Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

GA reviews in multiple section headers on talk pages

Having taken a second look at several recent GA passes in the past couple of weeks, I've noticed somewhat of a trend with GA reviews that doesn't seem to work real well. It appears that many reviewers are doing reviews and then updating comments later on in new main section headers (e.g. one header saying something like ==GA Review==, and then later on, a new section header: ==GA passed==. Sometimes the GA pass is placed later on in the talk page, after other, unrelated, comments have been added to the talk page. I think this is going to seriously confuse things as talk pages and GA reviews are archived, and I think it would be best if reviewers kept all comments related to a single GA review in one main section header (e.g. within one set of '==').

Ultimately, I think it would be best if GA reviews were done on a subpage of article talk, like 'Talk:Article/GA1', but for the time being it would be best if reviewers could keep their comments together. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if a subpage was created. The review for Grand Theft Auto IV was archived to Archive 12 on the talkpage without the article being passed/failed. I've had to manually copy/paste it back into the main talkpage because the GA nomination was still on hold. See [1][2][3] for what I mean. D.M.N. (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself. It got archived by one of the automatic archiving bots, so I think it was unintentional. But I agree, it may be useful to have a subpage to hold the GAN review so that it can be transcluded etc. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Several regular reviewers have suggested reviews be conducted on a subpage. I support the idea. It would make GA reviewers easier to track and help prevent anomalies like articles being listed as GAs without receiving a review. However, how will we handle reviews conducted before this change is made? Will we track down the reviews and move them to subpages? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a bot-tracking of old reviews is possible, so I'd say we'll just leave them unless someone is really bored. I'm going to (if I remember) start doing GA reviews on subpages. Is anyone willing to whip up a quick how-to guideline so we all do it in similar ways? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, the GAN template needs altering, so that by adding the "on review" field, a subpage is immediately created (see MilHist peer review for example). In the meantime, how about pasting this on the article talk page:

==GA review==
The review of this article is currently taking place at [[/GA review]], and is transcluded below. 
{{Talk:<article name>/GA review}}

And remember to start the subpage with:

===GA review (n)===

So there's a edit tab for transcluded section. Does that work? (Alter it or ignore it if it doesn't.) Gwinva (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great. G-guy is our template whiz, and I can make some automessages for myself (and others) once he's done (unless there are objections). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Also, watching a GAN subpage would be a hell of a lot easier than a popular article's talkpage.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 10:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

as long as the instructions and the set up are easy it would be great to have a sub page. Please someone set it up and say this works if you do this. When it comes to this for me I am lost. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 10:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No objections here; this is an uncontroversial and quick'n'easy change, so I agree we should go right ahead. EyeSerene^talk 11:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thought, what about a GAN that fails, gets resubmitted, then approved? The templates would need to be able to cope with new GAN reviews at say /GA review 2 etc.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 11:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It may need substing then, the way the PR template does. But yeah, it's doable. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added "Talk:" to the transclusion paste format above (don't want all these to end up in mainspace!). Also, I suggest developing categories to add to the subpage, eg. Category:Arts GA reviews; Category:TV GA reviews (etc). Then it's easy to locate and manage all old reviews for re-review, quality control, project management and so forth. They could also be categorised by date, too (Category:GA reviews May 2008. Using the article name in the subpage title means the subpage's hatnote leads directly back to the talk page; whereas using GA project in the subpage title leads back to the project. Gwinva (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Subpage implementation (section break)

(←) Yes the template would have to be substituted in order to find the next free review page. This is not difficult to do, but raises a few subtle questions. First, who does the work, nominator or reviewer? Second, what is the template called? Third, is the review on an article talk subpage or on a subpage of Wikipedia:Good article nominations? The discussion here has focused on article talk, and Gwinva has given one advantage of this (the hatnote): a more detailed discussion can be found here.

To be analogous with peer review and GAR processes, I'd really like the template substitution to be made by the nominator, using something like {{subst:GAN|subtopic=}}. This would produce a link to create the subpage. The actual creation of the subpage, and the transclusion of the subpage could be done either by nominator or reviewer, or the nominator could create the subpage and the reviewer could transclude it. Concerning the template names, at the moment we can't call the substituted template "GAN", because that is the current name of the talk page header template. My own preference is to rename the current talk page header template, but that means that someone has to do an AWB job to rename GAN on the 200+ current nominations. This would produce a smoother and more consistent system long term, however.

Concerning the transclusion onto article talk, I think it is better to put all the text on the subpage. This text can be generated automatically when the subpage is created, saving work for the reviewer. It would also avoid the need for a level 3 section header, as the level two section header would link to the subpage. Finally, once the review is over, the transclusion onto the talk page could be removed: there are advantages and disadvantages to this, so it needs to be discussed.

EyeSerene says "this is an uncontroversial and quick'n'easy change": I agree there is now clear consensus for subpage reviews, and the change is fairly straightforward, but the devil is in the details, and we should try to get them right. Geometry guy 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the headers/all the text on the subpage; my version above was only meant to illustrate a temporary cut and paste measure for setting up subpages while we await the template changes. The template could also be designed to automatically categorise the subpage (along the lines suggested above) – the existing GAN template has topic and date fields. If the nominator sets up the subpage, the date-stamped topic fields would automatically place it in categories similar to those found at WP:GAN; reviewer changes the status to "on review"→ fed into new category; "passed/failed" → final categories. Categories could also be used to manage holds, 2nd opinions and so forth. In other words, the manual WP:GAN pages is replaced by automated category systems; reviewers can browse categories as easily as a centralised list. All activity occurs through the talk page's template, so there's not the current problems associated with manual alteration on several pages (which can result in some being missed) And date stamping (of passes) allows flagging for re-review after set periods. Gwinva (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, OK, a relatively quick'n'easy change, and possibly with the category suggestions Gwinva mentions, a big step towards a properly automated process. However, it may be counter-productive to try and change too much all at once; perhaps we should just implement the uncontroversial stuff first ;)

I too propose that the nominator should subst the template - it would basically be a copy/paste/edit parameter(s), so no more complex than the current nominating system. I don't think it matters much if the nominator then goes on to create the review page, or who transcludes it back - maybe this would be more logically done by the reviewer, but the nominator may wish to leave pre-review comments, so I don't think we should be prescriptive about that.

Regarding template naming, GAN seems logical, despite having to change all the current noms. Yes, there's still agreement to reach on where the review page goes - my preference is for project namespace, simply for consistency with GAN and other assessment processes, but Gwinva has some good arguments and ultimately I don't believe it matters that much. Accountability, which after all is the point of all this, is equally well served either way. EyeSerene^talk 21:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gwinva is running ahead a bit. The subtopic parameter can certainly categorize the subpage, the template can get the date of the nomination automatically (no field necessary), and the category data Gwinva describes could be used to generate WP:GAN automatically using a very simple bot (I've posted on this many times, for those who don't know). However, as Dr. Cash has indicated elsewhere, we need to move in stages. The first step is to decide on a workable subpage system. Hence my questions about the details, and reference to the related thread at WT:GA. Geometry guy 21:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, do we need to transsclude the review on the talk page, or just link to it from the templated nom box at the top of the talk page? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been very strong preferences expressed in past discussions on this that reviews should still take place (or at least give the appearance of taking place) on the article talk page, for reasons of convenience, transparency, collaboration etc. I think it's just been assumed that no-one has changed their minds about this. EyeSerene^talk 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I was getting carried away; there's no need to complicate a straight forward discussion about naming. Most people have read/taken part in the various naming discussions, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each. Why not take a quick straw poll to see where the general consensus/preferences lie? Gwinva (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did a subpage style review at Talk:Dr._Dre#GA_review, if anyone wants to comment. G-guy, your ideas seem good. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to work very well, and gives the best of both worlds; visibility on the article's talk page and a permanent archive of the review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So the new page review name system is going to combine GAN and GAR together? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if there could be general agreement on at least the first small step here. Like H₂O and a few others, I've started archiving GA reviews, and I've been using Talk:articlename/GAn. Is that the convention we're going to go with? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've used DHMO's example to demonstrate a first draft of the proposed format, assuming we use article talk subpages rather than subpages of WP:Good article nominations. This choice means that individual delists/reassessments will be stored together with GAN reviews as article talk subpages. If anyone wants to make the case for subpages of WP:Good article nominations, please speak now: in that approach, individual delists/reassessments would be subpages of WP:Good article reassessment, along with community GAR discusssions. A few editors, including Ohana and EyeSerene, expressed a mild preference for the second approach in this thread, but my belief is that the consensus here is for article talk subpages, and that is what I will implement unless arguments are made to the contrary now! In my view it makes very little difference and I'm happy to implement either approach, but if there is consensus for article talk subpages, I'm willing to go ahead tomorrow. If I'm in a really good mood, I might even do the AWB job: I did the last one to get the current {{GAN}} working. Ironically though, what would put me in a really good mood is someone else volunteering to do it :-) Geometry guy 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk subpage has my vote. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 06:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mine too. G-guy, don't waste your time AWBing it, just get a bot (Giggabot waves). Email me the xmls and I'll do it ASAP (g1ggyman@gmail.com). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, just write the instructions out in nice easy to understand language on the GAN page so I can adapt my reviews to the current usage. Remember, some of us aren't computer people, please make them understandable to folks who think the 15th century is "modern". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope instruction-writing will be a collaborative effort. Remember, this is a wiki, and non-computer people can help in making guidelines clearer to other non-computer people. I've already drafted part of the instructions here: this appears above an edit box to create the review page.

I've now completed all the templates needed to implement this process, and am just waiting on DHMO to replace all the current transclusions of {{GAN}} by {{GA nominee}}. Maybe I'll do it while he's asleep. Anyway, the proposed process is as follows.

• Nominators add {{subst:GAN|subtopic=name of section on GAN page}} to the top of the article talk page (the subtopic bit is optional for now); then they list the article at WP:GAN exactly as in the current process (this step could be automated in the future, but then the subtopic would be required). The proposed new GAN template is at User:Geometry guy/Misc: it supports up to 8 GA reviews, then produces an error message.
• The talk page substitution places a GA nominee template on the talk page containing a link to create a review subpage (of article talk). The proposed new GA nominee template is at User:Geometry guy/Misc2.
• Reviewers click on this link to create the review page. They are provided with instructions (above), and some preloaded text to save time. They then transclude the subpage onto article talk, and add the On Review notice at WP:GAN (this last step could be automated in the future).
• The "status=on review" condition is no longer needed on article talk: once the review page is created, the article is "on review" until the reviewer changes the status to "2nd opinion" or "on hold". That saves a bit of time.

One more question: once the review of a GAN is complete, should the transclusion of the review page onto article talk be kept or removed? Keeping it has the advantage that the position of the review in the talk page history is maintained. However, talk pages are archived, and not always in an order-preserving way, and this means that the shortcut {{/GA1}} for the transclusion can't be used, because it will break when the section is archived. Can this be left to reviewer discretion or is there a global preference? Geometry guy 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I added some documentation to the proposed GA nominee template, so others can see it in action and suggest tweaks. Geometry guy 20:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now done the AWB job, but it has raised some transitional issues about current GANs with reviews which are not on a subpage. I will attempt to smooth these over, but help and suggestions would be appreciated. Geometry guy 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish it were. We're in a holding pattern right now, just like aircraft over Heathrow. {{GAN}} has been replaced by {{GA nominee}}. This is a stable change and not a problem, but we need to work out how to handle current reviews, before replacing the redirect at Template:GAN and updating Template:GA nominee with the templates I have created in my user space. I can comment further early morning today (UTC), but won't be able to address all issues until Monday evening UTC. Geometry guy 00:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I will have to relax the template behaviour temporarily so that it assumes page=1 when there is no page parameter. I'll sort it out tomorrow evening UTC. Meanwhile, there is probably no harm in current reviewers following the lead set by Talk:Dr. Dre and moving the review to a /GA1 subpage of article talk and replacing it with a simple transclusion, but if you don't know how to do that don't worry. Geometry guy 10:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Useful template time! I'm currently using User:DHMO/GAS (just subst it!) to set stuff up on the article's talk page, then just adding a level 3 heading on the newly formed subpage. If /GA1 exists, use {{subst:user:DHMO/GAS|2}}. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But how will the delisting process work, if proposed new scheme of GAN is implemented? There is no any centralized page of "Good articles nominated for delisting", and there is no templates, which can changed in order to implement subpage creation. Everybody can delist an article by changing Articlehistory template and writing something at the talk page (and removing the article from WP:Good articles). However if delisting process is left intact (i.e. the creation of a subpage is not necessary), it will introduce an asymmetry with GAN, which is not good in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is essential that delisting and other reassessments by individual editors generate a /GAn subpage. As well as enhancing accountability, I believe this will also encourage good practice. I will develop templates to handle this soon (it will be fairly easy now that I've drafted the GAN templates). Geometry guy 16:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these relevant instructions or just the first draft (section break)

With quite a few editors I am sure watching this development to see in what direction GAs are heading, and more importantly for me!, can I ask if the following is correct so at least I make a few mistakes as possible. So the instructions as I read them are:

• I add at the top of the original talk page {{GA nominee}} which gives: {{GA nominee|~~~~~|page=|subtopic=|status=}}
• complete the {{GA nominee|~~~~~|page=|subtopic=|status=}} ~~~~~ for date etc |page= (will be automatically generated) OR (create the page as below)|status= (nothing yet) |subtopic= (from the topic list it is in on the nomination page)
• at this stage complete the instructions To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. to create the sub-page.
• on this page under the existing script begin the GA review with something from an introduction to oneself, a statement of intent, the first feedback, to quick fail.Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 11:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the instructions and will comment further in a new section: I anticipate many teething problems, and a need for troubleshooting. Geometry guy 17:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Have i missed something lol

I just reviewed an article, when i put the GA template on the talk page low and be hold a GA symbol appeared in the top corner of the talk page. I took part in the debate and supported it, i lost track of the issue because of other work. Anyway, is this a perminant thing, a trial .. etc. Also is there a way to update other GA articles that dont yet have the symbol in the corner. Cheers --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sshhh! Someone might notice! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that your {{GA}} template was quickly converted over to {{ArticleHistory}} by GimmeBot,... I wonder if we can sneak that into {{ArticleHistory}}? ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Credit to blocked user SimsFan for the nice joke. I guess no one watchlists {{GA}} these days because it is autoconverted to ArticleHistory. I've reverted it now anyway. Sandy watches ArticleHistory like a hawkess so the chances of sneaking it in there are pretty slim. I think we probably have to wait for next April 1 :-) Geometry guy 20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, looks like i wasnt in on this one, oops. Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Transition to review subpages

I've now taken the key step and updated {{GAN}}, {{GA nominee}}, their documentation subpages and WP:Good article nominations/guidelines. In a nutshell the nomination process is unchanged from the process of a month ago, except that the GAN template must be substituted. This has the advantage that it automatically generates the date and the blank status parameter in the new {{GA nominee}} template. Current nominations which don't yet have a reviewer should be in the "correct" state, in which the {{GA nominee}} contains a link to start the next review page. Current nominations under review won't be in the correct state in general: reviewers need to copy the review over to a /GA1 subpage, and add "page=1" to {{GA nominee}}. Neither of these steps is essential however: in particular, for the time being the missing page parameter doesn't generate an error, but assumes "page=1". The transition will, however, undoubtedly generate some confusion, which is my main motivation for starting this section, as a place to resolve confusion.

Concerning delisting/reassessment, my own preference is to use {{subst:GAR}} both for individual and community reassessments. The template can be adapted to provide two links: one to the next free /GAn page for an individual reassessment, one to the next free WP:Good article reassessment/Article/n page for a community reassessment. Reviewers are then free to choose whether to "go it alone" or ask for general input on a reassessment. I hope this will enhance the coherence of reassessment processes. Geometry guy 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably once the review is completed, the page is archived with {{talkarchive}}, or similar? Gwinva (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

When the review is complete, the /GA1 subpage remains. I use User:DHMO/GAAH (you can too, instructions are at User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/GA tools but ask me if you need more) which will add a link to the subpage via ArticleHistory.

Geometry guy, you are a genius. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of clarity. What I meant was, do we stick {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}} or {{talkarchive}} on the subpage so no one wanders along at a later date and starts contributing or adding to the closed discussion? Gwinva (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I guess there's no harm. I would add <includeonly>{{talkachive}}</includeonly> as it showing up on the talk page itself might get confusing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this G-guy, your work on our behalf is very much appreciated ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I'm against adding talkarchive once the review is finished: it is unnecessary extra work and a review isn't really a talk archive. The main thing is to provide a dated permanent link to the review from the talk page, e.g. using ArticleHistory. We may also need to rethink {{GA}}, {{DelistedGA}} and {{FailedGA}} to handle this: are these for the process or the current status? Geometry guy 10:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be a good thing to add something to the review page. For instance, a reviewer can add {{pass}} or {{fail}} templates and then a bot will update the talk page and Articles History. The bot can modify the review page if necessay as well. In this case {{GA}}, {{DelistedGA}} and {{FailedGA}} tempalstes can be deprecated. Ruslik (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer a template on article talk, not the review page, and this is easier for a bot to process. Geometry guy 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this G-guy. It seems to look good. A few comments: one, what do we do about the case of a 'quick fail'? I noticed one reviewer who quick-failed an article by starting an independent section on the talk page (==GA quick fail==), instead of clicking the link on the GA review template to start review on the independent page. I believe this was one of the first reviews after the new template was added,... I wonder if it would actually be better to seriously de-emphasize and ultimately eliminate the practice of 'quick-failing'? If the goal of GA is overall article improvement, a very quick and dirty quick-fail is ultimately not helpful to editors; instead, a full review should take place, and specific areas pointed out where the article is deficient in meeting the GA criteria.

I also agree that the {{talkarchive}} isn't really appropriate here, since it's not really a talk page archive. Perhaps we could modify that template and have a 'GAarchive' template explaining that it is an archive of a GA review, and explaining the process?

Also, on your page illustrating the instructions for starting the review (and creating the review page), would it be possible to add some basic instructions on how to review an article? Perhaps a link to some of the review help pages as well as the GA criteria? This would be very useful to new reviewers especially. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

the quick fail was done "under" the auspices of a new section as I had no clear instructions on the new template and how to use it. I am still not totally clear but will struggle along when I have the time. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What about creating a new template, {{GANarchive}}, which would have a status=pass/fail parameter, and would read something like:

This is an archive of a previous GA nomination. The results of the nomination were that has passed/failed the Good Article criteria. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you disagree with this article's review, the article can be nominated for Good Article reassessment.

So effectively, once the review concludes, the reviewer can simply edit the review subpage and place this template on it, with the parameter of 'pass' or 'fail'. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems a good idea. Like {talkarchive} it can disable the [edit] tabs, visually archiving the page, and could also ultimately support a fully-automated update with status on other pages, add category to subpage, or whatever navigational/automation aids are developed later. Gwinva (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Three comments.

• I favour deemphasising and even deprecating quick-fails. I have no problem with a poor article being failed quickly, with just a few reasons being given, but there is no need to make this into a formal procedure. This is one of the pieces of unnecessary bureaucracy which I believe we can manage without.
• Once a review is complete, the review page does not need a template, article talk does. This could be done using ArticleHistory alone, but experience shows that we need to provide a simple alternative, because ArticleHistory is hard to use. At the moment Gimmebot automatically converts {{GA}} into ArticleHistory. I've set up {{Old GAR}} as a simple alternative to ArticleHistory for closing GARs. We could have a similar {{Old GAN}} template.
• Please contribute to the documentation: there is a balance to be found here between conciseness, clarity, and the provision of useful information. One editor alone cannot find this balance. You don't need template expertise to edit {{GAN/editintro}}: just ignore the html (which simply prettifies the instructions) and edit the plain-text. The only templates involving delicate hardcore template code are {{GAN}} and {{GA nominee}} and I've watchlisted both. Geometry guy 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've edited the {{GAN/editintro}} template, adding a link to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles as well as the criteria. So hopefully this will help the newbies out,... ;-) I've also adjusted the text at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles to de-emphasize the practice of "quick-failing", rephrasing it as "first things to look for" (obvious issues). Dr. Cash (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A definite improvement in both cases, thank you. Geometry guy 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A passing thought, brought about by checking my watchlist. Obviously the GA1 subpage is itself a talk page to an article that does not exist, which then appears(redlink) as page does not exist. Maybe the introductory template note might point out that the subject page does not and need not exist, though I appreciate that adding more text might become self defeating. Thanks to all for the process and the work. Well done. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have created a template, {{GAarchive}}, that reviewers can use to place at the very top of the review subpages. The template is intended to be the GA version of {{talkarchive}}, and states whether the article passed or failed the criteria, as well as puts the page into the Category:Good article reviews. I haven't really implemented this yet (added it to the instructions), so let me know if you have any suggestions first. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As suggested above, I'm not a fan of this idea, but if other reviewers want to use it (it is extra work), then I'm not going to object. I would not want it required and hence added to the already way-to-long instructions. Geometry guy 00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV‎

Grand Theft Auto IV appears to of been failed according to the template at the top of the talkpage, yet I see no mention from the reviewer of failing the article. D.M.N. (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the reviewer have an incident prior to the article's review? Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 9#Grand Theft Auto IVfor the previous article, though this should not have stopped a report of any GA (or none if that is what happened) being put on the talk page. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 20:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Subpage problem

As a reviewer, I'ce been receiving quite a few question regarding a GA review. It's on the talk page, but there's no way to access it after it's archived by a bot. Can this be fixed? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 23:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't the review still be accessed at the /GA1 subpage, and can't its transclusion etc. still be accessed from the talk page archives? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this. It's not like the /GA1 subpage is being protected or anything. It should be editable whether a bot archives it or not. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the GA templates to accept a page parameter and revised the instructions accordingly. Gimmetrow will need to make some changes to Gimmebot in order for this to convert well to ArticleHistory, but they aren't to difficult, and I have the impression he wants to fix it. Geometry guy 22:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption of consensus

What should happen if a user who has a blatant COI with an article you just reviewed and passed, because he disregarded consensus? He says that wants a theater section in the article in order to become a GA. conversation is here. miranda 04:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, after seeing some College GA's, it really doesn't matter whether there is a "theater" section in the article. Do you know if the user is familiar with the GA criteria? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The user seems to have FA and GA criteria confused and believes GAs must be comprehensive, rather than broad. Somno (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rapid Renom

On the 28th, I failed the GAN for the six day old article Jacques Brel Is Alive and Well and Living in Paris (film) for lacking references, MoS issues, lacking basic information, a bad image, poor prose, etc. The editor did some minor changes, then renomed it today. I've already quick failed it again, as most of the issues were not addressed. The "copyediting" I recommended was done by the same editor who created the article, so it was not really done at all as he seems to be lacking basic understanding of the overall Wikipedia MoS regarding date formats/linking, placement of references, etc. The references, already scant to begin with, dropped in number from six to five, and with the vast majority of the article still being unreferenced. Suffice to say, it still is very very far from GAN.

