This is an archive of past discussions about User:Clam0p. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
There is nothing in the internet about the rumours part so I cannot really cite it. But since i am a KGV student i know about it as everyone in the school have been either spook by an older student, or by a teacher. So could you let this one off? KGV09:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hollywood North
I spent the last 30mins cleaning up the article, that user had reverted all the changes to the citations in the Toronto section so all the publisher information and formatting was lost in place of only urls. Mkdwtalk01:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It's me again. I addressed some of your recommendations on the Portal:Vancouver's featured portal review. I noticed your vote is still object. Any responses so they can be addressed? Mkdwtalk11:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Why have you deleted no-install.com from the list of links on the portable software article on wikipedia? It is a good resource of information on the subject. Not to mention one of the very first resources on the internet on the subject. Please contact me directly leftyfb@left-click.org
As I told you, I check this article regularly, as well as another on wikipedia having to do with portable software. The flash drives I sell on my site are for people who do not feel like preloading their software or do not know how to load a bootable version of linux onto their flash drives. I have not sold many and don't rely on it at all. It was just something to help foot the bill of hosting the site. The registration is due to too many people abusing the site at one time and the VERY large amount of spam I was getting. I was not the one who entered my site on any of wikipedia but I am now requesting that it be kept on as the whole purpose of my site is to inform people of the current news and software surrounding the subject. I am also not the only person who believes it should be kept on.
(btw, how to you enter your signature as well as the date and time on your postings?)
Alright, I guess that's a valid reason. An anon seems to have added your link back in for you already. You can sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). Carson04:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me who entered it back on. I saw someone else agree with me and thought it might be ok. If you feel I should take it back off and let someone else put it back on for reasons of conflict of interest, I could do so as well. Also, about the lack of updates to my site. Real life career/side job schedules have taken a toll on my online dealing as far as taking the time to sit down and go through articles and post about them as well as read through, authorize and edit articles and downloads other people have posted. I am just now able to spend a little time catching up. Thanks for the wiki tip. Leftyfb04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You should reconsider the requirement to register before you can browse or download anything. Adding the site back is still a conflict of interest, as it can be argued that if your site really is that useful, then someone else will add it in for you. I won't remove it since you've convinced me that it's not spam, but you should still keep this in mind. Carson05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hollywood North
Carson, please read the full edit history and talkpage at this ongoing nightmare, especially the archived materials; and also the talkpages for Mkdw, Ckatz and lately myself; Yellowsnow tried to unilaterally place the AFD template already, although I believe it was Mkdw who pointed out WP:SNOW will override any such AFD; his placement of the supposed "blatant advertising" as well as the "speedy deletion" templates are tantamount to vandalism, as are most of his edits. I know I have a testy reputation, but this guy is downright hostile and very often nasty. I'm ignoring his attack on my talkpage, although I did just kibbitz on Ckatz's talkpage about some of his latest inanities. This guy is more than a troll, and is something like a propagandist; almost something like a film industry McCarthyite; I'm pretty sick of it; all very ironic because my involvement with the page originally was to prevent Duhon's Toronto-only agenda from overtaking it; then Yellowsnow shows up; I actually have issues with the expansiveness it's taken on, i.e. being an article about the scale of the industry in Canada, instead of the meaning/phenomenon of "Hollywood North" in and of itself; I think the article's overblown but Mkdw and Ckatz did an admirable job of trying to cite/represent both sides ("both" meaning the Vancouver meaning, and where Toronto's taken it; now there's a third "meaning", from yellowsnow, that it's "advertising" and "self-promotion" for the Canadian biz; that's a stretch but too long a discussion for here (certainly true about TO in some ways, but still it's become so high-profile/in such currency in the media as well as public speech that it's inescapably of encyclopedic interest). Anyway, recommending that he try an AFD is a bit of a non sequitur since he's already tried that, although he didn't go through the proper process; he doesn't know what proper process is and, quite frankly, doesn't seem to care.Skookum103:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You can't please everyone. Now that he has properly filed an AfD, he can easily see the consensus instead of being told that there is consensus. After it's closed as 'keep' it will further solidify the article's validity, so there'd be less debate over that. Carson05:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It is breaking fair use because logos are only allowed to be used when demonstrating the topic. Since the transportation section is not specifically talking about Air Macau, we can't put the Air Macau logo there. Carson21:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
yes, that is why I put on the left side of that main article - Air Macau. I think that your point is the logo may be allowed to put on it if the "whole topic" is talking purely about Air Macau. I don't think so. W. Disney's logo, MTR's logo can be seen in the topic of Hong Kong.72.138.191.6322:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's really no point putting the Air Macau logo beside a main article link. The logo fair use policy says it's fair use "to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question" when using the logo. I'll go remove those logos from the Hong Kong page right now; it shouldn't be a problem. Carson22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
RC meaning
Hey, I just added RedCommunist to the general page for RC, under the list of other meanings. Now, I don't see why you took it off since I am going to make a page. I believe since this is an encyclopedia I should be allowed to be listed there since that is the nickname for RedCommunist. I just don't see a reason it shouldn't be listed while some others listed have less to do with the meaning. An example is Rebel Camp, an internet game, which the link doesn't even go to anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedCommunist (talk • contribs)
