This is the official myspace profile of Jonathan Pryce. I added it as he doesn't currently have an official .com, etc. website that I am aware of. If so, then that one can be used as the link then. 69.133.89.131 (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was really feeling after I made the nomination like I should have posted something first, hence why I posted on Wikiproject. Give me a few minutes and I'll withdraw the nomination.
Hi Yamanbaiia,
I appreciate your desire to prevent censorship when you reverted my change to the LOTR page. I didn't mean it in the spirit of censorship and I meant in good faith to improve the encyclopedic style of the article in accordance with the profanity policy. I have put a discussion of this onTalk:Lord of the Rings. I'd be grateful if you could take a look and then let me know what you think.
best regards, Sanddune777 (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holiday season and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka07:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there- as you may remember from the Good Article review, we have both contacted Talbot's official site in an attempt to find images. You seem to be more experienced in this than me- I have never really requested images before. I got the following email back from Claire Freeman, which implies she has already uploaded the image, though I do not know where and whether it was done properly, and so I was wondering if you could shed any light on it-
Which I did!
If it needs to be the GNU free license then fine - she didn't specify which one - just asked me to choose one.
If it needs to be the GNU free documentationlicense thats absolutely fine.
Can you amend rather than have me go through the lengthy process of submitting the photos again?
If the image has been uploaded and procedure has been followed then that's fantastic- could you link me to the image or just stick it in the article yourself? Does this email mean more to you than it does to me? J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose I could upload, but all I was thinking was that she implies she has already uploaded the image. If you don't know anything about that, then I will just upload it and be done with it. J Milburn (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fantastic, thanks very much. Presumably the OTRS volunteer will add a message to the article's talk page when the image is up? J Milburn (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bug you again so quickly, but you have been loosely involved in the article, so I wondered if you could check the comments on the talk page about the external link to the German language fansite and offer a third opinion on the matter. J Milburn (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Yamanbaiia, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget.15:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus reached last year [1] as television is fiction and fiction is in present tense, all actors are to be listed unless the list is excessive. The CSI list is not and, by previous decision, Jorja Fox remains on the list. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed my comments from the CSI talk page. I find it truly bothersome that someone would do such a thing without warning, or even a simple courtesy of "could we move this here." IrishLass (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think it probably gave the wrong impression, but since you've apologised hopefully it should be over now. Regards, Rudget.21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The animosity they just sprung on me regarding my comment on the talk page indicates they probably don't want to listen. I don't know what kind of false accusations they think my post about agreeing that current cast should only be in an infobox was supposed to express. LOL. If they insist they want Fox in the infobox, we might as them why they're fighting so hard for Fox and not for Louise Lombard. Redfarmer (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a disscussion opened on the Las Vegas TV Series site on infoboxes. I would like for you to leave some comments. Thank You DJS24
--DJS24 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with the ref cleanup so far. It's looking better. I know it's a pain, but it's one of the most common criticisms brought up at FAC, so I wanted to prod you into circumventing it ;). BuddingJournalist02:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback on the character discussion. I've been playing around in my own sandbox before putting up anything live and wanted your feedback if you had a moment. It's my idea that this will be a page at CSI:NY Characters and the current Minor characters in CSI:_NY could redirect there. I'm curious on a number of issues, mainly if you had any info on Hammerback's character and also how many appearances a character should have to warrant a mention outside List of CSI: NY characters. Any input you have is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Point definitely taken re: the page naming. I don't follow much of the TV discussion because it has a tendency to degenerate into cruft. I may end up leaving the pages as are just replace some of the unsourceable text. Need to do some more thinking on this, especially the blatant copyright violations and, as my boss calls it, Department of Redundancy Department. You're right that Mac is a lead, however the issues surrounding information are such that it's a lot of the same information repeated and more actor-focused. I just did a re-write on Gary Sinise earlier this month and am really trying to keep the character/actor separate, if that makes sense. I see so much potential that I want do everything at once, but I'm sure you know how that is ;) Travellingcari (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting vandalism on Walt Whitman's page. I was actually in the middle of a legitimate edit while it happened and obliviously editing away while someone kept adding "faggot" this and "faggotry" that. That's why it's such a pain to work on poor Walt's article! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean I can'y use pictures that already exist on the wiki? I took the V picture from the movie article and 4chan logo from the 4chan article; I didn't upload them.--Piepie (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KK. Thanks for the PROTIP. I'll fix after I'm done trying to fix my bungled ref on the Project Chanology paeg.
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.