In my second failing, I strongly urged him to wait before renoming until it is actually complete, has been assessed as B class by the Film project, and has gone through a proper peer review. I'm concerned he will ignore this advice and renom again in another few days. Is there any sort of procedure to deal with that kind of rapid renoming? Also, if he does renom, can I fail it again if it is still unfixed, or should another editor do it after I've failed it twice?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Would someone nominate Beslan school hostage crisis?

Or Kizlyar-Pervomayskoye hostage crisis or Moscow theater hostage crisis?

I don't know how to do this (and don't want to learn), but I guess someone should. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe even featured. I don't know about this. You do. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, articles should only be nominated by someone who has worked on them or knows a lot about the subject. That way, when the reviewer brings up problems/issues with the article (which happens 99% of the time), that person is able and willing to deal with them. Sorry. Nikki311 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What else to do, Captain Obvious, when no one else does what should be done, but step in like a hero and do the job yourself? I've done this quite a few times (not so much like a hero, though) and have been able to bring a few articles to FA. --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I just worked a lot! (from 37 to 67 kb) Now I work on the Kizlyar article, which was far from perfect after all. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both Beslan school hostage crisis and Moscow theater hostage crisis seem to be close to "good article" status. I worked with both of them (although not that much), and I know enough about the subjects. So, if people are willing to review and suggest some improvements, the Captain and me can deal with any issues.Biophys (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Request: don't make up subpage names

A number of editors have expressed some gratitude for my role in providing templates to make it easier to set-up subpages for GA reviews. I have also offered to troubleshoot problems with the change. I ask three things in return:

1. Please read the documentation, follow it, and let me know if it is unclear;
2. Do not use any nonstandard names for GA review subpages;
3. Ensure when you pass or fail an article that you retain the page parameter in the pass/fail template so that Gimmebot has a chance to know where the review is.

In the second point, the standard name for a GA review subpage is Talk:ArticleName/GAn, where ArticleName is the name of the article, and n is the number of the next free page (which is usually 1, because we've only just started). If you are reviewing a nomination, then {{subst:GAN}} will set this up automatically for you. If you are delisting, sweeping, or reassessing, templates will soon be available, but in the mean time, please don't make up subpage names. If you want to reassess (as an individual) Hoi polloi (for example), then please do so at Talk:Hoi polloi/GA1, the next free standard /GA subpage. The whole point of this change in process is to make GA reviews easy to find, and hence make GA reviews more accountable. Thank you for your help in achieving this. Geometry guy 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I just check what you mean by "as an individual"? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure: if you're not confident that you can handle a sweeps/reassessment/delisting decision yourself and want further input, then please list the article on the WP:GAR page so that many editors can comment. In this case the discussion will not be stored on a /GA subpage of article talk, but on a subpage of WP:GAR. Let me know if that is not clear and sensible. Geometry guy 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Perfectly clear and sensible. Nice job on the templates btw. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I suspect the reason you started this was because of my sweeps update. I wasn't sure if we wanted to name a sweeps review page the same or not, so I just guessed. Anyway, thanks for fixing it, and doing all the templates. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Actually there have been several cases, not just your sweeps update, so I thought it would be good to clarify that the only talk subpage structure supported by this process (and for instance by Gimmebot) is /GAn. I want to use the same structure for individual reassessments/delists too, but haven't yet got the templates sorted out to support this properly. Such a change should lead to better practice for individual reassessments, and we really need it: many delists proceed as if there is no necessity to provide a proper review. If we insist on providing a proper review for nominations, then we should also provide a proper review for individual reassessments: for example, just saying "not enough inlines" and nothing more is unacceptable. At the very least reviewers must point to assertions which need inlines per WP:WIAGA. But a thorough review prior to delisting is much preferred. Think of it as a GA unnomination. Geometry guy 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE!!

Could some one please review the Grey Griffins (book series) article already. Its been sitting there forever.Thankyou.Gears Of War 23:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It usually takes about a month to a month in a half for an article to get reviewed. Grey Griffins isn't even in the backlog yet...be patient and it will get reviewed. Nikki311 01:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Long purgatory of the Climate article

The climate article was quickly failed in mid-May after being on the GAC/GAN list for a month since the improvements needed were deemed substantial. After a few days of substantial edits, the article was resubmitted after some positive feedback. It would be highly appreciated if someone gave it a good look over sometime soon, since it's been on the list most every day since April 15. I've been afraid to throw it on the backlog list, since it was off the GAC/GAN list for 3 days. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note: the backlog list is for the oldest nominations, and according to WP:GAN/R#Old nominations, the article isn't in the top 28 oldest noms. Good luck with it, and if I get a chance maybe I'll take a look. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it passed, but it doesn't appear to have been a thorough review. There are still a few places that need references. The reviewer also left comments that seem contradictory. For "Broad in coverage", the editor said, "Pass, may need wider coverage." Likewise, for "Neutral point of view", the editor said, "Pass, may need more opinions to balance the main views." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me know where references are still needed, and I'll add them. Any suggestions are welcome. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Deja Vu: Where is the review?

I had renominated 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra after the following discussion on its promotion (GA pass) by a user without a review description:

I nominated 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra at GAN 9 days ago. Today when I logged in I saw it was promoted. However, I am unable to find its review. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel like reverting that right now. I do not call (from what I see from that diff) that a proper and thorough GA review against the WP:WIAGA criterion. D.M.N. (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd be right to revert that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I supposed to re-nominate it? I am confused. What am I supposed to do?KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it back into GAN as it was, and sort out the listing, so need for you to do anything. Here's hoping you get the proper review that the article deserves soon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The apt thing to do. No problems! Me and my big mouth! Hahaha!KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

After the renom, I found the article was failed without a review description. Is there a GAN subpage which I have overlooked? Please help. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The review is here, for what it's worth. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my bad! Should have added the {{ArticleHistory}} template. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2) User:Wikidas gave the article a review which is here. I think he may have missed a step to link it to the talk page, but I've updated it to include the link. The review also has little to no comments, which I suspect you may find less than helpful. You may want to drop him a note to ask him to explain the failed items. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I would like a more workable review. I have left a message on his talk page. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No response

A user kindly reviewed an article I had nominated for GA status here. He/she had only one concern and I addressed it. Since then I left a note on his/her talk page here hoping the user will respond to my changes.

However, the user hasn't got back. It also appears that the user isn't a frequent and longstanding editor (his total contributions are 30). Since the user put the article on hold, there are only seven days for it to pass.

I was wondering what I should do in this position? It'd be great if someone else could also take a look at the article. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Bless sins, I'll take a look at the article. Somno (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate it.Bless sins (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Review completed [4] and note left for Orca8767 [5]. Somno (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also curious as to what the procedure is for instances like this. The instructions don't really guide GA nominators as to what to do if their reviewer puts the article on hold then disappears. I had one do the same for me, and after almost two weeks I finally just withdrew the GA all together in fustration. Some more formal instructions would help. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the original "reviewer" has passed the article without any of my suggestions being incorporated. I'm taking it to reassessment because it is far from a good article. Somno (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources of Islamic law

According to WP:GAN this article is on hold, while GA tag is put on the Talk page. Which one is correct?--Seyyed(t-c) 01:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's at Good Article Reassessment here [6]. Bit of a mess, this one! Somno (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Template maintenance...

Couple questions.

1. What's preferred -- {{GAOnHold}} or {{GAReview}} with the status parameter set to onhold?
2. Can either (both?) of those templates be edited to automatically link to the most recent GA review subpage?

Thanks! —Rob (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Re 1: it is not important; {{GAReview}} is more flexible with issues like "on hold" vs "OnHold" vs "on hold", but it is newer, and so not yet supported by the bot that generates WP:GAN/R.

Re 2: no, this can't be done because there is no way for the template to know the name of the article. It would be possible to use a variant of {{la}} to list the latest review subpage amongst all the other links, but the search might add a little to GAN load time. Alternatively such a variant could have an optional page parameter to select the review subpage. Yet another alternative would be to replace the "# {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~" nomination syntax with something like {{subst:LGAN|ArticleName}} to substitute the nomination info, including the next free review page.

If it weren't for the GAN/R bot, I would probably suggest a redesign of the GAN page templates. An even better solution would be to autogenerate GAN, but this is still some way off. Geometry guy 19:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we get the operator of StatisticianBot (the bot that does the GAN stats) to update it? In this case, that would be Dvandersluis. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked, but he isn't very active any more. Geometry guy 09:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

new GA review programme.

Dear all, found most of the process useful, workable and supportive. The subpage is a brilliant idea. One problem (why one and why me)! I placed a {{GAarchive}} on Talk:Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition/GA1 and it has also appeared on Talk:Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition the standard talk page and is repeated in Category:Good article reviews! What did I do wrong!!! Edmund Patrick – confer 18:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing. I believe it's supposed to do that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not a big fan of this {{GAarchive}} idea. Once a review is over, the article either gets passed or failed, and everyone knows it, so adding another template to the review subpage is a bit of a wasted effort. If you really want to use it, you have two options:

1. you could remove the transclusion of the review from the talk page and replace it by a link to the subpage (this is what User:Gwinva does);
2. you could replace "{{GAarchive|status=pass}}" by "<noinclude>{{GAarchive|status=pass}}</noinclude>" on the subpage.

Ultimately (soon) I think we should settle on a standard procedure for what to do with the subpage and the transclusion when the review is complete. For the time being there are several options.

(post ec) I didn't design the template, but it shouldn't do that, as this places both talk page and subpage into Category:Good article reviews. Geometry guy 19:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about yet another template but I think a note saying this is not for editing / changing etc is necessary. The fact that it adds to a Category:Good article reviews will I think be useful especially when others (both supporters and detractors) want to look at the programme. On another point; The copy of the GA has been removed from the article's talk page (which as far as I know is correct) but I will say I think the link in the GA template to the GA1 page needs to be made clearer, I knew what to look for others might not, when the need to find the review for whatever reason. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits to the GA review don't show up in the watchlist unless the subpage is specifically watched, that's inconvenient. Narayanese (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but why not watchlist the subpage? Advantage: changes to the review are separated from other edits to the talk page. Geometry guy 19:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This article contains a cleanup banner that says, "This section may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources." I have never seen that banner before, and I'm wondering if this warrants a quick fail (the banner has been in place since December 2007). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Eeek. Not sure if the tag itself is justified, but that article almost surely doesn't meet GA criteria anyway. I wouldn't object to a delist (though I imagine G-guy will tell us to go via GAR ;-)). giggy _(:O) 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is apparently more confusing than I originally gave it credit for. I was looking at the article because it is currently listed at Good Article Nominations (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Education). I didn't even notice that it's been listed as a Good Article since May 10, 2006. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it from the GAN list for a start (diff), as it's already a GA. I'm going to get some sleep now, but if you don't feel up to filing a GAR/delisting I'll throw one up tomorrow. giggy _(:O) 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also a cleanup banner on the talk page (although that isn't where it belongs): "This article may be too long". Nikki311 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now at GAR: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Massachusetts Institute of Technology/1. giggy _(:O) 03:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1981 Atlantic hurricane season

I have a general question. Within the tropical cyclone wikiproject, there are local rules we follow regarding content of annual articles, such as 1981 Atlantic hurricane season. It has been mentioned that the lead might be a paragraph or two too short per the length of the article, which is 44 kb, which would imply a lead of 3-4 paragraphs. My question to the group is, if the same information is listed within an article three to four times per group agreement (which bulks up its size), and at least 10 kb of the article is made up of inline references, does MoS still apply for this rule about the length of the lead? Did MoS have this repetitive information structure and size of inline references in mind when it was developed for wikipedia articles? Thanks for any feedback you can provide. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's important to adhere completely 100% accurately to a minor intricacy of the MOS. The main issue is that the lead summarises every part of the article adequately, in two or three or four or however many paragraphs. It's not the number of paragraphs that counts, it's the content—just use your best editorial judgement and you'll probably be OK! giggy _(:O) 14:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. That's helpful. I can now think of a few more lines I can add to it without the article becoming too repetitive. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would understand the length guidelines in WP:LEAD based on prose length. The article in question has 16k of readable prose. Gimmetrow 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Review page headers

I'm sure I saw this question elsewhere, but naturally I can't find it now ;) Is there any reason why the review page starts with a level two rather than a level three header? It seems to me L3 is more suitable for displaying things when the review is transcluded to the talk page... what were the thoughts on this? EyeSerene^talk 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews have traditionally appeared and should still appear in a separate section on the talk page, not a subsection of an existing section. Placing the level 2 header on the subpage guarantees this. If it were a level 3 header, the reviewer would have to add a level 2 header before the transclusion. leading to a set-up as follows:

==GA Review== (edit link goes to article talk page revealing only a template, not the review)

===GA Review=== (edit link goes to review subpage)

This is redundant and confusing, and there is no guarantee that it will be done consistently.

Finally, using a level 2 header makes level 3 available to break up the review into comments, responses, updates, second opinions etc. At peer review one of the most common mistakes is users adding level 3 headers to peer reviews, thus messing up the peer review page and the archives: editors are not used to levels 4 and 5. Sadly, peer review has to use level 3, because level 2 is needed for the main sections of the peer review page.

Is there actually any reason why level 3 is more suitable than level 2 for GA? I struggle to think of one :-) Geometry guy 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

None whatsoever, and I apologise for wasting your time with a stupid question. I was transcluding the review into a 'new section' instead of just sticking it at the bottom of the page, which of course meant two L2 headers followed each other. I came back here to strike my comment when I realised I was just being dense, but unfortunately not soon enough :P EyeSerene^talk 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a "feature" (drawback) of the system, and you're not being dense (and surely are not alone) in making this mistake. Also I'm finding some reviewers are using L2 headers to break up the review, which is unfortunate, but can probably be discouraged by tweaking the documentation. Geometry guy 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, and it's only a minor niggle. I'm so used to conducting reviews in a new talk-page section, it was just force of habit - I didn't even stop to think. I have to say, though, that I'm finding the new system really excellent, and having a permanent review link to a separate subpage is such a huge improvement I can't think why we do this ages ago ;) EyeSerene^talk 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the instructions on the page you see when you start a review (GAN/header, I think is the template) could be a bit more clear on what to add to the talk page. Perhaps the use of some selective bolding, at least... it's a bit confusing for now (or I thought so when I first started using subpages). giggy _(:O) 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sphinx Head was removed from the nomination in an out-of-process manner.

If the Good Article nomination and evaluation process is to be taken at all seriously in the larger community, then, as a first step, it should conduct its affairs in a consistent, orderly way; in the absence of such then one cannot conclude anything about this project other than that if fills up talk pages in a rather noisy way, for an irregularly conducted process cannot be evaluated by any metric whatsoever and it becomes unclear if the program is capable of distinguishing good articles from the run of the mill.

Noble Story removed Sphinx Head from nomination (see reference) because it is list-like, rather than prose like, in much of its composition.

1. However, I see no quick fail criteria permitting a summary failure of a list-like article.
2. Furthermore, in relation to published quick-fail criteria, Sphinx Head: appears to pass. It is not:
   1. completely lacking in reliable sources. A bit of measured reflection leads me to question the use of one reference, but that is a measured reflection. A quick glance of the article finds many citations in play from a number of references
   2. treat it's topic in a non-neutral way. Again, measured reflection may lead some editors to conclude that it deals with the topic in a sympathetic way, but that is not immediately obvious to this editor; it is a conclusion that follows only after some contemplation
   3. have any cleanup banners
   4. have an ongoing edit war, or
   5. cover a rapidly unfolding event with a definite terminating condition in the offing.
3. I'm aware that the article has a rather large, embedded list. Indeed, I've opined that it make the article read rather like a telephone directory. I'm also aware that the good article criteria has a clause excluding lists, portals and images from nomination. However:
   1. the exclusionary language has not actually been incorporated into the quick fail criteria. Perhaps it should be, but that is another discussion for another place. In any event, it is not the business of reviewers to add quick fail criteria on the fly. That is a matter of deliberation and consensus.
   2. for sake of argument, even if there were a sixth quick-fail criterion barring list-like composition, I would argue that the article could not be quickly failed on that point. It does start off with a decent bit of prose that is sufficiently developed to consider the article a prose piece, at least in part. Since this can be argued, and since I'm obliged to assume good faith regarding the nominators, I can only conclude that the nominators had read the exclusionary language but concluded that their article was more prose- than list-like.
4. Finally, small points perhaps, but necessary to note: Noble Story did not sign his action statement on the talk page, nor did he perform any action with the {{GAN}} template, leaving the talk page out of sync with the Good Article nomination page. One gets the impression that the editor was working in haste and was growing a tad careless.

Since:

1. the article has been nominated in good faith, and
2. appears not to violate any of the five published quick-fail criteria

the only fair and equitable step to take is to reinstate the nomination and subject it to a standard nomination evaluation. Sadly, professional matters will draw me from Wikipedia for the balance of the day, but, in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary I plan to reinstate the article to the nomination list, and possibly even review the article, though such effort will in the wee (UTC-4) hours of tomorrow morning at the earliest. I or another reviewer may conclude in the context of a nomination evaluation that the article is too list-like in its composition, failing 1(b); it is out of process to simply pull the article from the nomination list, denying review, as if there was a quick-fail criterion barring such articles.

I confess sadness at subjecting Noble Story to this sharp rebuke. Noble Story has been rightfully commended for the number and quality of his or her reviews and I admire the bits that I've seen of them. If this had been the work of a new or inexperienced reviewer I would have contained my remarks to the reviewer's talk page. Alas, this is one of our good practitioners, one that I admire, and one that I hold to higher standards. I hope that Noble Story continues to review with the care and thoroughness that he or she has demonstrated in the past. For the present case, I trust that the Back Log Demon has led Noble Story to a temporary lapse — a good faith effort to quicky remove 'obvious fails' from the nomination list. Be that as it may, I hope that I've made abundantly clear that even so-called 'obvious fails' have a right to be evaluated in accordance with the published process and only through the published process. I need not remind editors who have observed the various and sundry debates concerning the Good Article marque that there are those who hold the project in deep and profound contempt. Let us not hand that community a verifiable basis for their contempt. Yes, there is a backlog. To those alarmed by such, don't panic. If the Good Article nomination and evaluation process can be demonstrated to be erratic in its application, then there arises a proper and justifiable basis to shut the project down. That, of course, would neatly deal with the back log in a very short order. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've listed this at Good article reassesment, since you're disputing the reviewer's decision. There's a link at the top of the article talk page to the reassessment discussion, or you can click here. EyeSerene^talk 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that NobleStory looked at the article and considered it a list. Per this, lists are not candidates for GA, instead Lists, portals, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, and featured picture status respectively. I think the article fails NPOV - I looked up the New York Times article and it refers to two societies at Cornell: "Sphinx Head" and "Quill and Dagger" and says "Election to these societies is on the basis of of prominence in student activities and is considered the highest non-scholastic honor within the reach of undergraduates." However, the quote as used in the article omits any reference to the other society (Quill and Dagger), clearly POV in favor of Sphink Head. I also think the article (which is just a list of the 63 newest members and a bit of background on the soceties) clearly implies this is the highest non-scholastic honor within Cornell (in 1929). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. To prevent discussion fork, I'll reply at the Good Article Review page that EyeSerene established. Take care Gosgood (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would conclude from this that we need to deprecate quick-failing; it is already discouraged, and rightly so. Every nomination deserves a review, and now that we have the subpage system, every completed GAN action must have a permanent link to a review subpage explaining that action. I am not against articles being failed quickly: putting articles on hold is optional, and the further away an article is from meeting the criteria, the briefer the review can be. But a review there should be, nonetheless. Geometry guy 08:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding "is a list" to Quick-fail criteria

Right now the quick-fail criteria says nothing about failing an article because it is a list. However, that is a valid reason to fail. So, I'm thinking a sentence about that should be added. Thoughts? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I "quick failed" a list once and then thought about it and removed the failed GA template from the talk page. To my mind, quick fail means that at some point the article may pass and become a GA. However, a list by its nature can never become a GA, so is it really fair to put a "failed GA candidate" template on its talk page when it can never become a GA?
  I do think it is worth adding to the "First things to look for" that lists and others that can never be GA can be removed from GAN. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could list it as a quick-fail criterion, but with instructions for the reviewer to leave a message on the talk page and not to use the failed GA template. Does that work? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Has the removal of a list from GAN ever been disputed? (Note, the above recent case is not an example of a list: it merely contains an embedded list.) If not, then perhaps we don't need to be making up rules for problems which don't occur. Geometry guy 08:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the above article is not a list? If I may ask, at what ratio of prose/list does an article have to be to considered a list? I think a lot of people would consider that article a list. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the above case (which I haven't observed so won't comment on yet) I agree with Ruhrfisch. Lists will never be GA so we should remove GAN templates (and tell editors why we did so, obviously). giggy _(:O) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about borderline cases, like TV season articles? Lost (season 1) is an featured list; Smallville (season 1) is a featured article. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that borderline cases like these can, in principle at least, be GAs. Geometry guy 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image licence

I am reviewing Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany and on checking the images I found a licence I had not seen before. As the image is limited to wikipedia and not to be copied to commons is this fair use? All the other images are under this type of licence . Assistance gratefully received - you could make use of the review subpage if relevant. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, really. The use of the image on the English Wikipedia would be under a free license, and since it's being used in an English Wikipedia article, it doesn't need a fair use rationale here. It can't be uploaded to Commons simply because Commons doesn't accept images that aren't free both in the United States and in the country of origin, not because it's somehow an invalid license. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New system

I once reviewed many articles. Now, due to the new system, and other changes to the GA process that I either do not understand or do not find to be conducive to performing the thorough reviews I was known for, I haven't reviewed for more than a month. One of the effects predicted by some when discussing a reform of GA has come about...you've driven away active reviewers. Good job. And best of luck bringing willing reviewers in to your equally bureaucratic new review system. It doesn't look like the backlog is any better from where I'm sitting. VanTucky 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you could show us what you are getting confused with. I was not intimately involved with the new system, but I didn't have a problem adjusting to the new way. What is the problem? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This subpage system stinks. It's confusing to people nominating, who are used to having it directly on the talk page, and I find it cumbersome. I think the creators of this, who saw adding another special step and type of page just to do a GA review was a decreasing of complexity and bureaucracy, are out of their mind. Neither does it increase transparency. All it does is make it easier to archive old and inactive reviews. I was extremely familiar with the old system, and other than the complex templating, it was a natural system of reviewing. This is the exact opposite: it creates some special new reviewing space, rather than using a space already set up for discussion about articles, the talk page. VanTucky 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As always, I find myself agreeing with VanTucky that there is still too much bureaucracy at GA. In particular, I agree with his first message that GA is overly bureaucratic, and that the introduction of the subpage system does absolutely nothing to address this. I hope that this issue is being discussed by those editors in the reform working group (of which I am not currently a member).