I removed it because it linked off to your userpage. I assumed it was vandalism or a test. By the way, you are not allowed to redirect from mainspace to userspace. It's also a very bad idea to create an article about yourself, if that's what you're planning on doing. Carson02:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your excellent comments. One questions; if I spend the time fixing and improving the article to address all of your admittingly solid suggestions, will you support the article for a feature artcile nomination? Frank van Mierlo03:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you I will take on board all your suggestions for improvement and resubmit the article as a featured candidate. Thank you for your encouragement. I made specifc comments to your suggestions on the articles talk page. As always your input is appreciated. Frank van Mierlo21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed most of your comments. Please have a look at the page and see if you are willing to remove the GA hold. I will continue to improve the article to get it ready for FA . Once again your comments were excellent and very constructive, which is why I worked so hard to clear them. Frank van Mierlo23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, there are two sources listed in the article, with the little footnote [1] and [2]. Please teach me how I can better meet the sourcing requirement. I am new to Wikipedia. Thanks, Jerry lavoie04:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at my changes to the page just now. To use inline references, the <references /> tag needs to be added for them to appear. For sourcing requirements, see WP:CITE. Carson04:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your review of Boston College High School and its GA Nomination. I will be letting this first nomination pass and when I have some time to get back into Wikipedia I will certainly address the issues. Thanks again for your comments as they will be very helpful in furthering the article and preparing it to eventually become a Good Article. Thanks Caf362323:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed your coordinates for Burrard Station. They where pointed at Telus World of Science. Do you have a GPS and/or the correct coordinates for Burrard?
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. --Nehrams202000:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Not controversial at all. See the Australia page for a discussion and vote. You are very rude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundwell (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry if reverting your mass-edits as 'controversial' came off as rude, but I don't see any sort of consensus on the Australia talk page that suggests that your edits are justified. Please show me. Carson08:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
There was a vote to remove god save the queen. There were discussions on other pages as well. Australia leads the way and you must follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundwell (talk • contribs)
I don't know what discussion you're talking about, but those discussions would never enable you to go on all Commonwealth country articles and remove the royal anthem. Carson22:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Y not? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundwell (talk • contribs)
Basically, what was discussed or agreed upon by the editors on the Australia would, naturally, only apply to the Australia article. It makes sense. Carson22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
In your head. 'god save the queen' is the same everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundwell (talk • contribs)
Thank for your noting his vandalism. How do we hasten the process to get this character blocked? Dogru14403:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Try taking it to WP:AN/I. Or sit tight and wait for an admin to pass judgement on the 3RR report. The IP makes useful contributions as well as personal attacks and vandalism, so it's not exactly clear-cut. Carson03:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I checked the vandal reporting page. And it looks like they first have to be reported for 3RR violations. I am thinking that it the first violation that he'd be reported for would be 3RR, since he did that, then he almost entirely blanked out the article. Dogru14413:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
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.
I did some wikilinking myself, so any that you missed, I was able to add
The article from MosNews is archives at [3]. There is a translation of the decree for the Presidential standard, by me, at [4]. dealing with the other links now
The Prime Minister used to be the head of government, now he is just is the top minister. The Chairman of the Supreme Soviet was the head of state, but now, the body ceases to exist. The 2001 and 2006 elections were contested due to possible voter fraud, kicking out of observers and causing major problems for opposition candidates.
I keep it NPOV as possible
Yes, I love it when I edit articles alone
Symbols are public domain in Belarus, but as a US citizen, I hold a special copyright to the image. I am currently using the image for commercial ventures, so I am asserting my copyright on the image. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. You have earlier noted the recurrent edits by User:208.104.45.20. (He has previously blanked the page in question and was blocked for 3RR violation at the page.)
He is gutting material on the foreign language influence upon the speech of that region. Repeatedly he is raising geographic arguments about Sheboygan. All of Wisconsin is in the North Central American English region, not the Inland American English region. I am in good faith trying to have a dialogue with him. I have repeatedly posted queries in the edit comment box and on the Talk Page as to why he is removing material on the foreign language influence upon speech in Wisconsin. Please intercede on this matter. I am weary of this edit war. You'll note that no other editor is contentious with the content that I am restoring, and that this & Inland English are virtually the only topics that he is editing. Dogru14423:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
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.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo moscrop.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Logo moscrop.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PlaylandLogo.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:PlaylandLogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
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.