Hi there. In case you weren't going to check back at the Computing reference desk now that you've gotten an answer and the question is getting closer to archival, I'd just like to point out that there's a program called Senuti that does what you want, and is much easier to use than copying the files from the Ipod directly (it even gives the files names based on their ID3 tags, instead of that automatic Ipod naming format). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those section breaks are just for a break in reading, as I don't particularly like nine paragraphs of verbiage at once. We can't do pre/post crash like with the survivors, and the discharge seems like a good place to do an equivalent break. Will(talk)20:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Sorry for the slow response, it's been a busy week for me. I have performed a selective undeletion of the template history going back to the original TfD, leaving the template's first incarnation deleted and the second one restored. Cheers, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!)21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do keep an eye on the page anyway, but I'll look at what you add. I did give a response to your reasoning on his date of birth, with which I do disagree, and gave my rationale for why I do. If you need anything from me, let me know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the change you made and it does appear you are right (did that happen while I was away?) which means we are going to have to rename an awful lot of CSI episodes. As long as they aren't planning on changing the policy again it does look like something that needs doing I'm not sure I'm up for the slog (why do I seem to make more work for myself? ;) ).
OK cool. I may have made a bit of a mess fiddling around yesterday so if everything else is in hand I'll doublecheck my edits and make sure everything is OK. Cheers. (Emperor (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
And yes it would be worth adding in a few notes on naming guidelines - granted it might only be me getting confused but it'd be handy having something to help other people in the same boat (even if it is only a small one ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I've taken the reigns on the nomination because the original nominator has retired from Wikipedia. I have updated the article to resolve the concerns that you addressed. Please reply back to the review when possible. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it could do with a tidy. The simplest thing would be to split off templates and guidelines to new pages and try and keep all the important information above the fold - probably useful links to project sub-pages down the right and perhaps a "to do" list down the right? It'd be worth raising on the project anyway but it gets my vote. (Emperor (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Good stuff - I like it!! The only change I'd make is the background colour as there needs to be a bit more contrast. Technically the separate left and right columns look fine without the turquoisey background colour - so perhaps leave it out? Other than that it gets my thumbs up - it is a big improvement and if there are any issues they are minor ones that just require a quick tweak.
Noticed that you are a reviewer of this film article. Furthermore, I saw your edit that changed a sentence from "they is" to "they are". Acc. to the sentence, it says, that "...requests a group of youngsters that is nonchalant....", isn't it? The word group makes it singular, as far as I see. Thoughts? Besides this, please let me know if there is anything I can do to make your review as easy as possible. Thanks for taking out time. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I ain't a native speaker and from your babel, I realize that I'm as equally equipped with the knowledge of English as you. But, my thoughts are that the sentence in the lead section is sort of a summary of her efforts. Whether she got them to the film separately or collectively, I feel that the word "group" deserves a singular status. Nevertheless, this isn't that important now. I'll have this on mind when I try attempting a close copyedit with an independent editor. Mspraveen (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm terribly sorry if my comments about your previous edit put you off the review. Since that wasn't my intention at all, please excuse me in case that troubled you. It is sad that you have stepped down as the article's reviewer. However, I sincerely thank you for your fine-tuning and your comments on its talk page. I've addressed them and I hope that these will help another editor in the GA review. In case you have anything else to share, please feel free to discuss with me or on the article's talk page. Once again, thanks a ton! Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and let her know then. I just did some polishing and expanded a little bit about Radner. It's like I said on the talk page, writing about her always makes me a little sad. I think it's very possibly a future FAC. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying where you are now and from where you came. I was confused (nothing new) since I'd read on your page before that you were in France, then I saw Argentina and all the other places so I just wasn't clear. Gee, but I'm envious - I've been to Canada - and New York and New Orleans are like another world, but otherwise, I'm born, and stuck, in the USA. I've worked off and on with the Charles Manson article (which is in actuality already a good article, maybe even featured) but when I nominated it for GA, the other two involved editors flew into a bit of an edit frenzy and had a tiff, so I withdrew it. One of these days I'll be up to trying it again, when I'm feeling more assertive. Sorry about mixing up the book refs, it was a copy and paste error. I think in a week or two, when I've found my copy of It's Always Something, we could push Wilder further. Thanks for your note and right back at ya. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Dixit:
Salut, tu devrais ajouter Rencontre/Rhône-Alpes à Wikipedia:Meetup, peut être qu'il y aura des gens d'un peu partout qui voudrait y aller et en plus la rencontre serait plus officielle. Si Stevage n'a pas fait la traduction laisses moi un message, je peux la faire et l' ajouter à Meetup. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Désolé, comme le meetup est en décembre je croyais que je pouvais prendre mon temps pour le faire hehehe. Alors tiens, si ça te plait pas ou si j'ai fait des fautes dit moi ou change les toi-même sur ma sandbox. Si ça te plait met la au Wikipedia:MEETUP/Lyon ou je le ferais une fois que tu donnes l'OK. Salut.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!)18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Really good job! You should work in advertising, don't you? I'm OK for this translation could you post it on the meetup? Désolé de sembler pressé; Je suis un peu excité par ça, et puis comme la fête des lumières est un grand évènement je pense que c'est mieux d'avoir un peu de l'avance! De mon côté, je travaille sur une mascotte. Les Lyonnais se réuniront en Juillet pour définir un peu plus le parcours. Comme c'est la première, c'est un peu délicat! Mais je pense que de toute façon les lampions seront là! Regards, and thanks again Otourly (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing, I have redrawn already this and this one too so...If you need some SVG you could ask me Et ce n'est pas grave pour décembre, il y aura de toute façon environ 4 million de personnes!Otourly (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
Hi there. I just did my first GA review, of Watcher in the Water, and I was hoping for a second opinion (I found your name on the GA mentors page). I've left notes on its talk page already, and I put the article on hold for a week. I'm just asking for you to check over my review and let me know how I'm doing. Once the week is up, if the article has been substantially improved, I'll probably also need help in deciding whether to pass or fail.