However, the subpage system was never intended to reduce bureaucracy, nor was it pushed by me to that end. It was introduced to enhance accountability: the ideal is that every GA action has a permanent link to a review which justifies that action. You don't need to work at GAR for very long to realise how often this ideal is not achieved.

There was overwhelming pressure to implement a subpage system, and all feedback so far, apart from this thread, has been positive. New reviewers continue to join GA all the time. Since they are not wedded to the old system, they don't need to adapt: they take it as they find it. Reviews are transcluded onto the article talk page, so the talk page is still the place for review discussion.

The subpage system was introduced 2 weeks, not a month ago, so in the spirit of VanTucky's first message, I wish him good luck with his contributions elsewhere, and thank him for his past help at GAN. Geometry guy 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I joined this fine company only yesterday when I performed by first review. It was a little scary I must admit, but the process of how to perform the formalities was very clearly explained on this page, and I had no problem understanding it and complying to it. I do not know how it was before, and cannot compare, but for me the subpage system was natural; just like XfD, peer reviews and other processes have them, I was actually expecting to find it here to. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There is an apparent confusion in what you appear to be saying between bureaucracy, complexity and accountability IMO. The idea of the review subpage – which I believe to be a good one – was to increase accountability. The price paid was a very small increase in complexity, but no increase in bureaucracy. A price worth paying? I think so.

I continue to oppose a shift towards multi-reviewer systems, on the other hand, because they would indeed add to the bureaucracy, but for what benefit? To satisfy those editors who will always consider GA to be an inferior version of FA until they manage inevitably and imperceptibly to merge with GA with FA? That's a lose-lose situation for everyone. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did my first review under the new system (and my eighth GA review overall). I found it to be about as easy as the old system with the advantage that the review is now a permanent link (something I am highly in favor of). What is confusing is all the work after the review - I passed Skye and had to make comments on the GA subpage, on the nominator's talk page, change the GA template at the top of the article talk page, remove the nom from GAN, and update the GA list. Reviewers do not have to do this much "paperwork" at FAC or PR or FLC. I found it easier to fix a cut and paste page move today (an admin task I have done about as often as GA reviews). Just my thoughts, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's of course at least partly due to the fact that FA and FL have nominated directors who carry out all of the closing paperwork. I'd be very much against the idea of a GA director. I do agree though that closing is a real PITA, with too many steps. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, all the things you have to do to close it was not introduced by the subpage idea; it was always a part of it (or recently, anyway).

However, the easiness of the FA process is that there is a bot that does automatic archiving of FAs once they're done, adds it to the ArticleHistory, and generally makes things a lot easier. It'd be nice if someone could come up with a bot like that for the GA process (actually, I was thinking of doing that, if I can gain the technical knowledge). Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, and something we may well want to address soon, once we have a system in place we're all happy with (per the discussions Gguy referred to above).

@VanTucky: I personally will be very sorry to see such a high-quality reviewer leave the project, but you must do what you feel is best, and I too wish you all the best. EyeSerene^talk 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably on a complete tangent, but one probably appropriate to put under this heading. I've created a review for Ron Hamence but the review isn't transcluded on the Talk page. I think it was originally but has now disappeared. Anyone know why? Peanut4 (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Scrap that. I've sorted it. But do reviewers really need to add an extra line to the talk page? Shouldn't the process do it automatically? Peanut4 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes, as there is no bot operating here, only templates, and I can't see a way to do that using templates. Geometry guy 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I've only done two reviews under the new system. But can't remember having to add that extra line in the first time. Peanut4 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot my main point. D'oh. Shouldn't the review process say to put the template line on the talk page to tranclude the review? Peanut4 (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It does, doesn't it? Geometry guy 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I'll go hang my head in shame. Peanut4 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries :-) Actually, if you or anyone else can find ways to clarify (concisely) the instructions either here (at WP:Good article nominations/guidelines) or at Template:GAN/editintro, please do. This is a wiki after all :-) Geometry guy 17:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hello all - I'm a novice GA reviewer, and I'd appreciate feedback on my most recent reviews: Talk:Mark Hatfield/GA1 (based on this version of the article), Talk:Fern Hobbs/GA1 (based on this version of the article), and Talk:Indiana General Assembly/GA1 (based on this version of the article). Am I being too harsh? Unduly emphasizing "well written" over the other criteria? Being too pedantic about grammatical rules? I don't think I'm going to turn into one of your most prolific reviewers, but I could see myself enjoying doing a burst of reviews from time to time, and I'd like to make sure I'm doing them right. Apologies if there would have been a better place to post this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reviews are fantastic. Seriously, they are some of the best I've seen. bibliomaniac15 03:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, always check web links to make sure they work and always read the notes/references to make sure all sources come from a reliable place. I only took a quick scan but I'll ashume you did that. Much better than me after my first attempt. Gush, it makes me teary eyed. If I had the time I would do a review right now. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me! That's the sort of review I'd love if I nominated an article. I also worry whether I'm too pedantic about prose when reviewing... I don't expect "engaging, even brilliant" prose, but I think clarity and correctness is extremely important for GA. Somno (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm his GAN mentor ;-)). SI, that's great. Much better than the section above this one. Please keep it up. giggy _(:O) 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kaypoh

Has anyone else noticed this editors actions on GAN. He is wasting reviewers free time, I hate to say it that bluntly. He nominates articles, articles he doesn't even work on and NEVER does any of the work while on hold. This results in the article failing and leaves the reviewer pissed off quite frankly. This needs to stop, it boarders on disruptive. He has been told its not good multiple times. He nominated the Loose (album) a while back. The reviewer did a nice job summing up what needed doing. On an article of that size the reviewer must have lost about 1 hour or more of their free time. I was so annoyed that the nominater hadn't done any of the work that I decided to do it despite never working on the article previously. Months on and I see that he is still doing it. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 9#Placing GAN on hold (backlog), Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 9#Kaypoh and drive-by noms. Any new thoughts? giggy _(:O) 11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Number of concurrent nominations (Archive 8) He is aware of the backlog problem and…
• User_talk:Kaypoh#GA nomination … the complicity of multiple nominations with backlogs.
• His contribution history shows, of late, that he reviews and copyedits articles prior to nomination. To me, the edits ([7], [8], [9]) on Marilena from P7 shows that Kaypoh knows how to consolidate prose. He seems to be of a mind to prep an article, nominate it, and then move onto other tasks. With his moving on to other tasks, Kaypoh raises an interesting question. Suppose that a nominating editor just doesn't like the kind of interleaved editing session with a reviewer that many of us have come to expect of nominators. Is it necessary to codify such an interactive session as an evaluation requirement? If a reviewer leaves a well-reasoned blueprint for improving the article, does it really matter that the nominator chooses not to be the implementor? I'm rather inclined to think not. The reviewer's criticism, if it forms a well-crafted blueprint, is the useful output of a Good Article evaluation. Producing such an artifact would certainly not be a waste of the reviewer's time. This being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then anyone can take up such a well-made blueprint and run with it. I would think that a reviewer would find it a source of pride to author an article review that is of sufficient clarity and detail that anyone could work with it and that it requires no dependencies or tacit understandings between the reviewer and a particular nominator. I think that it would simplify the Good Article evaluation process if we reviewers would write our reviews with sufficient generality so that anyone could work with them.
• Kaypoh raises another interesting question. Is there a minimum effort that a nominator must invest in an article before "gaining" the right to nominate it? I believe, at present, that we ask a nominator to recognize that an article is good before nominating it. Are there concrete preparations that a nominator must make to ensure that his or her certification of the article has merit? I've suggested to another editor that, prior to enqueuing an article, a nominator should self-review the candidate in accordance with the good article criteria and take any necessary steps to bring it up to GA standards before nominating the candidate. Such a rule may minimize dead-on-arrival candidates but may discourage nominators from participating. It's not clear to me if a 'nominator's requirement' rule is needed, or what it should exact of the nominator. That said, I would like to see better-prepared articles nominated. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not only with this particular editor, although I agree that he/she is consistently not "playing fair", as it were. I ran into a similar scenario while reviewing (and consequently failing) Gary Oldman for GAC; although I provided an in depth review, placed the article on hold for a week, and contacted the nominator, zilch was done and I received no reply. In fact, I was outright ignored. It's incredibly irritating that my time, and the time of various other reviewers, must be wasted on these halfway noms; if a nominator is only willing to go halfway, then what are we even doing providing these reviews? I say we make it absolutely clear in the instructions that the nominator should expect to take part in the reviewing process, meaning that they respond to questions/suggestions/comments to the best of their ability and work to improve the nominated article if it does not fully meet the criteria after an initial review. I don't like the idea of "banning" certain users from nominating, but in the case of "repeat offenders", open discouragement may help alleviate the problem. María (habla conmigo) 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On following the link above I read this User_talk:Kaypoh#Your nomination of Nhat Hanh for GA review, and thought here is another issue that Kaypoh has raised. One possible result from this is the article has a history of a failed GA, when actually at least one editor did not want it nominated in the first place.Edmund Patrick – confer 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Gosgood, you have raised some interesting points that I never thought about. I can see there are some good qualities to what the editor is doing, so thankyou for explaining that. However GA review isn't a fairy tail where we have all the time in the world. The fact of the matter is we have a backlog, this editor is unnessarily adding to that. Regarding your statement here:

Suppose that a nominating editor just doesn't like the kind of interleaved editing session with a reviewer that many of us have come to expect of nominators. Is it necessary to codify such an interactive session as an evaluation requirement? If a reviewer leaves a well-reasoned blueprint for improving the article, does it really matter that the nominator chooses not to be the implementor? I'm rather inclined to think not. The reviewer's criticism, if it forms a well-crafted blueprint, is the useful output of a Good Article evaluation. Producing such an artifact would certainly not be a waste of the reviewer's time.

We already have a process for this sort of activity. Its called peer review. If the editor wants feedback on an article to give the "future generation" help/advise take it to peer review, not here. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(← outdent) When I review an article, I take as my remit the Reviewing good articles guidelines. In the case where an article is failing, then step three of this guideline charges me with the responsibility to prepare a review "extensive enough to allow the article to be improved and renominated, so that it will pass in the future." Even when an article passes the Good article criteria, my remit still calls on me to furnish constructive criticism, perhaps given in the context of the gap from the Good to Featured article standards. In any case, if I assume the role of a good article reviewer, then that is the deliverable which I am entrusted to convey to the community. I regard the nominator as the representative of that community. There is a peer review process; it appears that the responsibility with which I have been charged has no dependency on that process. As a consequence, I have no option to delegate my review responsibility to it. I have the overriding responsibility to ignore all rules when they get in the way of writing the encyclopedia; I don't think this guideline is so dysfunctional that I am obliged to invoke that overriding responsiblity. That is my understanding of the responsibility of a Good Article reviewer. Pray, have I left anything of significance out?

I find Kaypoh's behaviour a pain in the behind. He appears to have been told about the "nominate one, review one." rule-of-thumb. He says he's not good at reviewing. He's been asked, "how, then, could you figure out if a nominated article is good?" He hasn't answered that one, but it may very well be, "Aren't you guys the reviewers? Isn't that your job?" He reminds me of an executive who avoids getting bogged down in details that he's not good at executing. Kaypoh doesn't get involved in content. His strengths, it seems, lie in the realm of logistics and dispatch. He seems to think that he's not a good writer, copyeditor, or article reviewer, so he exercises his strength (dispatch), and farms out his weaknesses (writing, editing, content review...). Does this irritate me in the extreme? Oh yes. I'm one of the dopes-at-the-end-of-the-rope who is getting what he's farming out. And so are you and everyone else on this thread. Is what he's doing wrong? Uuuuuh. I draw a blank there, because nominators are not governed by a guideline-level document as reviewers are. The closest there is to a nominator governance is Nehrams2020's essay "Guide for nominating good articles." There I read about all of the nice behaviour we'd like nominators to exhibit. But this is an essay, not policy, and not a guideline. Kaypoh or any other nominator can read it and conclude: 'Eh. I'm not real good at doing any of that. I think I'll pass.' Does this frustrate the stuffing out of me? Ya, you betcha. But Kaypoh's high-handed, executive-elite behaviour reminds me of an old buzzard of a supervisor I once had. "Osgood," he said, "Sometimes people don't color between the lines you draw for them." Looking back twenty years, I can only say that it was a day I needed slapping with a wet trout. Messy inputs are a part of real life. One has to observe them from a neutral point of view (what a coincidence!), document their behaviour in a passionless way, and then — and only then — design a process that is adaptive to the observed, real-life, human behaviour, and not the fairy-tale case where people always behave the way you'd like them to. The discussion of such a process, by the way, may very well be taking place on the reform page. If not, it should start there. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple proposal

What if GA reviewers had to be certified in some way? Another way to think of this is to require all GA reviewers from now on to go through the mentoring process. In order to do a review, you would have to be listed on an approved reviewers list. Misbehavior would remove you from that list. Reviews would still be basically a one person operation, but the reviewers would be vetted.

To start, there would have to be some criteria for who was "grandfathered" in as an established reviewer (perhaps anyone who ever received top 5 in the GA reviewer of the month or anyone who had done 5 reviews that were not disputed). Perhaps there could be a page where GA reviewers listed their names and five reviews they had done (linked). If a certain number of other editors active in GA reviews supported, they would be "established".

Once a pool of established reviewers was set up in some way, they could act as mentors to new reviewers. While this would take some time and effort to set up, it might be worth it to establish some way of knowing reviewers were "approved".

This is an idea I had last night and it still seems reasonable, so I thought I would throw it out for others to shoot holes in or hopefull improve it. The basic idea is to have a list of approved GA reviewers who would be the only ones allowed to do a review. Quality control would be of reviewers and not each individual review. The goal is to improve the overall quality of GA reviews and avoid apparent gamesmanship and drive by reviews. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My major concern with this would be that it seemingly goes against the whole spirit of "anyone can participate". If any process needed experienced and certified individuals to read and judge articles, it would be FAC and not GAC. While I like the idea of encouraging more training and mentoring, especially for new participants, I fear many potential reviewers would be turned off the process if some kind of authentication process was added to the mix. Think of the children backlog! María (habla conmigo) 13:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Let's not forget that we have a process reform page where this idea — and others — are being considered. Please visit there. I'm personally favourable to the open review process fielded by Gwinva. I think she's struck a good balance between oversight and the "anyone can participate" spirit. Plus, I think, she has even simplified the overall process flow, so fewer tags and fewer review states are required (but I haven't done my homework on that). Take care. Gosgood (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely opposed to this idea. It would certainly reduce the number of poor, quick reviews. I agree, though, that the extent of the increased bureaucracy would discourage new reviewers who may turn out to be experienced reviewers eventually. What if we let everbody review articles, and if they fail to do it correctly, they must go to a coaching of sorts to learn how to do it correctly? I have been recognized as one of the top five reviewers, so my opinion on this individual proposal might be biased. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I still suggest that final passes be processed through a clearing house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we would end up too close to your stomping grounds. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While any system will have flaws, I think we have to determine what our priorities are. The highest priority in my view is establishing and maintaining high standards for GAs. After that, it's providing an open forum for anyone to edit and evaluate those GAs. I think having a certification of GA reviewers is a good idea, but of course, things can go wrong. My fear is that it may turn into something to achieve without any substance, almost like the pseudo-hazing that goes on at RfA. An alternative idea is to have apprentice GA reviewers, whose fist 5 to 10 reviews should be approved by someone who has a significant amount of GA reviews, GAs, or FAs in their experience. If an experienced reviewer notices a new editor mark an article for review, or pass an article, s/he can observe the review and take the newcomer under his/her wing, so to speak. --Moni3 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Without a clearing house, nothing else put in place will be enforceable. Whatever is put in place, you need a final check to make sure it's happened because, like it or not, the current GA system is gameable by those who seek awards on the path to RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, Sandy. It's as if you don't have faith that people with a common goal can work effeciently toward that goal. Or even that they agree on the goal. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure they can ... but respect for GA will increase if there is a way of knowing when something fishy is happening, other than by chance from a talk page post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I had not thought through all of the implications of my "simple proposal", but Sandy is correct (as usual). Even a system of accredited reviewers would need someone checking all of the new GAs to make sure no unapproved reviewers (or reviews) slipped through, in short, a clearing hosue. I agree with Sandy, whatever the changes in GA, to ensure the quality of all reviews, there must be some sort of clearing house. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What if there is the initial reviewer, and then people can !vote on whether they think the article should pass? Or better yet, (I've thought about this for a while), what about one or two GA directors that would just ensure that all passes were done correctly? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting is too much "process" (that definitely puts you in FAC territory :-); I'd say a panel of six to twelve directors, which is exactly what I mean by a clearing house. When an editor passes a GA, it's posted to a central clearing house, where someone on that panel checks and does the final talk page updating of the pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to like this idea. I don't know that we have 12 editors who are dedicated enough to the process to be a director of sorts, however. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Four to eight might do the trick. This idea came to me because of the number of articlehistory errors introduced on talk pages by "anyone can pass" GA passes. If only four to eight editors can do the final final pass, that would kill two birds with one stone (checking each GA pass, and making sure the bookkeeping is done correctly). But two GA directors wouldn't be enough, because of the volume of GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it is being discussed at the WPGA reform pages, but I think the simplist solution is to require two successful reviews to pass. That would maintain the simplicity of the GA process, while also helping to limit attempts at gaming the system. If we are going to start electing directors and what not, why not just formally make GA a step in the FA process? Resolute 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if you'll look at the sample of issues being discussed, you'll see that two can game the system just as easily as one. (And, there would still be bookkeeping errors in the passes.) Making it part of the FA process is a big leap forward; why not first get a system that works, and cross that bridge when you come to it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we just have a group of volunteers as a task force dedicated to watching the GA page and checking each and every pass as it comes in? That wouldn't change the system at all, it would just organize something that is already a natural occurrence. I'll volunteer.v You could put a message on the GA review saying it's been double checked. That would prevent overlap, unless, of course, we want overlap. Wrad (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(after three edit conflicts, I should have learned by now not to post after Wrad :-) How would you know who has checked what, to avoid duplication of effort, and to know that all volunteers checking the same thing, possibly missing one? In other words, back to a clearing house, to make your idea work efficiently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to start a straw poll... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the reform page, so I'm not sure it's time for a poll yet. Why not first try to get that silly awards center finally MfD'd and see if that doesn't eliminate some problems ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The AWC has survived a number of MfDs already, and given the number of people that contribute to Wikipedia solely to receive barnstars there, I doubt we'll ever be able to get rid of it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What's this awards center y'all speak of? And why haven't I gotten copious amounts of them? Have I been giving away my time for free all this time? I expect to get paid richly for all I do... uh... for FAC, really. (I've been slacking at GA recently)... --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Sharkface217/Awards Center. That, and checklist admin coaching, are enticing editors to pass GAs on their path to backlogging FAC with ill-prepared noms on their path to RfA by checklist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The tragedy, of course, is that you don't even need GAs/FAs on your resume to get the mop - I was passed unanimously without either one. Whence comes this idea that there's a mandatory RFA checklist? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a notion bred by admin coaching, and furthered by the crowd that frequents RfA. (Some of them actually have checklists including participation at GA and FA processes.) And lest anyone has any doubts, most of these GAN/FAC issues are because of editors on what they perceive to be the path to RfA. Invariably, when a really bad GA pass shows up at FAC, an RfA is right behind it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I hope someone doesn't MfD that thing right now; it needs to be done right this time, and work is underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been in favor of a central station for awhile now to eyeball recent passes, so whatever we get along those lines is fine by me. (And sorry for the ec's!) Wrad (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see a place for some kind of "random" sampling of passes, as a QC check, but I would not be in favour of every listing having to be double checked. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus. Just an idea, but what's wrong with delegating a l33t group to watchlist Wikipedia:Good articles/recent and check for duds? That could be our "clearing house". María (habla conmigo) 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's like politically correct screening of grannies at airports; I can't imagine why a random process should waste time reviewing, for example, an Awadewit GA pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(OUT) I agree with Sandy, a screening process is needed as seen by recent events. However it would have to be done properly and shouldn't turn into the FA process. Only one "screener" need check the review. If 6 checkers all start commenting on 1 article, you get six times the number of complaints until eventually the article is closer to FA than GA. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 17:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy as well. It's rather unlikely that anyone would waste their time reviewing an Awadewit pass. That why I put "random" in quotes. In software testing, for instance, where it's impossible to test everything, you have to determine where the greatest number of errors are likely to occur and target that. Recent events seem to suggest that a significant number of GA errors occur when new reviwers undertake prodigious numbers of reviews in a short space of time. That's the kind of checking I'm suggesting. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The way that the peer review backlog works to avoid two reviewers working on the same article might be adaptable here. For a clearing house you could just have a page to list articles that have had a GA review that needs to be checked. Probably want to have standard format for the information: name of the article, nominator, then have the reviewer's signature with the date stamp. Have a group of approved editors who do the final check and when they pick an article, just have them put  Doing... (the {{doing}} template) next to the article first, then actually review it. This avoids two people checking the same article. My guess is that some articles would get a fairly quick check (like Sandy's Awadewit example) and others might get more scrutiny. As suggested above, the checker would be the one to put the GA info on the talk page, do the article history, etc. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much process. I was suggesting a sampling system, not one in which every article gets checked. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favour of all articles being screened. Anything that improves the reputation of the GA process as a serious accomplishment is good for me. It will be time consuming but I think it would be a net positive. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be a waste of time and limited resources to check every article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The check would be left to the discretion of the reviewer - if the check was "Awadewit passed this, off to the article's talk page to put on the green symbol and update article history", fine. I suspect for most articles it would be reading the GA review comments and looking at the article itself and doing some spot checks. I think moaning about why GA gets little or no respect and then not doing anything about it would be a much bigger waste of time and resources. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but that is ridiculous. Screening every article for a good review??? That sounds a lot like big brother stripping people's rights of doing something. Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but it seems like the truth. I will agree to a GAN "board of directors" - but I refuse to listen to someone saying that my reviews are not up to standard or something like that. I will be willing to look into certain other proposals, like working on the mentoring process a little more. I'm sure others will agree with me on this, and I suggest looking into a better proposal.^Mitch32^contribs 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mitch, who were you aiming that comment at? The indents here are wacky. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I'm just thinking of it as a quick glance at the article to see if it really meets GA. I'm only counting on it to fix the obvious ones. I'm not seeing copyediting or any sort of thorough checkup of any kind as part of this process. Just a quick glance usually taking two minutes and never more than five to make sure that nobody's trying to pull a fast one on us. I hope this is what others see this as. Wrad (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your indenting (Mitch) makes it appear that you're replying to me, someone who agrees with you that checking every GA pass would be a waste of time and limited resources. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, change of heart, I agree. It would be a complete waste of time checking reviews made by people who have a history of getting it right. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad, a review would be few minutes at most. Trusted reviewers could get a pass, but every article goes through the system to make it fair. As for indenting, instead of an edit conflict, Mitch and my edits appeared at the same time when I saved mine. Take care, I am opinioned out here ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair to who? It's not an exam, it's a quality control measure. Is it fair to every widget that comes off a production line that it's not tested? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think a good compromise is to just make a task force of people to watch stuff as it comes through and check it unofficially. Wrad (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Now would a good reforming do well, which would propose a few new ideas, kill off a few old, and make the review process even better. I'm also up to the idea of a watchlist spam for recruiting GAN Reviews, and boosting up the mentor process. I'm gonna use an example. When my RFA was going on in December 2007, i was criticized for having template problems. If we can build off prior experience, I'm sure we can come up with something. Now what ideas should we propose?^Mitch32^contribs 21:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I don't know if you've been following, but there is already a reform page... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after looking that over, I change my thing above to this: I agree with some of the proposals there, but I do see some problems. One, the help out before working on your own seems like a very strong idea to it. It would benefit the reviews when they start in the future. I do feel a tutorial for reviewers would be necessary and maybe get a practice article in before going full time? It would help boost their confidence and get less bish-bashing. Also maybe look into a adopt-a-reviewer process for newbies?

