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.
I've looked over your edits, and, with regrets, do have some reservations, only because of some of the systemic requirements of rollback. But, in all honesty, Twinkle works just as well. If you were to want to install it for your account, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle and follow the instructions there. I've actually heard from more than a few editors that they even prefer that one. I do regret the decision on my part, but a little more experience would probably be sought. After a month or two using Twinkle, you'd probably be a shoo-in, if you still wanted it after using Twinkle. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel really guilty that it was my comments that made you withdraw your RfA! I really do hope your admin coaching goes well and you pass your next RfA. All the best :-) TheProf - T / C20:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two minor things with a view to your seemingly inevitable next RfA: Some (not me, nor the majority!) for some reason or the other don't take too kindly to self-nominations. Ideally, wait until an established editor (extra bonus if it's an admin) offers to nominate you. The second thing is, the way you responded to the individual comments in your RfA speaks volumes about both your great attitude and temperament. However, it also betrays some degree of inexperience since replying to a lot of comments is not common and even frowned upon by some (again, not myself) in certain, excessive cases. Dorftrottel (ask) 01:49, April 18, 2008
Yeah, I guess they don't like me reverting their vandalism very much. :) Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page as well. I really appreciate it. (I always love it when someone vandalizes my talk page because it shows up really loud and clear. :P ) Thanks again and happy editing! Thingg⊕⊗16:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but I closed all the mfd's you just opened, and honored your request for deletion. In case you were not aware, if you ever have a user subpage that you'd like deleted in the future, simple add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. That adds it to the speedy deletion queue, where it will be deleted promptly without all the !voting. Cheers, happy editing, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got your message, no problem. Let me know if you ever need assistance/advice/recommendations in the future, I'll help where I can and give you a flat "I don't know" when I can't :-). cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer18:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome! As I said, it's not that you have a lot of big, bad problems, just some stuff that people wouldn't like to see on your next RFA. Just be sure not to rush the next one too fast.
I think a lot of times the problem with RFAs is that you have a user who's been around for awhile, helped promote an FA or two, and has had a lot of experience in various areas of Wikipedia, including more admin-related tasks. But then people bring up diffs and problems with WP:BITE and WP:NPA, and the RFA might fail due to several opposes. It seems that it takes a while for people to actually trust a user again, that they won't be snappy, as opposed to generally seeing a trend of positive, kind interactions with others from the get-go. Even if a user's last negative interaction or semi-attacking comment was a couple/few months ago, a lot of people, myself included, often consider it too close to the current time for comfort. So, I think a great way to start out is have a good foundation of a history of civility, and then work into more experience and knowledge of Wikipedia, which is basically something that's set in stone; if you helped promote a few GAs, for instance, you or nobody else can take that experience away from you.</RFA opinions>
By the way, have you applied for, or at least considered for the future, admin coaching? I think it's a good idea myself, although you might want to wait until the time when you actually feel ready for your next RFA. :) Good day! --JamieS9300:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...is not at all what I said. I never even said anything remotely approaching that, and frankly I don't know what led you to think otherwise. Please pay attention to what I actually write than a convenient straw man. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You thought the deleted content was relevant? Then maybe you can explain to me what 'Hispanic IT Executive Council' has anything to do with a corporation that manufactures radio controlled devices. There should be a separate page for that, instead of leeching off an established page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.201.194 (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looking back it appears I was indeed wrong thinking the content was relevant. Easy mistake to make, should have looked through closer. Sorry. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk?06:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs03:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean "wary" of his answers? Otherwise it seems you're implying that his answers are too long or something, i.e. they make you tired. I'll assume it's a typo vs. a grammar issue, but if you don't know what I'm talking about, let me know and I'll post a link to a good grammar page. Lots of people confuse the two words. Cheers! Katr67 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonenim...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
