is excellent and should be added to the article, not two seconds later Lethe was all over my new addition, nitpicking like crazy. Lest you think Nagel and I are the same person, a quick review of the discussion page will make clear that this is not the case.
Please look at Lethe's reaction to my first Wikipedia edit, and how he reverts every word I try to add. If others add the exact same thing I do, he leaves their edits alone.
He reverted my first addition saying everything I wrote was patently false, and he could revert it without commentary because not one thing I said was correct. Please read the article's discussion pages from the time of my first edit.
After other editors modify my additions, he continously reverts everything.
Lethe refers to me "the lamentable Michael D. Wolok." I think this is uncivil and an insult.
The only article I am working on now is "Many Worlds," and the only editor I have a problem
with is Lethe. Others may disagree with my additions, but they are reasonable. Lethe from
the beginning has only wanted everyone to dismiss everything I have to add. He is the one
who reverts every word I add, and every change I make.
I read what you wrote in the article you were working on. None of it seemed like it was wrong. I might not be an expert on the topic, but I don't understand why Lethe keeps reverting. If you find out why, just respond on my talk page Bobcheezy14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I am currently having a dispute with a moderator of the word Mulatto. His name is JereKrischel and I believe he/she is being extremely biased. I'd like you to follow along, if posssible. Because I will show you thing's that just don't make sense.
Thank you for time Andrew!
- Angela
Hey bobcheezy - just to let you know, I've got no dog in this fight...this is strictly a linkspam issue. User:131.247.234.199 started linkspamming explicitlymixed.com a few months ago. It looks like a new online magazine, attempting to drive traffic...it's pretty much completely broken when viewed in Firefox, but the linkspamming started when it was going public.
Since the initial linkspamming, other alias (possible sockpuppets), have tried to add things back in, like User:Liberalpunt, and now User:Aries90. AFAIK, the commerical links Aries90 has been removing are established yahoo discussion groups, so they get to stay, but trying to drive traffic to a new online magazine is clearly not appropriate. If you have any other questions, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --JereKrischel03:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Andrew, no Explicitly Mixed isn't an online magazine.
Jereschel:
Seems? Seems like an online magazine? Where did you get that? Explicitly Mixed is not a online magazine. If that is the case I could say the same thing about a non-yahoo webpage like mulatto.org. Please re-assess this, this is absolutely non-sensical. How can explicitly mixed not be added as a resource while another website whereby the same assumptions can be made on another website such as mulatto.org? The page posted is a MULATTO page. Simple enough. Jereschel you are being unfair in ASSUMING Explicitly Mixed is an online magazine. Why not assume the same with the "non-yahoo" webpage's. You Assume? A moderator on wikipedia ASSUME instead of getting the facts?
Jereschel nor you bobcheezy has given me a good reason for anything. You only ASSUME it's a online magazine without even contacting the site. Wow, he even removed the link under the word Multiracial. I take it he really hate's Explicitly Mixed. I think I know where this is heading. Thank you for your time gentlemen.
Moving excess information and specifics to Wookieepedia (and providing links to Wookieepedia per the "see also" and/or "external links" sections)
Enhanced communication amongst WikiProject members
More to come
These should provide the basic steps needed to improve and "encyclopedia-fy" the Star Wars series of articles.
Things to do
There are plenty of Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars/things to do. An update to the page is coming very soon, and it will represent the new and exciting changes that Star Wars pages will be receiving!
Out-of-universe versus in-universe perspectives
Although details are forthcoming, I would like to take this time to explain the gist of this concept. Wikipedia has generally agreed that fictional articles should write about the topic from a "real world" perspective, focusing on real world issues and topics, with a section or two for plot synopsis and so on. Jabba the Hutt is a solid character example, and Clone Wars (Star Wars) is quickly moving toward an out of universe perspective.
Article evolution
As many of you know, lists of minor Star Wars-related themes are very common on Wikipedia; however, since these may be seen as violations of Wikipedia policy (and having seperate articles would breach even more policies), the tentative solution is to create general articles on a list's topic (for example, turning List of Star Wars devices into Technology of Star Wars, which allows us to cover everything from hyperspace to comlinks in a general encyclopedic fashion). This can be very tough for some broad topics, so the key is organization. I encourage all editors to list their ideas on the WikiProject talk page. It will be a very difficult — but tangible — effort.
For an example, let me point you to the Final Fantasy WikiProject. Some of us over at that WikiProject decided to turn various components of Final Fantasy X, such as Pyreflies, Yevon, and the backstory — into an article describing the world of Spira. Location descriptions were given a List of locations in Spira article, and the details themselves were placed on the Spira (Final Fantasy X) page. This is a decent template to follow — however, we will need to place priority on out-of-universe, "real life" topics and perspectives in realtion to the article.
Sounds confusing, eh? It won't, for examples will be popping up left and right in the near future!
Thank you for contributions. You have signed as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject their is a Roll call going on currently at the Star Wars WikiProject talk page. Please sign if you still want to help out.
Hey.. I was wondering if you could help me with the group of articles about Deus Ex, since a a_man_in_black has taken to marking a group of perfectly good articles for deletion without presenting an official policy to back this up. If you could look into this, it'd be great. -Durandal- -Durandal-
It's already there. "In fact, they have made the least appearances (though they apper more frequently in the third season) of any normal monster and do more damage than any other monster." – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from Wikipedia:AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! Martinp2320:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams202000:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. —