Second, the minimal period for GA reviews, especially for someone like me (who has done them quickly a lot (both reviews and editing for passes)), is a big problem. Someone like me has a big schedule of plans on his hands and like things done and quick. Not to sound selfish, but others may say something that sounds the same as that. If reviews take 3-5 days before passing, its sort of ridiculous. Maybe this would break the big brother thing I mentioned above, but I would say that it is certainly not worth waiting on GA reviews, especially if there's like 1, 2, or 3 things that are a problem with the article that can be solved simpler. Is there another way to look at this?

Most of the other consensus look good to me. However, I don't think some of these work. The best thing to do is someone write good review criterion and a tutorial for new editors to the process.^Mitch32^contribs 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an even simpler proposal. Nobody should be allowed to review a GA until they've written one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, we would be faced with the question of how much an editor has to contribute to an articl before they can take credit for it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is perhaps even deeper than that, since I have in the past taken great exception to editors claiming credit for articles that they were at best minor contributors to. Nevertheless, I think it's absurd for someone who has no idea what's involved in writing a GA to be allowed to pass judgement. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that doesn't seem like a good idea. What if someone isn't interested in writing a Good Article? Maybe they're a coypeditor or an AN/I contributor and don't have the writing skills like most others do. What would happen to them? It sounds sort of unfair.^Mitch32^contribs 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds no more unfair to me than expecting a driving test examiner to actually be able to drive him/herself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus has an interesting point actually, its not about fairness, life isn't fair and neither is wikipedia. Its a very interesting option. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. I'm up to 4 proposals - the have a GA before reviewing, mentoring a newbie, tutorial for newbies and a good criterion. The others are in my opinion, big no-nos. How should we implement these upon consensus?^Mitch32^contribs 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just chucking my 2p in. How about, either every GA undergoes a PR first; two reviews for every GA; or a holding page for every GA pass, whereby a senior editor can veto a GA. I'd opt for the third of the three, which would be more weed out the obvious erroneous passes, rather than go over every GA with a fine toothcomb. Peanut4 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeez. How about we all just throw the towel in and abandon the GA project if that's what it's going to turn into? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be so flippant. You could say why my ideas aren't any good without just making throwaway comments. Personally, I don't see why I should bother getting a full review for my own GANs, or giving a full review for articles which are already of a decent standard, when some articles pass GA and are desperately lacking GAN. I prefer my third option, because all it needs is for a small group of editors to pass on the majority of GANs, and fail one or two which really shouldn't be passed. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since it is counter-productive to carry on these discussions in two places, can I recommend people read Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Reform and make their suggestions and proposals on the process reform discussion page, where we are attempting to address and discuss all these issues in a consistent and constructive order. Thanks. Gwinva (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Grey, stormy clouds thinking. Solve all the RfA, GA awards in one complete sweep. Set up a bot that randomly chooses an editor and awards them a randomly chosen barnstar, say at 42 minutes past the hour, every hour. Lots of structures undermined in one go. Sorted; and like Moni3 I didn't even know the Awards Center existed. Ho Hum! Edmund Patrick – confer 07:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerned

I'm a bit concerned about the recent events described above, and in the interests of full disclosure I want to make it clear that I was approached by one of the editors mentioned above asking me to review Anahim hotspot. When I looked at the GAN list I saw that it had been waiting to be reviewed for some time, so I thought there was nothing unusual about the request. There was another article that had been waiting longer however, so I thought it only fair to review that one first.

I then reviewed the Anahim hotspot, and I was subsequently puzzled as to why I seemed to be being pressured into listing it as a GA even though I'd made it clear what I felt needed to be done to it, and that it wasn't yet ready. I've had another look at the article this evening and I'm very happy with it now, and I intend to list it as a GA. I think the main editors have done a fantastic job in the last week or so, but I'm concerned that their efforts may be tainted unless others take a look. So that's what I'm asking for here, a few more reviewers to take a look and see what they think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, its not like you to forget to sign? :-)— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments like this have left me quite bemused. Imperative the article should pass? Why? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he miss worded what he was trying to say. Maybe he was saying that its imperative that the lead be expanded if the article is to become GA. Im sure different grammer or something would have made that clearer. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I know Miss Worded. Does she live anywhere near Miss Deed? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dont be a jerk. I opposed your RfA for this very reason ... REMEMBER!!! — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Takes one to know one, or so I've been told. ;-) I am quite even handed in my disdain for your opinion either there or here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriouly, Im not here to have bitching episode with you. If you want to make fun of my english my talk page is available. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't need a whole talk page just to do that. Seriously, chill out. You know what I think of you, and I've got a pretty fair impression of what you think of me. Let it go now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I never saw an issue, I thought we were having a constructive discussion on GA. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, guys! Stop this shiat right here. This is getting out of hand. If you still want to tear each other apart, do it on your own talk pages, please. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We've taken our blood pressure pills, this ended 4 hours ago, lets not re-stir it. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Malleus (et. al), I took a look at Anahim hotspot and it looks fine to me. giggy _(:O) 07:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Future buildings or structures" templates

I have seen this template included in several GA nominees lately, and I'm wondering how it should be dealt with. I'm assuming that it's not considered a cleanup template and is therefore not grounds for a quick-fail. I suppose my biggest question is if the template reflects a lack of stability in the article. For example, current nominees Piedmont Park and Cologne Mosque project have this template. The article will undoubtedly change in the future, but is this sufficient to say that it can't be a good article now? I'm not trying to get them failed or anything, but it's something I've been wondering lately. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its a case by case issue, on a quick peak I would say that the template will affect one article more than the other. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems more like just an information template, similar to the 'recent death' one; I wouldn't think it's immediately grounds for a quick-fail, no. On a more serious note, I think it would be a good idea if reviewers got away from the idea of "quick-failing". The purpose of GA is to focus on article improvement, and simply quick-failing an article because it falls far short of the criteria seems horribly counterproductive to the goal of improving articles. Reviewers should be more specific and provide more detailed reviews, in an effort to guide article editors towards improving their articles towards GA status (and even FA, if that's the direction they ultimately want the article to go). Failing an article with a quick one or two sentences doesn't help. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that; I don't think I've ever quick-failed an article. To perhaps be a little cynical, I've always thought that quick-failing was just a way of getting the number of reviewed articles up, so as to be eligible for a GA reviewer of the month award. I'll get me coat. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Some people seem to think that GAN is little more than a peer review. I disagree. If people are completely unwilling to take 2 minutes to read the GA criteria before nominating an article, I'm not convinced that it's our place to spend hours giving them feedback that should have been common sense before nominating the article. The quick-fail process exists for a reason, and telling reviewers that they can't use it doesn't make sense. If an article clearly meets the criteria for a quick-failc (eg. a cleanup banner was present for several months before the nomination), I see absolutely no problem with quick-failing the article.

With that said, many editors seem to confuse a "quick-fail" with a "fail". It is possible to review an article, decide that it needs major improvements in order to meet several of the GA criteria, and fail the nomination. This is, unfortunately, referred to as a "quick-fail" by many editors. It is very different, however, as detailed notes should be left in order to give the nominator feedback on how to prepare the article for a future nomination. Nothing in the review process dictates that every nomination is entitled to a hold. If it's not reasonable to expect that the problems could be sorted out in a week, the established procedure supports the right of the reviewer to fail the nomination.

I have tried a new system, and I was pretty happy with it. An article was nominated that I didn't feel was close to meeting the GA criteria. I gave it a pre-review with obvious but specific changes that needed to be made, said that I would do a more detailed review of the prose if the initial changes were made, and put the nomination on hold for 8 days. Although progress had been made, it still didn't meet the GA criteria. At that point, I failed the nomination with some additional feedback for improvement. I felt that this gave the nominator a chance to prove that the article was within a week of being ready and also helped them see what was needed before the article was ready to nominate.

As for the GA reviewer of the month comment, it is my understanding that quick-fails wouldn't be given much consideration toward that award. Because the quality of the reviews is said to be more important than the quantity, I don't see that quick-failing articles would get an editor much closer to being named GA reviewer of the month. And, since this discussion has taken a turn that I hadn't intended, I feel obligated to defend myself by repeating that I wasn't looking to quick-fail these articles. I was simply wondering what the policy was, but I had no intention of acting on it. I've lost almost all interest in reviewing articles, so I'll leave it to other editors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny goings-on at GA

I saw this on a talk page I regularly watch, which led also to this and this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the article partly because Meldshal asked me to do so and partly because I wanted to know how to improve the article. Perhaps this was a lapse of judgement on my part, as I honestly didn't think the article had enough referencing along with other problems. Perhaps we should delist it or have a more in depth review. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I delisted it, but I left it as a GA nominee so that a more thorough review could be performed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was simply going to delist it without puting it back up for review. Two entire sections are unreferenced, and the article is too short to be comprehensive. It's a quick fail candidate, imo, but I'll essentially leave it for a second reviewer. Resolute 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not speaking up before this. I saw Mary Meader pass, which it should not have with a source used 33 times. I also saw that Hell's Gate National Park was passed, and it should not have been. A national park article should be much more comprehensive. I've had GAs passed by editors who really didn't seem to know what they're doing. It's really not worth it. I'd much rather feel as if I achieved something. If you continue to review GA's Meldshal, I suggest making your criteria much more stringent. --Moni3 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the criteria is fine as it is. The problem is the lack of quality reviewers, and the surplus of reviewers who pass articles that really shouldn't be. The original purpose of GA was to recognize articles that are not or not likely to reach featured, so raising the GA bar would further blur the GA/FA line. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think theres a BIG difference between GA and FA. I have 6 GA's and not a single FA yet :-(. For me at least the jump is still noticeable. Im quite supprised by the links provided. It doesn't look good and cheapens a process I have a lot of respect for. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed currently a substantial difference, but with the ongoing discussion at WT:WIAFA regarding lowering (IMO) the FA standards, and this discussion to raise the GA standards, there might not be in time. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe what Moni meant is not that the GA criteria isn't stringent enough, but that Meldshal's personal criteria for assessing GACs is lacking, which, having left my comments at Hell's Gate National Park's talk page, I have to agree with. That article is nowhere near GAC standards and yet it passed with (seemingly) flying colors. The process wonkery stated above by Sandy is, in my opinion, highly immoral. María (habla conmigo) 02:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is, in fact, what I meant. I did the initial GA review for Mary Meader. When it sat for 7 days without action, it failed. The first comment from Meldshal in their review was to rectify the repeated use of The New York Times source, but it was retracted. It's my personal observation that that's from lack of confidence, and being challenged by an enthusiastic nominator. The encouragement to nominate articles to be specifically reviewed is very troubling, however. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't approve of what those diffs seem to imply, but this is hopefully just a mistake due to a lack of familiarity with the GA process. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is clearly no mistake. This is gaming a system set up on good faith. I run into articles every day, many times when they arrive at FAC completely unprepared, that were victims of either a nominator "collecting" GAs for awards or a reviewer "collecting" GA reviews for some purpose I do not understand. Sharkface's award center gave me some insight into the problem but, like Star Wars Episodes 1–3, I have decided to ignore it for the sake of my own sanity. This is a deliberate process in which an editor posts about an article being ready (fishing for other interested parties), then asks an editor to nominate it, making it clear that they intend to review the article themselves. The result is severely deficient articles carrying GA status which at some point emboldens either the original nominator or some unwitting editor to try bringing it to FAC, which, as others have pointed out, is leagues away from GA in terms of quality. I've caught other editors doing this and literally had to threaten an RFC to get them to stop. --Laser brain (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just plain wrong and a threat to the whole process. It should be discouraged in the strongest possible way. Wrad (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nipping it in the bud might be facilitated by following User:Sharkface217/Awards Center and admin coaching; two factors that are detrimental to both GAN and FAC, as editors on a checklist path to RfA try to gather awards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(← outdent) Meldshal42 expresses the intent to make people rejoice, that he or she likes to review and is not out to cheat articles, but when I look at a review like this:

• Talk:1992 Nicaragua earthquake#GA Review

and compare it to a review like this:

• Talk:Mechanical engineering/GA1

I am struck with how, regardless of his efforts, Dank55 review is being undermined. As SandyGeorgia has pointed out in more ways than I have fingers and toes, just one weak Good Article review makes all reviews suspect. The one weak review is sufficient to demonstrate that the process is uneven. It establishes doubt, and doubt travels faster and penetrates deeper than a sense of integrity about things. As Moni3 has shrewdly observed, people rejoice only if they feel they have achieved something, but doubt undermines that sense of achievement. It leaves people who are working hard on nominating or reviewing articles wondering if they are doing anything useful for the larger community. Becoming doubtful, they wander off and find something else more rewarding. And as we learned today with The League of Copyeditors, it does not take very long after project has become moribund for somebody to kindly and lovingly put a bullet through its head, so that the project is in misery no longer. Then hey, presto! no more Good Article awards! They'd just be stupid green trinkets anyway, cluttering talk pages. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to all users because I didn't realize that it was kind of unfair. Please, let me review the articles fairly. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to review articles fairly. To confirm that you are doing so, please post a new section here, or contact one of the GAN mentors, before posting a review on an article's talk page, so someone more experienced can confirm that you are "review[ing] the articles fairly". Thanks and good luck. giggy _(:O) 10:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I did spot one editor sign up at the Award's Center to do 10 GA reviews. Within just a couple of minutes he/she had passed one GAN. It may well have been a pass, and the Award may have been set up in good faith, but I think there are some people who go to the Award Center to pick up awards without making quality edits. There are countless number of editors who do far better work for no reward. Peanut4 (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that I am more to blame than Meldshal. 1556 Shanxi was most certainly not a good article and I was only listing because I wanted specific concerns, not an all-out pass. I personally thought that everything that needed to be said was said in all my GAs that Meldshal passed, though I agree they were all on the short side. I do not participate in the Award Center and I wrote these articles for to embetter Wikipedia. Meldshal's reviews should've been a bit more thorough, I suppose. P.S. I bought the Mary Meader Book, but I think using it would give too much detail to Meader's flight and thus the article would not be NPOV, so I decided not to use it. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As do I. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank god, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center, and finally, after 2 other attempts (one of which I was a major proponent for deletion), the concensus finally seems to be for deletion. As I said before, neither Meldshal or myself participate in the AWC (which now looks more like a social networking site than part of Wikipedia) and while her reviews (and my articles) may have been on the short side, I only submitted once I felt that pretty much all to be written was written in those articles. I apologise for influencing her in my eagerness, as my only intention was to help Wikipedia. For the record, I have 2002 Iran earthquake up for GA, it'll be my longest GA since Lazare Ponticelli (and that's now an FA) at over 10 kb of content from scratch. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 02:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

UWC

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart - Considering this community decision, would it be wise to suggest a ban on using this chart or its website on GA articles (personally I think it shouldn't be allowed on any article but that will be hard to enforce). Following this I removed the chart and the website from all my GA articles. IMHO it isn't reliable enough to be used in GA articles. Currently the source is used in some 1000+ articles, including many GA's Im guessing. Im sorry in advance if this has already been brought up. I think there should be a spam filter or something to block its usage. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be better if I take this thread to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles instead? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

An article's notability is distinct from its reliability. giggy _(:O) 09:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the consensus for that deletion was built on both notability and reliability, a lot of people wanted the article deleted because they didn't believe it to be reliable. The fact that the closing argument links to Wikipedia:Verifiability says it all. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The closing argument is wrong - articles shouldn't be AfD'd for reliability (see our deletion policy) (eg. Stormfront (website) is unreliable but notable)(and musicOMH is non-notable but reliable). giggy _(:O) 09:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, thats hilarious, but oddly thats how most people voted when they got the article deleted. There was indeed a consensus that the chart and website are rubbish. Should we therefore view it in the same light? Is the United world chart a reliable source? — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there was a consensus that the chart is not notable. That doesn't mean it's rubbish or unreliable. There's a very big difference. giggy _(:O) 09:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This search shows plenty of reliable folks who are using and trusting the UWC. None of them assert notability (eg. "...CD actually hit the shops, it reached number one in the UK album chart, the United World Chart and the US Billboard 200..."), but they do show it's used as a reliable source by others. I'm still looking for further info to assure it meets WP:V's requirements. giggy _(:O) 09:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the European certification board doesn't recognize it as legitimate. It has little or no external notable references. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I also find this comment from the vote interesting;

We can state that it is not an official chart, because it is not recognized by the IFPI (unlike Billboard, OCC or Media Control charts). And we can show the nature of the chart by giving details about the compilation method. Nothing misleading or false or POV there. In the German Wikipedia UWC positions are not allowed in the charts tables of music articles and the German version of these lists was deleted just two days ago. Nevertheless we kept the UWC article, because it explains why we don't include them. As you are most keen to get the article deleted, I hope you will then attend to the links as well. Keeping the chart positions without an explaining link like the French did would rather add to its popularity. 'Zero information' can have that effect. -- Harro (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the site is German made and the German wikipedia doesnt accept it, that should ring some alarm bells surely. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 09:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

40 days at GAN and nothing has happened

One of my nominations, New York State Route 343 has had a review tag placed on it for 18 days out of the 40 that its been on there. Is it possible to have the review tagged removed and let someone else do it (and put on the urgent/oldest list) - because I'm becoming very annoyed that its gone 40 days without doing anything. I have had it peer reviewed twice in the time being. Any ideas?^Mitch32^contribs 01:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. The 5 tags up with progress on none of them was a definite red flag. Wizardman 01:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have nine nominations currently at GAN. What's the prize that you're going for? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No prize, just help building up Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes - and this one is going to FAC sooner or later.^Mitch32^contribs 01:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. So you have made significant contributions to all nine of these articles? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, while some of them may be drive-by nominations, he always addresses the issues that are found, and all but one of his nominations has passed. Thus he is only doing the project good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We are each entitled to our opinions Julian. Mine is probably not too difficult to discern. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand (and almost agree with) your opinion, and as Mitch and I are on-wiki friends, my opinion is largely biased. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's always been my opinion that the quickest way to get your articles reviewed is to do lots of reviews yourself. giggy _(:O) 02:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, but I have such a busy schedule on Wiki with WP:NY State Routes, I end up not being able to do other things. With C-class now in, I'll be even busier.^Mitch32^contribs 02:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So, let's see if I'm understanding this. You're a busy person who can still find the time to nominate nine articles for GA, and according to your wikifriend Juliancolton respond to the issues raised during those reviews. But you can't find the time to review even one article yourself? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally, that sort of thing really bothers me, too. However, I've seen Mitch review many articles in the past, and he does always address the GA concerns. He wouldn't currently have nine articles nominated, if the reviews were done in a timely manner...maybe Mitch had more time 40 days ago. Let's assume good faith here. And...Mitch and I are not wiki-friends, so I'm not biased at all. :) Nikki311 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I promised one tomorrow to the backlog at Transport only because there's another there at 40 days. Also, there are times where I will spend an afternoon reviewing. :D ^Mitch32^contribs 02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, we are making this far bigger of a deal than it needs to be. Mitchazenia, while it would be good if you could cut down on the nominations, at least until the backlog subsides, you are doing the project good with all of your successful GA nominations. It would also be good if you could review more articles, but as I understand you are busy writing articles and nominating them, I fully understand why you have cut back on your reviews. In fact, Mitch used to be an avid reviewer, and has reviewed more GAs than most of us here. His nominating articles is not causing any harm, and all this discussion is doing is discouraging a user from contributing to the encyclopedia. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right; but the user who is being discouraged is me, not your friend Mitch. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how, but if you are, it is certainly not in my or any others' intention to discourage you. And even if I didn't know Mitchazenia well, I would still have the same opinion on this issues. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"I'm becoming very annoyed that its gone 40 days without doing anything." If your mate Mitch was really the ace reviewer that you claim him to be, he might have remembered that this is a volunteer project. See what I mean? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

While I did say he has a large quantity of reviews, I respect he is not the best reviewer. And while this is indeed a volunteer project, 40 days is an exceptionally long period of time. Also, the Transport articles sit there for up to months at a time due to lack of interest, while the Geography articles are nominated for several days at most, thus the GA process is faulty and requires a more efficient process. I suppose that is a bit unrelated, however. Moreover, the main point of his comment was to request feedback on the stale review templates. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Will you stop turning this into an episode? Its getting annoying that you're trying to make some look bad and discourage them, specifically me, to GA reviewing. I don't like a big brother society and I want it to stay that way.^Mitch32^contribs 02:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Probably best if everyone drops this. Mitch; go do some reviews. :-) Malleus; go do some reviews. :-) Problem solved. giggy _(:O) 03:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I was going to say that I'll stop when I damn well feel like it. But your more measured counsel has persuaded that I should leave this discussion now. If only I had your patience giggy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• We are acception your participation in this discussion, but as we determined this is going nowhere, I don't see why we can't just archive this thread. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

date autoformatting is optional

I'd like to GA nominators and reviewers that for some time now, the autoformatting of dates has not been required.

There are four advantages in not linking dates:

1. Inconsistent raw formatting within an article is obvious to editors and thus less likely to escape our attention. (The autoformatting mechanism conceals the inconsistencies from us, the very people who are most likely to enforce consistency, but the raw formats are displayed in bright blue to almost all readers, who are not registered and logged in. The rules for the choice of format in an article are in MOSNUM, here); they are easily summarised as (a) be consistent within an article; (b) take account of national ties to a topic; and (c) retain the existing format unless there's a good reason not to.
2. There are fewer bright-blue splotches in the text, which makes it slightly easier to read and improves its appearance.
3. The following issues concerning the dysfunctional aspects of the autoformatting mechanism do not arise:
   • piped links to date elements ([[20 June|20]], [[20 June]] [[1997 in South African sport|1997]]) (several forms of piped links break the date formatting function);
   • links to date ranges in the same calendar month e.g. December 13–17 or the night of 30/31 May – the autoformatting mechanism will damage such dates (30/May 31);
   • links to date elements on disambiguation pages;
   • links to date elements in article and section headings; and
   • links to date elements in quotations (unless the original text was wikilinked).
4. As a minor advantage, edit windows are slightly easier to read and edit.