If you're too busy right now, that's perfectly fine! Just let me know soonish so that I can ask someone else. Thanks. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (Please respond on my talk page.)[reply]
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.
While your critique is appreciated, the phrases "doesn't read very well" and "too many images" are a tad arbitrary in the tradition of Mozart having written "too many notes"; if you could specify so we could make an article in better standing with the GA qualification, that would be great. And are IMDB and TV.com not reliable sources? Because besides DVD reviews, I can not find the Nielsen Ratings, actual show reviews, or anything that would be "verifiable" for sure. Of course, it could just take a bit more searching. Please, come take a look at the latest edition and give us your thoughts. :DLeslie Granger (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am Leslie, I just haven't been logging in, and I apologize for being rude. I meant to just joke, but obviously my tone was inappropriate. Thank you for responding, and I appreciate that you responded. I am just frustrated that so little progress is made on this page, and your notes just seemed like such a challenge as it is. Please continue your excellent work, and once again, I am sorry for the tone of my response. :)65.12.233.213 (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Giggy. Looking over Yaman's contribs and article work, I'd say that's an excellent notion. Much thanks for all your help in Depp- and Sweeney- related articles, Yamanbaiia. You've my support, should you decide to accept a nom. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚1521:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but like I already posted on giggy's talk page: I don't think my contribution history is strong enough to compensate for my lack of edits on Wikipedia space, so, thanks for the lol, but not yet.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!)21:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I take my time with reviews, on some of 'em, and I didn't plan to review the article until like two days or so. Live in a cave? What are you.... Batman? ;) Though, Batman is better than Iron Man. Anyways, if you don't want me to review the article, alright. Though, this is the first time someone has told me not to review an article. Maybe because I'm a Batman fan. :P -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like stated at the GAN page, "Anyone can review articles". Well, if you want me to do it, I guarantee you that the review will be done before arriving to Sunday. I hope your kidding that you don't know "Batman". Also, no HE'S not Superman's sidekick, please. :P See, I live in a cave. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Ça faisait longtemps! Est ce que tu peux me dire si c'est correct? Je préfère être sûr avant les test et une version plus officielle! (c'est directement inspiré de ce que j'ai fait (en partie) sur fr:Modèle:Utilisateur SUL d'ailleurs si tu es concerné tu peux la placer sur ton compte francophone ! Otourly (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Commons deletion log, I hadn't listed its source. Unfortunately, I can't access the old image description page as I'm not an admin over there, and it's been far too long for me to remember where I found the image or even what it looked like. The current image doesn't seem too bad, anyway. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)?
Hi Yamanbaiia. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας•discussion•23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
ber 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your fantastic work on this! I'm currently working on Phil Hartman's article, and was wondering if you found any sources for Reubens' page which would also be useful on Hartman's? Thanks. Gran217:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:CSI season 1 cast.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is looking good! See the talkpage for details and my latest response. Thanks and good work! When everything is finalized I will pass the article. CarpetCrawler (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Samantha Ronson, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a)The sentence was never discussed, you wrote it and no one agreed/disagreed, b) accusing me of edit warring? I reverted you once with a perfectly good explanation, cool it.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!)23:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for any hostility; I don't see hostility on this talk page from me. I left my last edit summary on the Ronson page before reading the above and thought you were headed for an edit war. Now, regarding the consensus, if you'll take a closer look you'll see comments from editors in addition to me about the passage, so it's not just me. Secondly, the passage was achieved after long and heated debate on Talk:Lindsay Lohan for her article. I realize that's a different article, but many of the same editors were concerned with how the same information should be presented in both articles. So I think it's a reasonable consensus, not just my opinion. In fact, if you'll read the history on Lohan's talk page, I preferred it to be worded quite differently. Ward3001 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Et ce n'est pas grave pour décembre, il y aura de toute façon environ 4 million de personnes!
Otourly (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:CSI season 1 cast.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Samantha Ronson, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)