It may be that WikiMedia can be persuaded to invest resources in revamping the mechanism to avoid or mitigate these problems, but this is unlikely to occur in the short to medium terms. Tony (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Marine debris

This has been failed, but I am unable to find GA/1 or any report. It is possible that it is something I am doing wrong. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for what this edit summary promises. The subpage should probably have been created first, but we're still within a few minutes after the failing. -- Jao (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it is just that from nothing an article has failed, no first impressions, 1st reviews etc. Thanks I will wait. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

read it now and a reasonable review it is (I am assuming a quick fail here). Just all done in a different order that I am used to. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Article history

Should there be something about using the "Template:ArticleHistory" on this page? Snowman (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes: "Don't use it unless you know what you are doing". ArticleHistory is largely managed by a bot. It is unnecessary for GA editors to learn the arcane rules of ArticleHistory. Editors who are familiar with it are welcome to use it, but they should always check for the red error category at the end of the page, or they will soon feel the Wrath of Sandy. Geometry guy 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They sure will! I speak from experience. ;-( --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking back over a few years of article histories, it seems to me that the bot has missed a lot of details in the histories. In these situations it appears that the bot is not going to rewrite the article history and the only method is manual. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The new subpage system should help in that respect. Geometry guy 22:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

By design, the bot made no attempt to re-create multiple listings and delistings of GA. That would have been a gargantuan task, mostly needing manual intervention because of incomplete templates and missing edit summaries. Yes, please watch for the red error category at the bottom of the page if you build an {{articlehistory}}. Also, GimmeBot is on vacation this week, so templates will be converted next week. Here is a Dispatch about articlehistory. Signed, The Wrath of ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I find using User:DHMO/GAAH helps avoid wrath in straightforward cases. ie. if the GAN is the FIRST ArticleHistory event (no DYK, no PR, no AfD) for this article, adding {{subst:user:DHMO/GAAH|GA TOPIC|SUBPAGE NUMBER}} works a charm (if you don't include a number it defaults to 1 (/GA1), but you have to include a topic - see CAT:UCGA). giggy _(:O) 09:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That is building an incomplete articlehistory (no oldid) that flies under the radar of the error category; it would be better to let GimmeBot do it correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The other problem with that approach is that, unless you have Dr pda's articlehistory script, you could be building an AH that leaves out previous events, and those are harder to fix after the fact. Best to just leave the GA templates and let the Bot update them to ah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It might help if an indexing or automated search made archived pages easier to find. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually GimmeBot can generate an oldid from a correct date, so don't bother with oldid's: 5 tildes will record the current date in a bot-friendly format. But otherwise I agree with Sandy: just use GA templates (with dates), and leave ArticleHistory for the bot to handle. Geometry guy 14:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dubious GA nomination

I saw that the article Meher Baba is stated as being a GA article. When I asked in talk to be given the wikinlink to the GA nomination discussion, I got this Talk:Meher_Baba/Archive_3#GA. It seems that the article did not pass a GA nomination. Can someone take a second look? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Back then, something like that would have been "acceptable". Regardless, the article isn't GA quality so I've taken it to GAR. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Meher Baba/1. giggy _(:O) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates

I changed the headings in {{subst:PGAN}}, {{subst:FGAN}} and {{subst:GANOH}} from 2 to 3 level. I think the third level is more appropriate now. Ruslik (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, especially now that we're using subpages. giggy _(:O) 08:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviews on hold for a long period

What do you do when a GA nom has been on hold for almost a month? For example, Bath Abbey has been on hold for almost a month. miranda 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends. If people are working on it, there's no harm in letting it go. If not, then ping the reviewer, and if they aren't interested (etc.), fail it. giggy _(:O) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed (I haven't been to GAN in a while) that a few articles have been On Hold for weeks. Weeks I tells ya! Gary King (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion request for Survivor Series (1994)

If anyone has a few minutes, I would really appreciate a second reviewer looking over this article. I addressed all of the concerns from the first review, but I would like the article to be passed by someone outside WikiProject:Professional wrestling. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done —giggy 08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How long is the backlog, typically?

How long is the backlog here, typically? I'm usually seeing nominations that have been here for a month; personally, I think that anything that's been here longer than that has been here a bit too long. If we can cut down vigorously on the backlog, then eventually there will be no more backlog if new nominations are given a review as soon as they come in. The work required would be the same as it is now. (Assuming that the average time for the oldest nomination is a month, over the past year, then that would mean that generally, the rate of nominations is the same as the rate of reviews. So if this rate continues, which it can easily be done, then eventually we would have absolutely no backlog.) Otherwise, the backlog will only increase... Gary King (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Err, yes, quite. What's your point exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

My point is we should just put energy into first cutting down the backlog so the oldest nomination is perhaps, 7 days at the most, then the entire list will be kept shorter. Although, I suppose this has been suggested before, and perhaps even put into action. But, it just dawned on me that it's getting pretty ridiculous when yesterday, we had a few nominations that have been here for two months. Gary King (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to put in as much effort as you're able to if you think it will make any difference. Queuing theory offers some interesting insights, I think. (Blimey, I hadn't looked at that article before now, another one in dire need of some TLC.) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize the pointlessness, but bear with me here ;) WP:FLC has a list at the top of nominations that have been there for more than 10 days; when that list gets big, people notice, and when they notice, they review them so that the list shrinks. So, essentially, the size of the "Urgent" box shows how many nominations are "overdue". Perhaps something along those lines could be useful. Maybe nominations that are older than X days appear in red? I don't know. I'm trying, I'm trying... Gary King (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to keep the backlog to X days old is far easier said than done. I see you've been trying hard to review as many articles as I can, and I, as well as other editors dedicated to the GA process try as hard as we can, but there just are not that many quality reviewers that havn't burned out. Also, just what GAN doesn't need is rushed reviews, so making old nominations appear in red would most likely lead to questionable passes. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Anyways, I'm just throwing out ideas, as WP:FLC has had similar problems, although it's gotten better after the promotion of two directors. WP:FAC is moving along pretty nicely with Sandy at the helm. Gary King (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, appointing director(s) will help...we have many promising candidates...they can monitor the GA process and improve the quality and quantity of GAs in general. I don't want to shout it aloud but its time...for the e-word or !e...KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a box at the top, you're welcome to contact the bot's operator if you want to try and get it to operate differently (something like FLC would be good, IMO). —giggy 08:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Which part would you like to be like FLC? I don't know what way I want the bot to operate since this is all still under discussion. I wasn't suggesting a GAN director, by the way, but if some people like the idea, then perhaps it's worth a discussion. Gary King (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"WP:FLC has a list at the top of nominations that have been there for more than 10 days" <-- I'd like that. Others may not, though, but IMO it would be useful. So let's discuss it! (No objections in principle to a GA director role.) —giggy 08:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In reference to Giggy's first comment, reviewer's who want to focus on the backlog can watchlist Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items and WP:GAN/R to receive a daily automatic update on the current backlog and the oldest unreviewed items. Geometry guy 08:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) So then basically you'd want to expand the current backlog list to not hold a set number of items, but instead, to hold items that are older than a certain period of time? Also, depending on the responsibilities of a GAN director and the time commitments of directors, I think that the number of directors could range from 1–3 or so number of directors. Gary King (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at GAN: all articles, and articles awaiting a reviewer. Click on the image to view full size.

A longer backlog list would be good, but I don't see the point of GAN directors. What would they do? Anyone actively interested in GA can monitor the GAN process and make comments here. Unless of course, the idea is to give directors whips and the authority to chastise reviewers whose performance is substandard... in which case, count me in... :-) Actually, better not. Geometry guy 10:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest the backlog list is dropping quite a bit at the moment. No reason to rest on laurels though. Peanut4 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been some progress - good work! - but definitely no reason to rest while nominators are still waiting a month! It would be nice to see the backlog under 100 again. I've updated the graph anyway, and floated it right here for information. Geometry guy 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay, we're finally chopping away at the backlog! Unfortunately, I'll be gone for a few weeks soon, so the backlog might go right back up without me reviewing! :) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What the heck?! There are all extremely useful pages – I can't believe I didn't stumble on them sooner! Anyways, they look great. One question, though, what happened in August 2007 in the graph? Did GAN actually chop the backlog down to nothing? Also, according to What Links Here, WP:GAN links to WP:GAN/R but I can't find it for the life of me. Can someone point it out, and perhaps make it more obvious? I particularly like the sidebar on the top-right of WP:FAC which quickly shows the important links to jump to. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

August 2007 was the end of the most recent backlog elimination drive. As you can see, it was quite effective at eliminating the backlog temporarily, but there was a rapid bounce-back, presumably because nominators were encouraged by the short queue, while reviewers took a break!

The link to GAN/R was subtly concealed in the backlog template: I've clarified it a bit. The presentation of the GAN page could be improved: FAC is much better in this respect. I suggest, however, waiting for output from the GA reform workshop first. Meanwhile, take note that Juliancolton is away, so other reviewers should redouble their efforts. Geometry guy 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've already come to replace him :p Gary King (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, during this drive The Rambling Man and Blnguyen both did more than 50 reviews. That was incredible. Good luck beating them, Gary. ;-) —Giggy 02:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But remember, it's not the quantity of reviews that count, but the quality. In short, don't pass 50 articles in an hour... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Should or can I submit this article for nomination?

Hello reviewers! I created the article Tan Teck Meng recently and as far as I know it meets the criteria for good articles (and I must say I am extremely proud of it *grin*). The only thing is that I don't have on hand the secondary sources needed to prove notability, if anyone chooses to challenge the topic's notability, because I am currently overseas in a country where English libraries are hard to find (if they exist at all).

I will have access to those sources in a few weeks when I am back in my home country, but can I submit the article for nomination in the meantime? i.e., does temporary lack of proof of notability disqualify an article from beginning the nomination process?-Samuel Tan (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, if it cannot be proven to be notable now, then it technically should be sent to WP:AFD. Loosely speaking, I would suggest waiting until you get back and then references can be added to prove notability before submitting it for a nomination. Gary King (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, I shall speedily get those proofs. :) -Samuel Tan (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton's GANs

This is a note for all reviewers who review his GANs.

As of June 28, 2008, I will be taking over the GANs that he nominated. Any onhold cleanup will be done by me and he has given me permission to accept credit for helping him out.

I am only bringing this up because I'll be in the same situation on July 19-July 30, so I will be unable to have anyone pass mine by onhold.

Anyway, I hope you understand. Thanks.Mitch32^(UP) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Would it be feasable to split the Nominations section into separate pages and then link them into the article? Fot example the #Arts could be moved to /Good article nominations/Arts and then put something like {{Good article nominations/Arts}} into the article. I am personally interested only in some topics and adding the entire page to my watchlist wouldn't really help. Nergaal (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, this page changes so rapidly that watching it is rather dubious. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that this has been brought up before. In any case, I believe the primary reason this is all on one page is to encourage people to review articles so that the backlog is kept small. That's, for instance, why pages like WP:FAC choose not to have any categories – so articles keep moving in and out, instead of perhaps having one article languishing on a subpage that most people rarely visit. Gary King (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with failing Beslan school hostage crisis

It was all minor issues, which are all repaired now (and would be mostly corrected by a reviewer without even asking). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, to me, the article still needs some work. Format the references per WP:CITE/ES, preferably using {{cite web}}, for one thing. Gary King (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"The dispute is about that this article should clearly indicate that the APA style and the example style presented below cannot currently be followed using Wikipedia citation templates and that the example style differs considerably from the APA style (in more ways than indicated below)."

I think you guys are clearly inventing stuff to fail this article. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we are. There are plenty of issues pointed out at Talk:Beslan school hostage crisis/GA1. Naerii is a good reviewer who wouldn't fail an article just for the heck of it. —Giggy 12:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Failing to keep Up

At this moment in time I am not criticising the review, (I have not read the article yet) but to start a GA at 11:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)and pass it as a GA at 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC) is impressive, and not a speed I can in anyway keep up with. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a pretty good article to be fair, so probably a fairly easy one to judge. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Only just finished reading it myself, and I agree a reasonable article, lead could be a better match to the article, (that's me being picky) as I said I am impressed with the time / speed. Edmund Patrick – confer 14:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If only both parties of every review was as quick, then these nominations would be in and out in no time at all :) Gary King (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Eye, and then we would need to create a backlog just to feed the machine! Edmund Patrick – confer 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

GAN for 4X

There's a small glitch: the review says that "an editor has indicated a willingness to review the article" when there isn't. I just added a comment to the top of the good article review, so it thinks that I (the nominator) am reviewing my own article. That's not the case, and nobody has stepped up yet.

I know someone will get to it when they get to it, but just making sure this doesn't slip through the cracks. Randomran (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a technical glitch. It correctly thinks that a review has been made because the subpage has been created. If you want, you could change page=1 to page=2 on the talk page for the GA template so that it uses a new subpage. I don't suggest creating the subpage before an actual review has been made. Personally, if any comments are to be given to a potential reviewer, then I would recommend placing it at WP:GAN next to your nomination. Gary King (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding another review page is not a good idea, so I've moved your comments to the article talk page and deleted the review subpage. Geometry guy 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Obviously I just didn't use the page as intended. Glad you deleted the page, and looking forward to the review when things aren't so backlogged. Randomran (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

failure of Van Morrison

sorry I thought we were moving away from quick fails. Gary King's review of the article is correct but no opportunity was given to the editors to correct what was in the review. I thought one points out the failings and give editors an opportunity to meet them, and only after that fail them. Otherwise there would / will be no backlog. 20.08 nominate 20.53 fail. Sorted. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think more time should have been given to the user who nominated the article? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was not a "quick fail". This nomination was "failed". A "quick fail" implies that no review was performed because the article met the quick-fail criteria. A "fail" implies that the article was reviewed but the reviewer decided that substantial improvements are still needed. Personally, I believe that nominators should ensure that the article is fully referenced before nominating it. I have, however, come up with an alternative that I believe was fair to both parties. When I saw an article that needed substantial improvements, I did a quick scan of the article and picked out about nine things that needed to be done. I then put the article on hold for a week and said that I would do a full review of the article if the nine items were completed. I feel that this is a good compromise, as it encourages the nominator to continue working on the article while not requiring a reviewer to put a lot of effort into a review when the nominator did not bother to check the criteria before nominating the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan is correct (IMO, obviously) - there's a difference between "on hold" (where time is given to address comments) and an outright fail; this was the latter. More info here. —Giggy 01:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies I was not criticising the review but the fact that the editors were not given any time to attempt to get the article to GA. If the review (along the lines of GaryColemanFan above) started with something like, "Dear editors, you have an incredible amount to do to get to GA. Below is my first impressions. I have put the article on hold for 7 days when I will review it again. You might still fail or you might find a list equally long of things that need to be done" Long winded but something friendly and supportive. I do agree that one would hope that proposers for GAs at least see if the article begins to match the criteria in some way. Maybe they could be reminded more forcefully on the nomimations page? Edmund Patrick – confer 08:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Music of Final Fantasy XI

This is one of the "long standing unreviewed" articles. I've looked at it and had a few concerns about it, but I've never done a GA review before and I'm not going to fail it or put it on hold without a little guidance. Similar articles (music from the same series of games) are very similar and have passed GA. I have similar concerns with them, mostly that the articles don't address music in the context of the game, they're about the soundtracks. SDY (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. If you want to have a go at reviewing, feel free! The criteria are here, this is a guide to applying those criteria, and if you are hesitant about posting your review directly, you can always write a draft in your userspace first and ask one or more of the GA mentors to take a look and make suggestions before it goes 'live'.

Regarding articles you think may not meet the GA criteria, you are welcome to nominate them for community reassessment on the WP:GAR page, where they'll get the attention of multiple GA reveiwers. The nomination instructions are at the top of the page there. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 10:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig

Article's been on hold for two months, with neither reviewer apparently finishing it. If I had time I'd do it, but I can't, can someone follow-up on the reviews for it? Wizardman 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no wonder it's been on hold for so long – the reviewer asked for a second opinion but never stated this on WP:GAN, so no one bothered to check. I've now done so. Gary King (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good work Gary. I just pinged the reviewer and then saw this comment. —Giggy 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Although, Milk should have just prodded the reviewer. Ideally, all of these reviews should only involve the nominator and the reviewer :) Gary King (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I asked for a second opinion on a specific question on the talk page and I got an answer. I just forgot to remove the tag. I've looked through the article several times and my concerns have never been completely addressed. I've tried to leave it open so people can keep fixing it, but I guess I can just fail it, and if anyone has a concern, they can submit the article to reassessment. I'll do that for the sake of speed.User:calbear22 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if they haven't fixed what you wanted in two months, that's basically a very strong argument to fail the article. Wizardman 15:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Speaking as one of the article's main contributors, there is a misunderstanding here. Once calbear22 requested a 2nd opinion of another reviewer, we were awaiting the 2nd reviewer's input, primarily to resolve questions about prose over which we disagree. The other fixes were relatively minor (inline cite tweaks, etc.), so I for one was waiting for the 2nd reviewer to come on board. Then <poof> the article is failed without benefit of any 2nd reviewer. JGHowes ^talk - 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Stuck between a rock and an en-dash

Let me start right off the bat by saying that en-dashes are one of the least important issues on Wikipedia, and I don't want to be talking about them. Okay, now that I've got that off my chest, I just want people to be happy and pass their FAC's, and there is not much chance of getting through FAC unless you replace your hyphens in Byzantine-Arab Wars and "10–20 years ago", etc. The problem is that I don't want to be the one to rename Byzantine-Arab Wars, a Good Article within the scope of 7 different wikiprojects, to use the en-dash, because it's not my article and none of my business, but if I don't, then how do I link to that article from the WP:GAN article I'm currently copyediting, Roman–Persian Wars? If I create a redirect page from Byzantine–Arab Wars and it gets edited, that means that non-admins won't be able to move the page to that name. If I move it myself, I have up to 7 different wikiprojects yelling at me. If I leave the hyphen in the article I'm currently copyediting, I may get catcalls at FAC for being a lousy copyeditor. Help! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Coward! :-) Seriously, thanks for raising the issue, but this is a wiki, so being bold, having a thick skin, and being willing to make (and admit) mistakes is encouraged. Geometry guy 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And politics is the art of getting other people to be bold instead. Thanks! - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, non-admins can move a page over an existing one if it's just a redirect with nothing else in the history. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm shocked that a respected editor is belittling the en-dash in such a cavalier fashion. It's well known that, without proper attention paid to the en-dash (and it's bigger cousin the em-dash), Wikipedia would fall apart within a week. It's shocking, and I'm shocked. EyeSerene^talk 10:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene speaks sense, as usual (?!?!). I think you should just move the article, leave a good rationale on the talk page and put a wikibreak template up straight afterwards (but keep editing) and ensure you can justify it. —Giggy 11:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup (getting back to the point!), though it might help to avoid an outcry if you post around to inform of the impending move first. The MoS is pretty unequivocal about using endashes in headers, and I agree the article should be moved. EyeSerene^talk 11:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, guys, you appear not to be paying attention :-) The article was moved by yours truly yesterday at 21:51 UTC, hence the above reply. I am this very moment waiting in terror for the 7 WikiProjects of the Apocalypse to come beating at my door, outraged at the audacity of my page move.

Trembling with fear, I will of course plead innocence and point them to this thread. Geometry guy 11:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bleh, your comment above didn't directly state that you have moved the page. We're GA - we expect simple straightforward prose, remember!? —Giggy 11:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Um... er.... naturally, I always pay attention... if only people would mark threads with 'resolved' or something, I wouldn't end up making such a fool of myself :-( EyeSerene^talk 11:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I'm C-Class when it comes to my prose :-) But, just to rub it in, there should be another clue on your watchlist right now. Geometry guy 12:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> OK, I'm pwned. Time to go and find something else to do. Maybe some of those WikiProjects haven't noticed the page move yet? It's only good manners to draw their attention to it... EyeSerene^talk 12:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Skims thread briefly Who did you want blocked as a page-move vandal? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene. —Giggy 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't surprise me, given some of the blocks I've seen :) EyeSerene^talk 08:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 GAN Newsletter is ready for consumption. Enjoy! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well done guys keep it up and keep the backlog down!! I find it interesting to note that both of the Reviewers of the Month are members of WP:PW - is this the first time that we've had two reviewers of the month from the same WikiProject? D.M.N. (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time we've had two reviewers of the month; usually, I select just one. But in this case, both reviewers came out even. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi people, I just did a review on the controversial subject that it Heather Mills. I did my preliminary review here Talk:Heather Mills (yes its transcluded too). It's been a while since I last did a review so I'm a little rusty, was this ok? I intend to re-look at it in full again when all is finished while on hold. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 13:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. You did a fairly thorough review, so that's good. What exactly do you have a question about? Gary King (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the "Week" for 4/28/2008 through 5/10/2008

Ok, so it's actually about two weeks, but anyway, here's the stats: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for 4/28/2008 through 5/10/2008. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:

1. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)
2. GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs)
3. Eustress (talk · contribs)
4. Nikki311 (talk · contribs)
5. Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs)

Additionally, it's also worth noting that, during the same period, the top two nominators were:

1. Mitchazenia (talk · contribs)
2. Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)

I'm just adding a comment here so this gets auto-archived. Gary King (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Newsletter: June 2008

I'm just adding a comment here so this gets auto-archived. Gary King (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Backlog under 100

We've cut the backlog down to under 100 nominations without reviews – let's keep it up people! It dropped down to 83 a few days ago but bumped back up to 95 today, so it's creeping back up to 100! :) Gary King (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good news, and it is also good to read in the newsletter that the editor believes that quality has improved too.

Meanwhile at Good article reassessment, the backlog has grown quite large again, with 23 articles now listed. Could I ask reviewers to take a look at the articles listed there and add their comments. The older nominations are at the top. Geometry guy 20:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We're already back at 107 :( Gary King (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

On the plus side, you're not at 6200 (see [10]) :P. I dunno what your backlog was a while ago, but it sounds like getting it down to 83 was an accomplishment. So be proud of that. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 06:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, 100 is definitely do-able, so I think it should be acceptable that I am saddened when the backlog is more than 100 :) Gary King (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback - a different request

While hanging round on the nom page, waiting for an article to be reviewed, I thought I'd try and help out the backlog by doing a review myself. As I'd done a couple of Geography ones in the past, I thought I'd try something new and picked Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. However, I think I have bitten off more than I can chew and would really appreciate some feedback. I carried out an initial review, pointing out several major problems, and asked if these could be fixed before a main review was completed later in the week. Since then, the nominating editor has done quite a bit of work, and I've done a little MoS stuff, but quite often these edits are reverted or changed by other editors. (And sometimes vandalised by the many anon IPs who are drawn to the page too). I am tempted to ask the nominator to pull the GA nom and ask for a full peer review first, as the article is not at GA standards yet. I also wonder if it is possible to get this to GA at the moment anyway, given the problem with stability. Any feedback, advice etc would be very welcome.-- Seahamlass 11:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nominator has agreed to withdraw the nom-- Seahamlass 15:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unappropriate delist

Sceptre (talk · contribs) has delisted Max Mosley see here citing the length of the "Orgy allegations" compared to the rest of the article. I think this delist is a little unfair as the orgy allegation case is currently going on and therefore clean-up isn't likely to take place until after the case. Also, the delister only cites the length of the orgy allegations as the problem and says its unlikely to be list, despite editors being active on the article (see the discussion directly above the delist notice on the talkpage). I think the decision should be reversed, or at least sent to to GAR instead, thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you could add "stability" onto that list. I was really concerned with the writing, length, and instability of that particular section, feeling it to be not up to GA standards. Because a GAR would've ended as a delist, I didn't see why process should be followed for the sake of process. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think grammar is what's "unappropriate" [sic] here. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I think that it should be relisted. The article needs a bit of tidying, and I could see it being promoted to GA with just a bit of copy editing and such. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It should not have been delisted. If it was GA material when it was passed, then at this point it should go to WP:GAR to be delisted. Gary King (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Should not have been *speedy* delisted. Delisting per stability is a tricky beast as an article can't stay stable/instable for ever, and it's unfair to pounce on an article as soon as it becomes unstable so as to delist (not suggesting Sceptre did, just saying). I think we should wait for the orgy stuff to die down, then renominate or take to GAR with the aim of having it passed as a GA (I'd suggest a renomination). —Giggy 02:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for your opinions guys. :) D.M.N. (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see this earlier. I've also listed at GAR as an inappropriate delist. If Sceptre had taken the time to ask, I've been working up a much shorter version of that section in my sandbox. Just needs the refs adding. 4u1e (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to GAR. D.M.N. (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a good opportunity to draw attention to the revised process for reassessing articles which has been put in place after the introduction of review subpages. I will start a new section. In short, delisting, just like listing or failing a GAN, should be accompanied by a review on a permanently linked subpage. This should help to prevent occurences such as this. Geometry guy 12:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why the article should be delisted. If one section is bad, ask the editors to fix it. I think this is just a bit of a waste of time. Instead of taking it here to where everyone could see, you could have just fixed the article, then asked Sceptre if it was ready again. It really doesn't matter if the article was a GA or not, but I think Sceptre and D.M.N. are both at fault. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 21:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I only brought it here to get other opinions, I'm struggling to see how I'm at fault. D.M.N. (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not at fault, DMN. I hope that everyone will take a closer look at Geometry guy's comments above and below on the revised process for reassessing articles. Majoreditor (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

<Removed>

Talk:2008 attacks on North Indians in_Maharashtra/GA2 and Talk:Ringeriksbanen/GA1 are evidence to the above. He/She hasn't marked the articles as on hold/ being reviewed at the WP:GAC too. Also has incorrectly transcluded the review page — Talk:2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra/GA2 — on the very same page. I am quite dismayed by this approach as this has possibly hindered genuine reviewers from reviewing 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra which was nominated at 08:15 on 28 June 2008 (UTC). --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 11:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, she/he hasn't reviewed it yet. Please, just be patient. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 21:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really have a problem then bring it up with the editor first before bringing it to a more public forum like here. Gary King (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sincere apologies to all. — KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Individual reassessment

Reassessment of good articles by individual editors is something which is strongly encouraged. It is more efficient than a community GAR discussion, and also (like a GAN review) essentially takes place on the article talk page, which brings it closer to article editors. The introduction of review subpages has provided greater transparency and accountability for reviews of good article nominations. The need for such accountability applies equally to the reassessment or delisting of good articles. To facilitate this, I've modified the GAR process template to help editors reassess articles well.

All you have to do is add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save: you will see two bold links, one to start an individual reassessment, the other other to start a community reassessment. Follow the first one: it will take you to a GA review subpage just like a GAN review, and the rest of the process is just like the review of a good article nomination.

Make sure you give other editors time to respond. Failing to do this when an article has active editors almost always generates a dispute, which is a waste of the reviewing community's time. All GA assessment activities, from GAN to GAR, need a permanently linked review explaining whether the article meets the criteria or not, and giving suggestions for improvements.

See the reassessment page for further information. Geometry guy 12:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just one other point. Be sure to transclude your review onto the article talk page by adding {{Talk:''ArticleName''/GA''n''}} to the bottom of the last section on the article talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Subpages for different sections?

Has there ever been any consideration given to having sections of WP:GAN into subpages that are transcluded on to the page? So for example, the "Art and architecture" section would be at [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Art and architecture]] and, continuing the example, the contents of the section "Arts" would be:

{{Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Art and architecture}}

{{Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Music}}

{{Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Theatre, film and drama}}

That way, a reviewer interested in a particular section could watchlist just that page, and not have to wade through all the entries in all the categories. Any thoughts? Too complicated? — Bellhalla (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but ultimately I don't like it because it encourages people to only review articles in a narrow topic. If I like video games so I only watchlist "Video game" nominations, then I will be "missing out" on other nominations that may actually interest me but I am not aware of. I think the goal here is to get people to review articles that are not necessarily within their topic of interest. Gary King (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Date linking has now been made optional in the Manual of Style (see WP:MOSNUM and its associated talk page). It's one of those things that has always caused confusion in my experience; many editors don't realise its function is to allow dates to be displayed according to user preferences rather than to provide a wikilinked article. Regardless, I think a unified GA approach would be helpful, so when reviewing, should we insist on links, or not? EyeSerene^talk 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

on first thought I'd say not as some articles had every possible date wikilinked, whilst others had none. But like a lot of things sometimes the baby is thrown out with the bath - water! Edmund Patrick – confer 18:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's on an article-by-article basis. If the article already has all dates linked, why ask them to unlink them all? Gary King (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider the newest MOS decision to be subjective at best; some people don't like seeing a sea of blue, while others do. I happen to be one of the latter, but I'm currently advocating the linking of notable full dates. I don't think there should be anything in the GA criteria about it unless it's just plain wrong: "6th Oct. 1987", for example, would make my head explode during a review. :) María (habla conmigo) 18:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are talking about has essentially been policy for a while. The date example you gave should be expanded to 6 October 1987 or October 6, 1987 depending on preference. Only full dates need to be linked; dates like January 2008 are strongly discouraged from being linked. Gary King (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware. My point is that we do not have to add anything further to the GA criteria regarding linked dates. María (habla conmigo) 18:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, does anyone know where consensus was reached to change the policy on linking dates? Many editors are claiming that dates should no longer be linked, but the Manual of Style doesn't seem to say this. I'm wondering about where this was discussed so that I can figure out what is actually going on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's WP:DATE? Gary King (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion over this. The present position is that autoformatted dates are neither encouraged or discouraged by the MoS, so it's certainly not true to say that they should no longer be linked. There is, however, a strong move to eliminate autoformatting from FACs. But nobody should be saying that dates should no longer be linked; it's just being informally discouraged for the moment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a GA specific guideline is unnecessary. The MOS now gives no weight either way. In a review, we should really only concern ourselves with consistency. So long as either all dates or no dates are linked, things are fine. I do agree with the above that linking dates seems to be discouraged at FAC, however. One of my current FAC's had them all removed to "allow high value links to breathe". Resolute 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As did one I'm involved with, so there's certainly a head of steam behind the idea. The deeper issue though is that autoformatting actually hides inconsistent date formatting from the reviewer, but not, sadly, from the unregistered user. To be certain of MoS compliancy a reviewer ought to be logged out when reading an article which has autoformatted dates. Perhaps that ought to be drawn to reviewers' attention? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually set no specific format for thaat very reason, so I can see any inconsistencies. Peanut4 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. I've just unset my date preference as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The date preferences are the only thing that protect me from inconsistent date formatting, though! "The goggles, they do nothing!" Gary King (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea Peanut, I've just disabled date autoformatting. We should not penalise for non-linked dates now, though obviously we should point out stuff like "6th Oct. 1987" still. —Giggy 06:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, good solution. I agree the only thing we should insist on is consistent date formatting. EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback prior to nomination

I have the article Our World (American TV series) at peer review and the reviewer suggested I come here to address a specific concern. I have been unable to locate reliable sources for the content of a few of the episodes. Of 26 episodes, eight have no information on episode content. Assuming the rest of the article were at GA level, would these gaps prevent listing under criterion 3(a)? Otto4711 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Are the episodes not a reliable source for what happens in the episodes ... ? Naerii 16:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Ohhh wait, this thing was released ages ago. So I guess there's probably not an easy way to find that out. The GA criteria specifically says "comprehensiveness" and if you've included all the information that there is available on the topic then there's no reason why it shouldn't become GA. GA was originally created for articles that for one reason or another (like this one) were unlikely to become FA, after all. Naerii 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

GA reform working party proposal

First, some background. Following concerns about the reliability and credibility of good articles (raised, for instance, during the 'Green dot' debate), a working party has been examining the way articles are assessed for Good article status, starting with the review process.

The current process has many strengths: collaboration between article reviewers and editors is encouraged, the review is personal, and when a good reviewer works with an inexperienced editor, this informs the editor about the process. Since nomination and review are carried out by individuals, the process can scale to meet growing demand, can minimize bureaucracy and can potentially achieve a fast turnover of articles. The process also has weaknesses. One of the most significant, and the one that attracts much criticism, is a lack of accountability. When the current system is applied well, this doesn't matter, but there are few controls in place to prevent it being applied poorly, or being deliberately abused.

A number of measures were considered and rejected by the working party (discussion here) to address this issue. These included requiring: more than one reviewer per review; voting on reviews; approved reviewers; standardised review templates; specialist reviewers; and review approval by appointees. Although many of these proposals might indeed help to address the concerns, it was felt that they would all diminish the strengths we already have, and may harm the good article process more than they would help it.

One measure, however, emerged with a clear consensus as meeting the need for reform without compromising the strengths of the process. This is set out below to invite inspection and comments from the community of reviewers.

Open review proposal

It is proposed that:

1. An article review is opened by an experienced reviewer, who then becomes the 'lead' reviewer for that assessment.

2. The review remains open for a minimum period (say three days), during which time any other interested editor can leave comments or join in with the review. However, there is no requirement for extra reviewers to comment.

3. After the minimum period, the review may be closed or extended at the lead reviewer's discretion, in line with the GA criteria.

4. New or inexperienced reviewers are strongly encouraged to start out by joining in with a few 'live' reviews, where they can see how the process operates and what makes a good GA assessment, before taking on the lead role themselves.

5. Where a lead reviewer is unfamiliar with the article subject (for example, for technical or academic articles), advice should be sought from a subject expert (perhaps the article editors or the relevant WikiProject).

6. Quick fails and passes are deprecated. No opened review should be closed until a reviewer has left constructive feedback. In the case of a GA fail, this should be some guidance as to how to improve the article; for a GA pass, suggestions should be made for further improvement.

7. Articles that are obviously unsuitable for assessment can be administratively removed from the nominations list by an experienced reviewer, with no recorded action taken other than a brief explanation for the removal on the article talk page.

8. Review status can be tracked, perhaps on the GAN page, where information about the review (such as the nomination date, opening date, reviewer name etc) along with a link to the article and review sub-page will be listed. It is eventually hoped that this will be bot-generated, but the technical details need more work.

Comments

Please add your thoughts below. This is not intended to be a poll, but an opportunity for constructive feedback (so no voting please!) EyeSerene^talk 10:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

1) Who is an experienced or lead reviewer?

The term is used vaguely; it's not intended to be very specific and eliminate people specifically. But it is intended more as a guideline to encourage newer reviewers to take part in existing reviews to "learn the ropes" before initiating reviews on their own. We're not actually proposing any heirarchy or anything within the GA reviewer ranks, if that's what you mean. The only thing "lead" reviewer means is the one that initiates the review. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

2) I am against any time limits, because they are unnecessary (your proposals 2 and 3).

There are no time limits. Reviews may stay open as long as necessary. The new system would call for reviews to stay open for a minimum time period (three days is suggested, but this could be changed). We want to essentially deprecate the practice of "quick-failing", so that every article gets attention. Although there still is a possibility for an article to be 'administratively removed' if it blatantly doesn't meet the criteria (major NPOV or stability issues, for example); but just as in 1, above, we want to discourage the newer, inexperienced reviewers from doing this. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

3) Proposal 4 is not a real proposal, because they (other reviewers) are already (strongly) encouraged.

4) A second opinion can be requested now, so I don't see anything new in your proposal 5 (except undefined lead reviewer).

5) It is counter productive to abolish quick pass/fails, because summary judgements are always a necessary part of any assessement process. They save time and prevent overburdening of the reviewers. The really good articles don't need lengthy reviews. If one needs a general feedback there are other options: peer review or internal reviews in some projects.

6) You obviuosly relize that quick fails are necessary, so you propose (proposal 7) to reintroduce them through a back door: articles unsuitable for assessment can be administratively removed from the nominations list by an experienced reviewer. However I don't see a definition of unsuitable. Is it really different from the quick fail criteria?

Again, see above. The practice of "quick-failing" is detrimental to the GA process and needs to be removed. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Quick fail spares reviewers from unnecessary work. GA review generally is not a place where articles are significantly improved (however this happens sometimes). This is a place, where they assessed. I consider this a bad habit to nominate an article that is obviously not ready. Ruslik (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

7) The last proposal is purely technical, and should be discussed separately.

Ruslik (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Significantly, no-one proposed leaving the current system as it stands. Some degree of change is clearly required, and we believe this proposal can address our quality issues in the most productive (and least obtrusive) way. It should eliminate drive-by reviews and provide opportunities for new reviewers to get to grips with reviewing, without impacting significantly on the way we are used to operating. Support was pretty evenly divided on retaining/removing quick-fails: replacing them with an administrative removal from the nominations list would seem to be a workable compromise, and actually means less work than quick-failing an article. The nomination would be simply removed, not GA-failed, and a note left on its talk page as to why; no other recorded action would be taken. The strongest argument for this, in my view, is that if we're not going to fully review an article (per the current quick-fail process), we shouldn't then be failing it. This may indeed mean the criteria are changed - it's one of the areas that needs discussion. EyeSerene^talk 09:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really following the reasoning that concludes that renaming "quick fails" to "unsuitable for assessment" and neglecting to leave a template is going to improve the consistency and quality of GA reviewing. It's the exact same thing and people are going to treat it in the exact same way. Removing them from the nominations list and changing the talkpage template requires the same amount of work as quick failing, and is in fact worse because no feedback is left. Just a silent "no". In effect, you're just removing any perceived obligation by someone who is quick-failing to leave feedback. That's all the effect of this proposal is. Changing the name of it is not going to do anything but cause confusion ("So did my article fail GA or not? What's up with it? What do you mean, it was 'administratively removed from the list'? Wth?"). I think this is a pretty poor idea that will only serve to (a) confuse reviewees and (b) add another layer of bureaucracy-speak to the GA process. Naerii 04:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is that if an article is administratively removed from the noms, constructive feedback must be left on its talk page as to why. The only real difference is that we would not record the action as a GA fail. Essentially we'd just be saying 'this article is not yet ready for GA review, because...'

The above proposals are intended to answer our quality control issues - our current system works well when operated by good reviewers, but it isn't particularly transparent, and when abused or applied badly it's difficult to catch and reflects poorly on the entire project. Quick-fail is one of those areas we get regular complaints about, and there are various ways to address that: we could remove QFs altogether; supervise them more closely; or replace them with something else. The first option was preferred by many, but it was felt we still need some mechanism for removing articles that are obviously unready for review. The second requires a degree of oversight we probably don't have the manpower or the desire for, leaving the third... which admittedly still has the potential for abuse or inappropriate application, but at least won't result in unsafe fails. EyeSerene^talk 08:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So in essence, "administratively removing it from the list" is exactly the same as failing it (not quick-failing it)? You have to leave a review, you just don't get to say it's failed. It reminds me of those jokes about schools that don't tell students they've "failed", they've just "not passed". Semantics. Won't change a thing. Naerii 09:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a sort of quick-fail without the fail, yes. As I said above, I don't think we should actually be failing articles we don't properly review. We should, however, leave the nominator some idea of what they need to improve before we will review their article. If you can think of a better way to eliminate unsafe, drive-by, and/or one-line quick-fails (which is the point of this part of the proposal), we're open to suggestions ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be some confusion as to what characterizes a "quick fail". I ran into this problem after reviewing and ultimately failing 12 basic principles of animation for GAN; the major contributor questioned my "quick failing", which they defined as failing an article without first placing it on hold. After I corrected them, they posed the problem at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing good articles, which no one has answered as of yet. I'm all for clearing up this confusion with clearer instructions. María (habla conmigo) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, just ballpark figures without getting into actual numbers, what approximate percent of articles are quick-failed? How many are inappropriate quick fails? Adding more bureaucracy to a system that fails very rarely would be silly, but if this is a substantial problem I might suggest having an automatic second opinion required for a quick-fail. SDY (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the key points that needs to be addressed here is that most people who say "quick-fail" use the term incorrectly. A "quick-failed" article is not reviewed. A problem (fatal flaw, if you will) such as cleanup banners, obvious instability, a dozen "citation needed" tags, etc., is pointed out with the explanation that the article is not ready to be reviewed. A "fail", which is much more common, occurs when a review is performed and the reviewer believes that serious concerns exist (eg. complete absence of discussion of one or more aspects of the topic, multiple sections completely unreferenced, etc.) that could not be fixed within one week. The nomination is then failed and usually misnamed a "quick-fail". I think we should be careful in discussing "quick-fails" to distinguish between the two, as they are very different. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In some ways, the two are not that different: the reviewer does not believe that the article will pass within a week and does not put the article on hold for improvements. They may be administratively different, but functionally they are very similar. A separate term for "fail without hold" articles might be appropriate. SDY (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They are very different. A "quick-fail" can be done without reading a single word of the prose. A "fail" should not be used unless the reviewer has read every word of the prose. I think we need to clarify what we are trying to eliminate. It is actual "quick-fails"? Is it "fails", which are often improperly called "quick-fails"? Is it both? I believe the proper way to deal with each is very different. "Quick-fails" need to stay; it is a waste of everyone's time to encourage editors to nominate articles with obvious problems like "Unreferenced" banners. Reviewing them would be a huge mistake, as we need to say that there is a minimum standard for nominations; if we don't, GAN could easily lose its focus. If reviewers have to take unreferenced stubs and walk editors through the steps to expand and source articles, this will only hurt editors waiting for qualified nominations to be reviewed. We need to be able to say that some articles just aren't at a point where they can be reviewed. If the concern is "fails" (ie. "fails without hold"), I believe the reviewer should be able to set minimum requirements for the review to proceed. For example, if an article (that does not meet the "quick-fail criteria") with many obvious problems is nominated, a reviewer should be able to identify several key areas that must be fixed within a week in order for the review to proceed. For example, if three sections of a 30K article are unreferenced, they must be sourced within a week. The nomination is then put on hold. If the changes are not made, the nomination fails; if it is done, a thorough review takes place and the article is either passed or put on hold once more. This proposal allows for constructive feedback and the opportunity for the nominator to continue to improve the article. It also saves reviewers the time of reviewing articles that are nominated prematurely when the nominator doesn't intend to devote the necessary time to fixing the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The above proposal does not address fails (or passes), other than submitting that both should remain open for a minimum period to ensure a full review. Quick-fails (as both you and I use the term) are what seem to be the sticking point here. As you say, currently an article can be quick-failed without even reading a word of the prose. In other words, it isn't fully reviewed... so should we in all conscience then be failing it? It is not suggested that we review such articles, just remove them from the noms list with a note as to why on their talk page. It's quick, simple, and hopefully avoids the negative impression of our project that placing a fail tag on an article one's only glanced at can create. EyeSerene^talk 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As a general comment unrelated to quick-fails: If the process is, for the most part, working well, why would we make substantial changes to it? The accountability, which seems to be the only concern, already exists in several forms: (1) GA sweeps of every Good Article to ensure that it meets the criteria, (2) Good Article reassessment, where any editor can express concerns about inappropriate passes and fails, (3) experienced editors with the GAN page on their watchlists, who see and revert suspicious behavior--eg. an editor passing his/her own nomination, and (4) the GAN and WP:WGA talk pages, where editors can express concerns if they are unsure how to deal with a situation. I have seen all four of these work very well. I am curious as to why this is not considered sufficient accountability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good questions - it might help to re-read the 'Green dot' debate to get a view of how many Wikipedians see GA. It'd be easy for us to circle the wagons, and I accept we can't please everyone, but I think if we want to be taken seriously as a project that produces credible assessments we need to ensure our house is in order. We ourselves know who the good reviewers are (and those to watch out for!), but unless we can build faith in the GA process across the encyclopedia, to far too many we'll always be the place where you go to get a mate to pass your article or get an unschooled opinion. We might know these criticisms aren't often true, and we do catch the more egregious errors and abuses, but the point is we don't have a proper system in place that would prevent them happening. I'm not suggesting the proposal would eliminate problems, but by making the process more transparent and accountable, and providing a degree of oversight, it goes a long way towards helping. EyeSerene^talk 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment on sweeps; if the current, incredibly slow, rate of sweeps keeps up, we will finish sweeping the current batch of GAs (not counting new ones promoted) sometime in the next decade,... Dr. Cash (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's clearly a problem, and I've been wondering if we're going about it the wrong way. It seems like an unnecessarily Herculean task to be asked to take responsibility for a whole section of the GA list, as opposed to selecting articles from the list, perhaps even sampling at random from the whole, up-to-date list. I'd be inclined to argue that every one of the articles still unreviewed on the present sweeps list be quickly scanned for obvious delisting—not just quick-fails, many are FAs now for instance, or have already been elisted—and then we think about modifying the system to make the task seem more achievable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is - yet another reason to ensure articles coming through the system are reviewed to the highest possible standard. In reply to Malleus, Jackyd101 suggested that same thing to me when I was having a talk page grumble about my slow progress. I think it's a great idea - it would help reduce the size of the in-tray. EyeSerene^talk 12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Automating filing the paperwork

One of the most tedious aspects of the GA process and I think one of the most daunting for a new reviewer or nominator is the wall of instructions that one is presented with when loading the page. This is touched on in the working party page, although I don't think (?) it's been addressed by their proposals above. Compare with the FAC process which requires a reviewer to only click a link to initiate a review, and the automation of passing and failing articles. I'd like to see something like this for the GA process. Something along the lines of; the nominator just having to subst a template to the article talk page (with a subtopic parameter) and then click a link and save the page, as with FAC, and the reviewer only having to change the talk page template on the talk page once the review has been completed. A bot could come along and do all the listing and so on on the various pages. Obviously this would need someone with the technical ability, but firstly a consensus (either way) on the matter. Thoughts? Perhaps I am completely alone in this ;) Naerii 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like what you're saying, and have been thinking about it, too. Reviewing articles is daunting at first in my opinion and some steps are bound to be missed for people new to the process. The whole thing can pretty much go smoothly, as in if I pass or fail an article then I change the template on the talk page accordingly; either way, it is removed from WP:GAN; if it fails, then no more steps are required by a bot. However, if it passes, then the bot needs to decide which category to put the article in at WP:GA; obviously this requires a human, so either the passed articles need to go in a queue for people who have time to categorize them, or reviewers need to manually type in category names to place the article in – which could be tedious for those who are not familiar with the category names. Gary King (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are 100% correct and very much not alone - it has indeed been discussed, though the feeling was that we can take the proposal further without finalising bot update details. There is a thread towards the bottom of the reform page (here) if you want to comment there too. EyeSerene^talk 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason that there are fewer instructions at WP:FAC is because reviews are only closed by one of two people, Raul or Sandy. Others involved simply make comments on the previously opened reviews, so there's no real formal process or procedure that they have to follow, other than the featured article criteria. GA is a bit different because reviews are generally done by one person, and can be "closed" (read: passed or failed) by anyone. Going along with what FA is doing, if GA has a "GA Director" or "GA Directors", then we wouldn't need such complicated rules. But I don't think that's the direction we want GA to take. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

GAN_count

I added a sentence with the number of ongoing GA nominations. Ruslik (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks good; however, I don't understand why the switch function is needed, so I removed it. I also subtracted the number of nominations on hold from the total (and clarified this in the text) because I think it's more helpful to know how many nominations actually require attention. Gary King (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually wanted to expand this template later. Ruslik (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I completed {{GAN_counter}} template. It shows various numbers interesting for the GA project. Ruslik (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sports section backlog

The sports section is regularly the biggest section here, currently with 27 noms (per GAN/R). I don't think sending reviewers to there from other areas will do good (I tentatively keep tabs on Music, for instance, because I've seen it double in a few days - I wouldn't want it to do that while I trimmed a sport a bit), so I think it'd be a good idea to invite some new reviewers to that area, if possible.

Does anyone involved in that area (preferably people involved in those areas; eg. GaryColemanFan, Nikki311, iMatthew come to mind) know of any good editors who've done some work in GA and might be interested in reviewing? —Giggy 10:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right that the sports section is regularly the biggest section on here, but I'm not sure that's simply down to a lack of reviewers. It regularly receives the most nominations. At the moment the backlog is growing across the board. The amount of reviews needed had gone below 100 a couple of weeks ago, but has been steadily rising since. While it would be great to get more reviewers for sports articles, I don't see it being any more of a problem than other sections. Peanut4 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it gets more nominations—that was part of my point (more noms = more reviewers needed). I'm still using {{User:DHMO/GAP}} whenever I pass a GA to (hopefully) get new reviewers; since I'm not a regular in sports articles I don't know of anyone else to spam, or of any other quick solutions. —Giggy 23:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot, and try to review some articles. I always nominate, but barely ever review, so I'll try it out. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think I've reviewed a sports article and don't intend on doing so. However, I like to think that I'm helping out in other sections :) Gary King (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You did do the one. Wizardman 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, that template is a clever idea. I don't know of anyone involved in sports, but I'll try and review more myself. I'm pretty selfish and only really make significant efforts to review when an article of my own is up - following the logic that the less articles there are left to review, the more likely mine will be done promptly. I wish other nominators thought like that - if every nominator reviewed one other article, we'd never have a backlog. naerii 10:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I do try and review sports articles, though my problem is that 90% of those on GAN are either wrestling or association football, neither of which I'm good at or am able to properly review. That seems to frequently be the case. (the two that aren't, one's on hold and the other i helped write) Wizardman 11:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I get that problem too; frankly I really tire of reading about the same faked wrestling moves again and again. Oops, did I saiy its faked? ;-) —Giggy 12:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a similar problem. I find wrestling difficult to review, and find myself overlooking too much football jargon because that's mainly where I write anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same about wrestling. Sorry guys! :) Gary King (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree as well, but I will look to help clear the backlog of wrestling GANs over the next couple days. I've only just gotten started as a reviewer, but sports is my primary interest, so hopefully I'll be able to help reduce this. I always prefer writing to reviewing, so I won't be as dedicated as some of you are, heh. Resolute 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the wrestling.  :) I help out when I find an article I can understand (or can figure out), and haven't worked on, but the wrestling ones just don't work for me. They all sound like jargon to me, so I can't be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafschik1967 (talk • contribs)

I am helping out with the backlog by reviewing five articles and plan to do more. Plus, guys, a new consensus at WT:PW is to write out of universe, which means no more wrestling jargon. Like SummerSlam (2007) and SummerSlam (2003), which are written out of universe, which will make reviewers more appealing to review it. S_RX 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I haven't been to this page in a couple of days, so I just noticed this thread. First, I'd like to thank all of the reviewers who have reviewed a wrestling article...I know it is one of those things you really like or really hate. Personally, I feel the same way about any of the science/math articles with more equations than text...we each have our preferences! :) I know a thing or two about baseball and American football (although I'm not particularly a fan of either) and quite a bit about football/soccer, so I'll be glad to help knockout a few articles from the sports section. Nikki311 01:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The "Films" section also has a constant backlog – it's currently bigger than "Sports". I usually do a lot of reviewing there, but I could use all the help I can get :) Gary King (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:SummerSlam (2004)/GA1

Resolved

 – move to 'on hold' per request on my talk page naerii 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How did this article qualify for quick-fail? -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. But I think it is because of the wrestling jargon. Think it's time we incorporated the FA criteria as GA criteria for writing PPVs at WP:PW.--S_RX 22:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I recommend this be brought up with the reviewer first. Every reviewer has a different set of standards, and also, if it's brought up with specific reviewers then they may sometimes change their tune. Gary King (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

GA statistics

I created the following banner

I actually don't know where to put it, but I suggest the end of the WP:GAN page. Ruslik (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted the colors and icon size. It was too bright and the icon was a bit too big, in my opinion. I also copyedited it a bit. Gary King (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stats. Though I'm not sure if it's really necessary to keep it on this talk page. Maybe keep it on the Wikipedia:Good article statistics page? Or could the numerical information possibly be incorporated into the pink 'backlog' banner at the top of WP:GAN somehow? Dr. Cash (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For instance, it can look like User:Ruslik0/Sandbox. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that looks really good! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's a bit unecessarily wide, isn't it? Not that it doesn't look really good, I just don't think it needs to take up the entire width of the screen as 2/3 of it is completely empty. I would prefer something like User:Naerii/Sandobx naerii 20:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You may right, but where to put it in this case? Your variant is too narrow for the main GAN page. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I guess. The entire page is too damn cluttered as it is. naerii 20:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAN is indeed cluttered as it is. It scared me away the first few times I visited it. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of this statistics box to the WP:GAN page. One: I think it makes it too cluttered, even with the drop-down option. Two: there is already a stats page and a GAN report. Having a separate section with stats seems redundant and unnecessary. Three: The box that was added did not match up with the color scheme or size of the other boxes, making it look very awkward and poorly designed. Four: Based on many previous discussions, I think the overall consensus is that we need to simplify the instructions and the overall GAN page as a whole, not make it more complex. The vast majority of reviewers simply don't need this information, and those of us that do, can get it through the Wikiproject GA pages and reports. Please do not add this back until consensus is reached to do so. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it was slighly wider, but the color was exactly the same as that of boxes below. Ruslik (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As to reducing clutter, I think the uppermost banner can be removed (Reviwers have already learned about separate pages). The backlog banner can also be shortened. However I don't see any other simple options—all other instructions are necessary and proper. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

History of FAC

The Signpost has an interesting article on the History of FAC. It got me thinking that perhaps we could work on a history of GAN and possibly suggest that to the Signpost people? Dr. Cash (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good; but who wants to write it? It should be one of the GAN regulars. Gary King (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove did something like this a while back, I think, if anyone wants to ask her. —Giggy 04:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

De Vere and Shakespeare

Congratulations to the Oxfordian theory article which has been nominated for GA status! Felsommerfeld (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a mess with these Shakespearean theory articles and their subsequent GAC noms. I don't believe this particular nomination by Felsommerfeld was made with best intentions as he's currently campaigning to delete all so-called "crank theory" articles. Should the nomination be removed? María (habla conmigo) 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC) This has been cleared up on user's talk page. María (habla conmigo) 15:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind reviewing this article. Please see the article GA Talk Page for my first impression. Bodleyman (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that two Stratfordian editors have been trying to make a mockery of this whole process. Felsommerfeld nominated it because he thought it had no chance and wanted to see it fail while AndyJones removed it because he thought it had a chance and didn't want to see it succeed. I've renominated it because I think it is well-researched and deserves a chance. I suggest we now monitor the activities of these two editors. Tokomak1689 (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: the above three editors (and therefore this discussion) were the result of one puppet master, as can be seen at User talk:Barryispuzzled. The nomination for Oxfordian theory has again been removed because of its disruptive sockpuppetry nature. Jeez. María (habla conmigo) 12:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Baconian theory was listed by one of these sockpuppets I've removed it, also. AndyJones (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review pages

I think the police to make GA reveiew page a level two section instead of a level three subsection will be a long run problem. More and more wikiprojects are going to be creating unifired pages like WP:MILREV and WP:CHIREV. These pages are designed for headings under level three subsections like WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:FLC, WP:PR, etc. We should stop transcluding the pages in the article talk page at level two and make GA discussion pages transclusion friendly like other discussion pages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly help on the WikiProject pages you mention. However, talk pages (for example this one), form what I've seen use level 2 headers, never level 3, unless it's a sub-thread. Adding the subpage to a talk page that already has lots of threads won't look neat with level 3 heading - for example, if you added to a page with a thread there already, it would look like a sub thread, when it isn't. So in conclusion, a good idea with respect to the WikiProject pages, but until/unless talk pages use level 3 headers by default, it would make the talk page unworkable imo how do you turn this on 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether we should be adding discussions to talk pages as a matter of standard practice. Most other discussion pages are included in banner templates or in {{ArticleHistory}}. Even community WP:GAR nominations use level 3 I believe. It is just individual GARs and GACs that use level 2. All other discussions from AFD, CFD, TFD, IFD, FAC, FAR, FLC, FLRC, FPoC, FPC, PR, etc. use level 3. These discussions are included in talk page banners and article histories instead of main body threads. Is there something that makes GAC discussions so important that they must appear in the main body of the talk pages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a case of being "important". It's simply that the consensus has been that to conduct the review on the article's talk page is likely to lead to a greater involvement among interested editors. Not just those who happen to glance at a talk page banner, and then take the trouble to follow the link. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the GA review header on the review subpages is a level-2 header instead of a level-3 header, has to do with the history of the GA review process compared to the other review processes. At WP:FAC and WP:PR, for example, reviews have always been done on subpages, and these subpages have been transcluded onto the main WP:FAC/WP:PR pages. So including a level-2 header there would put unnecessary horizontal rules throughout the main lists of reviews. GANs have traditionally taken place on article talk pages directly, and the complete review has not been transcluded into the main WP:GAN page. Because most article talk pages use level-2 headers to separate their main topic areas, we put a level-2 header at the top of GA review subpages now. Additional subheaders may be used within reviews, but because GAN review pages are often transcluded into article talk, any additional headers below the main GA review level-2 header, should be level-3 headers, to avoid looking like a whole new topic in article talkspace. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There was (and is) a strong consensus that GA discussions should be transcluded on talk pages. (There was also consensus that they should take place on a subpage of article talk, which may be a minor point, but this distinguishes the process from others and provides a hatlink to article talk.) This makes a level 2 section heading the most natural choice. However, all choices run into problems with editors not understanding the system. In particular, at PR, the level 3 system frequently makes a mess because editors start new sections within a peer review at level 3. Once a month I have to sort this out. I've tried to clean up the archives, but I'm sure I've not completely succeeded. Geometry guy 22:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The way to make the process most universally convenient would be to make the new separate pages a level three section. Then, when we transclud them do so in the following format

== GA Review ==
{{Talk:Candidate/GA1}}

In this manner, the tradition of talk page transclusion would be achievable and the discussion page would be far more useful in the sense that it could be transclude as level three subpages like every other type of discussion page. This, I believe, would solve all of the traditional needs of article talk page discussion and make the pages transcludable at level three in other places.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of this option at the time of implementation. There are pros and cons. For instance it means that the level 2 edit link on the talk page is useless (it doesn't link to the subpage). This is also more work for the reviewer to set up. I think the right choice was made, and I may comment further, but it might be better to have other views. Geometry guy 23:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the level two is useless is obfuscated by the header that you designed so well that says this section is transcluded from Talk:Candidate/GA1. I don't see the problem. The extra work is the equivalent of typing three extra words to transclude a page for the sake of greater versatility of the discussion page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that you have the following text in your transclusions now: "This review is transcluded from Talk:Jon Burge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review/reassessment."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You would just have to say that the edit link for this subsection must be used instead of the section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the current system works perfectly well, and that TonyTheTiger is comparing apples with oranges. I too think that the right choice was made. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The current system works, but it keeps other uses from working properly. I am suggesting improving something that works, I think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

August newsletter

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

I'm having some difficulties in delivering the newsletter to all wikiproject GA participants. I used to use WP:AWB, but I am unable to use that due to some errors (it's not allowing me to obtain a listing of the links to everyone's talk pages). I've tried using Newsletterbot as an alternative, but I posted the request sunday night and it still has not been delivered. If anyone has any suggestions on this, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New Reviewer

• Hello everyone! I just reviewed my first article for the article SS El Occidente with the review here, and I was wondering if some of the experienced reviewers in this group could take a quick look at it. I would like to make sure that I haven't been too harsh, or too lenient, or missed anything completely obvious. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

and me. Edmund Patrick – confer 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time! The reassurances are much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hello everyone, I too am a new person to GA Review . I have nominated an article, and am watching while it makes the move from the bottom (of the list) to the top. Before I proceed any farther into whatever this GA Review process entails though, I would like to receive whatever advice anyone has to offer. Thank you. Hag2 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good topics

• Wikipedia:Good topics - A proposed process to highlight topics where all articles are of WP:GA quality or higher. A straw poll is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Good topics#Straw poll which will end on August 24. (Discussion can also take place at Wikipedia talk:Good topics) - Cirt (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Is there a proper procedure for withdrawing a nomination? I imagine that a withdrawal is a simple as: (a) removing the nomination from its location in Nominations, (b) then removing the banner from the Talkpage, (c) and all etceteras. I have found that a significant fact in an article which deals with events in 1991 may be inaccurate. I nominated the article approximately a week ago before I discovered this inaccuracy. Now I would like to withdraw that nomination until I can confirm the original fact, or contest it. Hag2 (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That should be fine, but remember, when the article is renominated, it should be placed at the bottom of whatever category it is in. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 14:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, RSkyhawk. I proceeded with all the above. When I get to the bottom of the facts regarding the article, I will sadly insert my renomination at the bottom of the Miscellanous Category. I may not live to see an evaluation. (: Will you keep your eye posted to it. *grin* Hag2 (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Screw up article talk page

I recently passed Let's Get It On and thought I applied the right template to the talk page. However, on Talk:Let's Get It On the link "Review" remains red. I do not know how to fix it. Could someone explain what I did wrong? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by Dan56. The problem was caused by "Topic=x, page =n" being copied verbatim. Both x and n need to be replaced. If the current instructions are unclear about this, they need to be improved, but I am not the person to do that. Geometry guy 18:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what "x" and "n" are to be replaced with? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

{{GA}} outlines it adequatly. D.M.N. (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Much of this stuff was coded and documented by me, so it helps a lot when other editors find ways to make it more clear. Many editors are not familiar with the concept of a variable, and so clear instructions are invaluable; someone who is familiar with these ideas (like me) cannot fully appreciate the issues. All help in improving the documentation is most welcome. Geometry guy 18:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting change

Dear colleagues

Extended debate at MOSNUM and elsewhere over the advantages and disadvantages of WikiMedia's date-autoformatting (DA) functionality, culminating here, has seen clear consensus emerge to add this italicised sentence to MOSNUM's section "Date autoformatting" section.

[Date autoformatting] should not generally be used unless there is a particular reason to do so.

Accordingly, the sentence has been added. Nominators and reviewers are asked to take this into account in relation to the assessment of nominations for Good Article status. We draw your attention to the well-established "three simple guidelines" for the use of either international or US format, which are set out here, and the guidelines on within-article consistency here, which state that:

• Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
• Dates in article references should all have the same format.

In almost all cases, the change can be summarised simply as "Remove the double square brackets around month-day and month-day-year dates in the main text and footnotes".

A script can be run on any nomination by request, to spare the manual labour of removal. This should be accompanied by a quick check for compliance in the raw formatting of each date that our IP readers (the vast majority we serve) have been viewing from the start. The script is relatively simple to run; instructions appear below under the cap.

Installation and usage of date-autoformatting removal script

Instructions for installation

• EITHER: If you have a monobook already, go to it, click "edit this page", and paste in this string underneath your existing script:

importScript('User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js');

• OR: If you don't have a monobook.js page, create one using this title:

[[User:[your username]/monobook.js]]

Then click on "edit this page" and paste in at the top the "importScript" string you see three lines above here.

• Hit "Save page".
• Refresh your cache (instructions at top of monobook).
• You're ready to start.

Applying the script—it's very simple

• Go to an article you want to treat, and click on "edit this page". You'll see a tab called "all dates" at top-right. Click on it; this will immediately remove the date autoformatting in the edit-window.
• The diff will automatically appear under the edit-window. Check through the changes you're making before saving them. See Note 1 below
• Until the edit summary is reworked, consider copy-pasting in this one: [[User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js|Script]]-assisted dates; see [[WP:MOSNUM#Date autoformatting|MOSNUM]]
• Click on "Save page": it's done.

Afterwards

• Respond politely and promptly to any critical comments on your talk page. If someone wants to fight it, it's better to back down and move on to improve other articles where WPians appreciate your efforts. Don't EVER edit-war over date autoformatting or US vs international formats; raise the issue at WT:MOSNUM.

Notes

• [1] Treats only square-bracketed dates. The script removes square brackets only, which mostly involves the main text and footnotes; it's acceptable for citation-generated dates to be of a different format.
• [2] Date-sorting templates in tables. As of August 24, a minor tweak must be made to the script (which will update automatically if you transclude it to your own monobook), to deal with the column-sorting template in tables. Please be aware of this in relation to Featured Lists and the like (i.e., hold off there until it's fixed). The "dts" and "dts2" templates are at issue. Should be fixed soon.
• [3] Antiquity-related articles. Articles on topics such as ancient Rome should be treated with caution, since the script removes year-links as well, and some editors may argue that there's a case for retaining the simple year and century links from ancient times (e.g., 212). It's better to ask first in these cases. In any case, such articles contain few if any full dates.
• [4] WikEd. For those of you who've installed WikEd, it must be disabled to run the script.

If you have any questions about this change, please ask me at my talk page or raise them at WT:MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there compatibility limits? I've installed in my monobook.js, though it isn't working. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you perform a hard refresh as explained at the top of the monobook page? Gary King (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And do you have WikiEdit installed? If so, you'll need to temporarily disable it to work the script. Please let us know if you still have trouble. Tony (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:WIKED shouldn't have any conflicts; I'm using it right now. Gary King (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I did purge the cache and de-install WikiEd, but it seems I had to purge a couple of times. Works now. Thanks for the help, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No Consensus - The above mis-states the discussion. Please, dear colleagues, read the discussion for yourselves. (sdsds - talk) 10:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [This post was relocated from within the notice above, down to here, where it's in chronological order; I think it invites users to visit the original debate that led to the change here.] Tony (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC) NB User Sdsds has advised me that he will no longer contest the change. Tony (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Katyusha rocket launcher

This article Katyusha rocket launcher was nominated on August 25th, and passed on the same day. That, in itself, is not a huge deal. My concern is with the fact that the reviewer did not use a "/GA1" page to complete the review, and his review consisted of basically "Good job, it passes". The reviewer proceeded to neglect to remove it from the nominations page and also didn't add it to the Good Articles page. Honestly, I wouldn't have passed this article without a hold for more references, the fact that many of the web refs don't have access dates, the image placement needs some work and there are a lot of short paragraphs (and that's just what I saw in a 2 minute glance over the article). However, I'm a new reviewer, I know I can be a little picky at times, and I may just be overreacting.

I would like to get the opinion of some other (more experienced) reviewers as far as what they would do with this article. Would you suggest taking it to GAR, just leaving it alone, or doing something else altogether? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I (and other reviewers) have disagreed with this user's GA reviews in the past. See multiple threads at this version of his talk page. From what I gather, however, it's a result of inexperience as opposed to negligence. I would suggest you make a list of suggestions for improvement at the article's talk page, explaining that while the article is not dreadful (I don't think it is), the previous reviewer may have been a little hasty. I would also remind the reviewer that they should include GA reviews on separate pages per the new GAC instructions; he may not be aware of this change. A few helpful tips about proper reviewing may not hurt, as well. Hope this helps! María (habla conmigo) 18:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and the advice. I have followed your suggestions about commenting on the article talk page (I agree that it's not dreadful, just needs a little work) and posting on the reviewer's talk page. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I just don't understand all this template stuff. I can certainly review an article -- and I think I do a good job -- but putting all those cute little buttons and comments on the page with all the curley brackets really really escapes me. I am trying to pass Hylton Castle, but you apparently have to be born into the system to understand it. Jeez, if this process were a bit more automated or perhaps a bit less automated perhaps more people would review more articles. Madman (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean {{GAList}} template? I admit that it defeated me at first - I don't think the instructions are particularly good. All you need to do is add either "aye", "nay", "???" or "wtf" after the "equals sign"s for whether each individual criteria is met or not. You will tend to use the first two more than the rest. "aye" gives a pass (or tick), "nay" a fail or cross, "???" a question mark, and "wtf" I'm not actually sure since I've never used it. I hope that helps. Peanut4 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

When I add {{GAList}} to the talk page, I just get another template showing up. I don't see any "equal signs". I have given up on trying to find out how to do this the "right" way, and I just cut n pasted some bland text onto the Talk page. Jeez, no wonder there's a backlog. Madman (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. You're right. Copy this line from that page.

 {{subst:GAList|1a=|1b=|2a=|2b=|2c=|3a=|3b=|4=|5=|6a=|6b=|7=}} 

Peanut4 (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't suggest using the template, personally. Just use bulleted points with the "*" character, so that the format is flexible and suits your needs. Gary King (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with that. The template serves no useful purpose whatsoever IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I kind of like the template. It helps me to order my thoughts and make sure that I don't overlook anything. To each their own, I suppose. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen diverse opinions about the template. Personally, I find the template particularly efficient. It helps keep the review (somewhat!) organized, whilst keeping each review consistent. I don't find it hard to apply it, though this may be because I've memorized the text. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see why newbies to the template would shy away from it at the beginning. I know I definitely did and since I started in FAC then went to GAN (I think?) so I got used to the freeform method of bulleted points and such, and I like it that way. Also, it's harder to add replies to comments using the template as it sort of breaks and can easily look weird if the reply is not done properly. Gary King (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You can, of course, create your own pre-formatted review text, saved somewhere in your userspace, to copy/paste for use in reviewing. I prefer this to using the template; feel free to use/adapt anything I've done (in my sandbox here). EyeSerene^talk 07:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The use of review templates like {{GAList}} is completely optional. The only thing that matters is that the review is thorough and addresses whether the article meets each of the GA criteria or not. As a matter of interest, following Gosgood's review style, I've created a template at {{GATable}} which allows reviewers to present the review in a table. Some reviewers may like that style. Others prefer {{GAList}}, bulletted lists, or free form. Each to his/her own. Geometry guy 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparent sockpuppet promotion

LaRouche conspiracy trials was on the GA list but no reviewer ever signed up to review it. It was suddenly promoted to GA without an apparent review. From reading the article talk page, I gather that this was done by a sock puppet. The article now has GA standing but without GA review. The GA status needs to be removed from the talk page and the article resubmitted to GAN. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's fix it then. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reformatting GA comments on talk page

The editor of Let's Get It On has reformatted the GA review on Talk:Let's Get It On. My understanding is that the formatting is not to be changed. What should be done in this case, if anything? Will the GA review be archived correctly? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It probably won't be archived correctly if the talk page is ever archived. I was under the assumption that the new process bypassed such problems. I would simply transclude the two reviews back again properly and leave a note on his talk page. Peanut4 (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I transcluded the GA review again to the bottom of the page and posted a note asking that it be left intact. I hope that is what you meant, as I am not sure what two reviews you are referring to. Did you mean that I should remove the reformatted review? (I left it on the talk page.) —Mattisse (Talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Phew, that was a bit of a mess! It was largely caused by an IP interfering with the process and adding his own review (IP contributions are very valuable, but IP's cannot review GANs for accountability reasons). Unfortunately, the main editor and the reviewer then were not sure how to fix it. This raises robustness issues about the GAN process. I've attempted to fix this particular case: in particular, I've deleted the IP review (it was just a copy of WikiProject assessment comments), and moved the valid review to /GA1.

If this is not an isolated incident, please add other examples here, and any ideas for making the process more robust, in the light of the fact that transclusion is far from universally understood! Geometry guy 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Another problem case is on Talk:LaRouche conspiracy trials where apparently a sock puppet added a review, removed LaRouche conspiracy trials from GAN, and added GA status to the article. We have been wondering how to deal with this. Someone started Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/LaRouche conspiracy trials/1, but since the article never received a real review, we are not sure this is the right way to go. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone look into this? User:Gimmetrow says the article has a review history, but is he referring to a real one or the false on the sock puppet did? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a robustness issue as far as I can tell. I haven't investigated this carefully, but if a GA pass review is inadequate, the pass should simply be reverted, e.g. by the editor requesting the review, as this demonstrates integrity, and the desire to receive a thorough endorsement of their work. GAR should only be used as a last resort: if disagreement or uncertainty arises, then the article can be listed there again, but for now it is good that the discussion has been closed. Geometry guy 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Bobby Driscoll from the GA-nominee-page

I withdrew my article on Bobby Driscoll from the GA-nominee page due to a complete revision appropriate to some important suggestions and advices from a reviewer - and of course I was logged in, but my session-time had expired due to work on another website. So it now appears as being withdrawn by an ID-editor, although it was me. This is of course no vandalism or something. Regards--Bylot (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with template on Talk:Slipknot (demo)

I failed the article for GA and changed the template on the talk page according to directions. However, the link to review remains a red link. It does not tranclude the review, Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA2. Could this be because the article just had a name change from Slipknot Demo to Slipknot (demo)? —Mattisse (Talk) 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette

I have just asked for a second opinion on the above. As part of that I went to spotlight and found two previous GAs; namely Kristallnacht and Icelanders. I wanted to check that the grammar and prose were compatible (which in (to me) the wrong sense they are!) but I could not find either GA review. Am I just missing it or what.Edmund Patrick – confer 14:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I get a favor?

I'm sorry if this seems selfish, but could someone please prioritize reviewing Vinland Saga (manga)? I wouldn't normally ask this, but there's a high probability that I won't be able to do any more editing after this weekend for quite a while due to a family health emergency. I'd hate to have the article fall through the cracks and fail due to my absence.

Again, I'm sorry, since I realize this isn't particularly fair to the 150 or so people in front of me in line, though if it makes it any better I've gotten a dozen or so pages out of the backlog since nominating Vinland Saga. Thanks in advance. --erachima talk 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Splat5572's GAN

User:Splat5572 retired weeks ago and his GAN's have yet to be removed. Should I be bold and remove them? He certainly ain't coming back for them.Mitch32^(UP) 15:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're sure he retired (and he says so on his userpage), go ahead and remove them. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the articles be reviewed first, they shouldn't be treated any differently because the nominator isn't around. They could be reviewed, then drop Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads a note if the articles need improving (ie: is on hold), and proceed as normal. What's the problem? Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that though Splat5572's user page says he's retired, he may return to take care of his articles. For example, One Night In Hackney returned when 1990 Strangeways Prison riot was at GAN. Nev1 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's right. It's the articles we're reviewing, not the nominator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But if an editor nominates an article and proceeds to retire, how is it fair to rely on others to deal with potential on-holds? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why assume that there will be on-holds? Retirements from wikipedia can be notoriously short-lived in any event; I've seen editors retire and come back in just a few hours. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No one's being forced to improve the article, anyway isn't that sort of what wikiprojects are for? No where does it say that the nominator has to be responsible for an article. Nev1 (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. An editor who nominates an article should take responsibility for addressing issues, otherwise it's a waste of time for reviewers. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree the nominator should take responsibility, I'm just saying they don't have to. Nev1 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"otherwise it's a waste of time for reviewers" That's the key issue here. The backlog is long enough without expecting reviewers to complete a review, which may never be dealt with. The nominations probably ought to stay, but either another editor to deal with the queries should be sought, or a note on the GAN page to explain Splat5572's retirement should be made. Peanut4 (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've let people over at WikiProject U.S. Roads that Splat5572 has retired and there may be problems when his articles come under review here. Nev1 (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing reviews placed on hold by another editor

What's the general feeling about closing reviews that have been placed on hold by another editor? I recently reviewed Eglinton Tournament of 1839, identified a large number of issues that needed to be resolved, and put it on hold. There was an initial flurry of activity in response, but that stopped, a large number of problems remained, and I resolved to close the review after the weekend with an explanation, and encouragement for further work and re-nom in future. However, in the meantime another editor had closed and failed the review, declaring the 7 days up. It was appropriate for the review to close, but I feel that, as the initial reviewer, it was my place to do so: I invested time in the review, and built up some rapport with the lead editors, through discussion and user talk pages. Moreover, for the editors involved, an abrupt removal of the template, without discussion, may appear discouraging, especially if they felt they had reached some understanding with me. I don't want to point the finger at any editor; this post is more a wish to clarify matters, and ascertain best practice. Any thoughts? Gwinva (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very clear that the decision is always in the initial reviewer's hands, and has to be, for the reasons you give. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm the reviewer she's speaking of, you can see my perspective on the matter in my reply here. --erachima talk 00:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your approach to reducing the backlog is flawed. Articles that are being worked on can be left on hold for as long as the reviewer likes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to keeping the decision in the initial reviewer's hands. I may have noticed a couple of such closes as you describe. While I'm sure they were done in good faith, the initial reviewer will know far more about when, why and how to close a review. It may be the case that an "on hold" review may not have all the queries dealt with but still be a pass rather than fail. Peanut4 (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone affected is capable of querying the closing editor. I found erachima very responsive to a polite query, and he graciously finished the review Nixeagle had started but not been able to complete in a timely manner. On the other hand, neither of the reviews I had done and placed on hold which he closed were challenged by the nominators. I'm inclined to thing that WP:AGF is the best policy to cover such things. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how AGF comes into this. The decision as to whether or not, or when, to close a review is in the hands of the initial reviewer. Period. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

...And because that wasn't explicitly stated anywhere obvious (hence prompting this discussion), WP:AGF means that approaching an undefined situation where your own interpretation differs from another editor's with a polite query smoothes over any potential unpleasantness. That is, while we might want to add more directions, it's not strictly necessary, in my observation. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Why can't Erachima simply review his own articles and leave ones that other editors have already "claimed" for review alone? There are over 150 articles that have had no action taken on them at all - why go picking on the 40 or so that already have editors working on them? This editor closed an article today that I was working on as lead reviewer - an article that was very close to GA and which has since been made into what would have been a GA if the nom had not already been closed - but it was closed as a fail, which was disappointing and discouraging to the main editor. It seems to me that there are enough articles that need a reviewer that reducing the backlog by messing with other reviewers' articles is rather...rude. Dana boomer (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been reviewing pages independently as well. --erachima talk 02:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I see consensus is to leave these decisions to the original reviewer. In the future, I will instead notify the individual who placed the article is on hold that it is overdue, rather than removing it myself. Will that be satisfactory to everyone here? --erachima talk 02:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no time limit for an "on hold" review, so I'm not sure overdue is a correct term. Peanut4 (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peanut4; unless the reviewer has disappeared off the face of the planet (which happens), I don't see a reason to be concerned if a nom has been on hold for more than seven days. I don't believe in adhering to a strict seven day holding period as every review is subjective, but as long as a review is active, I doubt any reminder -- no matter how friendly -- will be helpful. In fact, it might be kind of annoying. María (habla conmigo) 19:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar situation of an editor who disappeared after an initial flurry. Another reviewer pointed out that my review had been running for two weeks, I left it three more days then closed. Advise, don't act - it's not doing any harm, I can review something else while waiting. jimfbleak (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Poliovirus

I have a couple of issues with this article being passed...I believe that this should have been put on hold:

• There have been 6 edits (with 2 of those related to vandalism and 1 a bot) since May 17. Her concerns on the review page are most likely not going to be addressed...
• Per the Manual of Style, there should be no references in the lead.
• I don't understand this article at all...too much jargon...does it have to/is it supposed to be this way??

Cheers, the_ed17 03:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The MOS does not say there should be no refs in the lead. WP:LEAD states that "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." That being said, the concerns are apparently being taken care of. María (habla conmigo) 14:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully they will...though the only edit so far has been this one... the_ed17 15:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion on Good Article reassessment

I have been perfoming individual GARs as part of the GA sweeps project. I'm having a hard time making up my mind on Great Pyramid of Giza. I'm not convinced that there is sufficient breadth of coverage (the construction theories section says that there are several theories but doesn't discuss them, and aside from the three main rooms, much of the inside of the pyramid isn't discussed). There is a separate article for construction theories, though. The reassessment is here. I've tried contacting all of the relevant projects twice, as well as major contributors, but I'm not getting anywhere. I got no response at WT:GAR, so I came here. If someone could look over the article and let me know if they think it would pass a GA review in its present form (it's been on hold for 25 days), I would really appreciate it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This has got to be frustrating. I agree that it's very close, but your remaining issues are dead-on. I wouldn't pass it, but it's just begging for a domain expert to finish off these few issues. Jclemens (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Weasel

Even though WP:Avoid weasel words isn't one of the 6 style guidelines directly targeted at WP:GAN, people quote it a lot anyway, so I wanted to alert you guys that that guideline is being worked on. (I know this page is watchlisted more than say WP:WGA, and I think style guidelines aren't very useful if they don't get broad participation...but if you'd rather I make similar announcements in the future at WT:WGA or WT:GA instead of here, tell me.) It seems to try to cover things already covered on policy pages (and their talk pages) such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, and it seems to me that people never really settled on whether the page is supposed to be about "some people say", or about something much broader. I don't like the name of the page, either. On the content side, many people have raised issues, including Silly Rabbit and Johnbod, recently. Feel free to jump in. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures kill a GAN?

I have just completed an article:Ctenosaura bakeri, which I feel is very good. However, I do not have any pictures of the animal in question and there are very few pics available. Would that kill my chances of achieving GA Status??--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't. As I read the GAC (I asked for clarification at WT:GAC some time ago), lack of pictures doesn't handicap a Good Article nomination, unless there are suitable free pictures available. An article I wrote, Don Getty, was recently promoted despite the lack of any pictures, as well. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Be up front in explaining the lack of pictures--documentation that you're 1) aware of the good article criteria, and 2) have made every reasonable effort to include a picture should satisfy reasonable reviewers. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports and recreation

This section is getting a little bit long. If we can get as little as 5 people to review only two articles in this section, we can knock 10 un-reviewed nominations off the list. iMatthew (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If only, eh? :) Gary King (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not hard. If only 5 people review two articles, we can knock off 10. Why not try it out? I've done two. iMatthew (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is more people are nominating sports articles than are reviewing them. Music, Theater et al., and Transport all seem to have the same issues. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well personally I think I average about two reviews a day. My point was that we keep asking for people to review articles, but I don't think that usually works. Gary King (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried my best to review more than two articles a day for the last two months but it was impossible. The list continues to grow and I just found myself "reviewed out" and no longer reading articles properly. While there is a horrendous list at Sports and recreation, the same can be said of music and theatre sections, but also there is just a general awful backlog at GAN full stop. Until we get more, regular reviewers the problem won't disappear. Only a month ago the backlog was below 100 but it nearly doubled very quickly. The bottom line is there aren't enough regular reviewers. Peanut4 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Maybe a good way to start over would be not to allow new nominations for three-four days to allow GA reviews time to clear some/most of the backlog, and then allow new nominations to start coming in. When the new nominations come in, GA reviewers can review them as they come in. iMatthew (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think that stopping nominations for a few days is a good idea. First of all, there's no guarantee that we can cut down the backlog within a few days, let alone a few weeks. Secondly, people would still be working on articles during that time, meaning when we open nominations up again, we would get the same number of total nominated articles regardless, as people were simply holding off nominations. Gary King (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a system where people who review articles have a better chance of getting their own articles reviewed? :p Gary King (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How might that work? iMatthew (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an idea, but I don't think it's fair. Some people make better writers than reviewers, and it would allow some poorer reviews through. There's no need to seek lower quality reviews simply to reduce the backlog. We need regular, quality reviewers, not forcing people to do reviews. Peanut4 (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just hinting that someone should review my GANs :) Gary King (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should break down the reviews section by WikiProject instead of by "section"? iMatthew (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No way; there are dozens, if not hundreds of WikiProjects. Gary King (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus some articles belong to 5+ wikiprojects. Peanut4 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe we should break down the big sections into smaller sub-sections. iMatthew (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what that would achieve. We would still have 190 articles needing to be reviewed, just no section with as many as 34 articles. Last time someone complained we had too many "Sports and recreation" articles in the backlog, we quickly reduced the list, but it doesn't do anything in the long run, since now only a month later, the backlog is longer than when it was then. Peanut4 (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to have too many sections. Right now it's just about perfect; ideally, in my opinion, we should have no sections that are empty. Gary King (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Increasing throughput

Here's some brainstorms, many tongue-in-cheek:

• Start casting group oppose votes at RfA of admin candidates who have never reviewed a GA nom.
• Recognize reviewers more frequently.
• Start a "reviewer mentoring" program.
• Offer something at WP:REWARD
• Give priority to reivewing articles nominated by people who have reviewed at least one GAN recently (e.g., past month). While the point that some editors are better reviewers than writers is well taken, it's also reasonable to expect that GA candidates nominated by GA reviewers will take less work to review than those nominated by editors completely unfamilliar with the process.

At any rate, food for thought, and hopefully for prompting better ideas than mine. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What about sending a kind letter to every user that currently has a GA up on the page, kindly asking them to review an article. iMatthew (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We could always limit the number of nominations as is the case at WP:FAC. Though, I'm not sure that's entirely reasonable because at least at FAC, you tend to have actionable things to do over a more prolonged period of time. Peanut4 (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Would anybody object to me sending out that letter? iMatthew (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not me, but make sure that some basic basic GA criteria is in all of those, just in case! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor I. The letter's a great idea and unlikely to prompt any backlash. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there is currently a large backlog at WP:GAN that requires some attention. One way to reduce this backlog is to get more users involved in reviewing Good Article nominations. You are receiving this message as you currently have an article nominated for Good Article status, and we are requesting that you read over the Good article criteria and try to review articles listed at WP:GAN.

-- How does this look? iMatthew (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd amend the end to "review articles listed at WP:GAN which you have not recently edited." to make it clear they're not being invited to pass their own articles to help the backlog. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest using a template so we can change it for everyone's talk page if necessary. Gary King (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as it isn't mandatory I'm for it. I have two articles up for a GA review, one is probably going to pass here in a few days while the other is just sitting. Though I'm still not sure what a GA is at this point in time. So I won't be able to review because I need to be a little more acquainted with the criteria first.--WillC 07:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, a backlog shows that more GA-quality articles are being written, which is a good thing. Merely encouraging editors to review articles will lead to more poor reviews. The solution is to train reviewers. Of course, recognising the efforts of reviewers and strengthening the GAN reviewer community will motivate trained reviewers to review regularly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

History repeats itself. All of these suggestions have been put forward time and time again, often by me. ;-) I'm putting User:Hildanknight and User:Jclemens on my list of folks to spam next time I suggest mentoring or reviewer training. :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A discussion is still going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) #How many editors have actually read the Manual of Style? about the size and complexity of WP:MOS, and its atrocious navigation / search facilities. I suggest MOS might be a big deterrent to potential reviewers. I certainly don't want to spend time learning what kinds of dashes or quotes to use and other minutiae, and then watching MOS (how many pages?) for changes and re-training myself.

I admit that's only my opinion. Is there any way to arrange a poll of editors? As suggested above, editors who have recently produced GAs would be a suitable target group. If there is a serious attempt to produce such a poll, I'd be willing to help in its preparation and operation. Some suggested questions:

• Would you be willing to review articles for GA?
• If willing, for each GA criterion:

• Are you confident that you could accurately apply criterion X?
• If not, would you be willing to learn how to use it accurately?

• If unwilling, select one or more of the following that prevent or deter you:
  • ... (we'd need to discuss this to ensure that's it's sufficiently comprehensive without going on forever) -- Philcha (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(That is one reason why the MoS is not a GA requirement: only a few key aspects are. Geometry guy 10:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

You're right, I've just checked Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and they are simpler than I realised. There may be a WP:CREEP problem. In recent GA reviews I've had comments about: dashes; the "listiness" of a section (in an article about a very miscellaneous set of fossils; the reviewer is by no means a MOS fanatic); the number of paras in the lead (about a controversial person who at one point had 3 concurrent careers); the total length of the article (same one); omission of first names of authorities quoted; ISBNs for cited books (a waste of time and space IMO, as they change with country and binding even if the content is identical).

If there's a WP:CREEP problem, it will reduce the productivity of reviewers and editors, and may deter potential reviewers. -- Philcha (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

While MOS isn't a GA criteria, commenting on incorrect uses or MOS breaches at a GA review is only a good idea in the long run - there is nothing run with a more comprehensive GA review in my opinion. As for the lead, that is a GA criteria (1b). Peanut4 (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For information, I've updated the graphs of the backlog, which are taken from the statistics gathered at WP:GAN/R. On the left we have the size of the backlog, in terms of the total number of articles at GAN and the total number of articles awaiting a reviewer. On the right, we have the difference between the two (i.e., the number of articles on review/on hold/seeking 2nd opinion), which is an approximate measurement of the size of the GAN reviewing resource. Click on either image for a much larger version. Geometry guy 10:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

At least the backlog's down from, say, March. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on problems with locating and learning any guideline, including style guidelines, is always welcome at WT:MOS. WP:UPDATES is a handy way to keep up. WP:WIAGA only targets 6 style guidelines, and as I understand it, the meaning is: we have a ton of work to do here, and it's not the responsibility of GA reviewers to point out every deviation in every article from every Wikipedia guideline. That's not the same as the right to win an edit war on the grounds that you can ignore any guideline if you feel like it; see the policy page WP:PG for what it means to be a guideline. (A rough rule of thumb that's often quoted is, policy is supposed to apply almost all the time, and guidelines are intended to apply maybe 90% of the time.) Anyone can remove the guideline cat from any guideline at any time if they feel the page shouldn't be widely applicable in article-space, although of course, you'll probably want to discuss it on the talk page first, or at least have your reasons handy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. We (style people) don't just talk the talk; I demoted WP:WEASEL today, on the grounds that most of it is now superceded by policy pages and talk pages, after no one responded to pleas to come defend it. We're serious about demoting style guidelines if people don't think they have community support; it's nice to have less work to do, too. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll try to contribute to this in my best current was possible. Not trying to escape strict review here, but I say in all honesty that the Croatia national football team is most certainly GA status. It has failed FA 3 times because of the most minor of issues which were unable to be resolved, but they are all fixed now. I plan to take this back to FA shortly after it passes this GA, which I think it almost certainly should. If there's anything particular you need to know, you can feel free to ask me. Other than that, the prose has been written with assistance from numerous different copyeditors, the images are fine to a 99.9% extent (still some tags which I need to add in time), the references are all verifiable and properly recorded with all applicable information and so on. If anything, some minor issues may possibly be found in the 'Kranjcar and Bilic's revival' section as well as the 'Supporters' section as I think these small aspects aren't as well written as the rest of the article. Other than that, you should find the rest of the article pretty solid when it is reviewed. Domiy (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Style questions

Note: we've gotten a reprieve on the deadlines for the WP 0.7 DVD (still being negotiated). I'm not asking for help with the style guidelines any more until WP 0.7 is done. WP:GAN reviewing and copyediting is a fantastic help, and you can volunteer at your favorite wikiproject to help them select and copyedit articles! The current 0.7 article selection is here. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a lot of questions about how we're going to proceed with style guidelines and copyediting between now and WP 1.0. Opinions welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Groan. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, things are moving along. Maybe the best way to explain what's happening is to copy this post from the featured article talk page:

Sandy has been asking nicely for a while now for us to re-start WP:WPMOS to rationalize the style guidelines. I've done that, and I'm giving it a slant that might be slightly alarming for FAC people: I want the widest participation possible, and I'd like for us to assume going in that FAC people (which included me up to now, but I have to be strictly "FAC-neutral" for the duration) are going to lose a few rounds. If not, then GA people and wikiproject people might continue to assume that there's no point in showing up, on the theory that FAC people will continue to win on all points (I don't buy the theory, but it's a common perception); and the result of that will be that GAN people continue to pay attention (officially) to only 6 of the style guidelines and some wikiprojects will pay attention to fewer than that; and the result of that is that we'll have very few people who can do a good job with copyediting all 30000 WP:1.0 articles, because if other people aren't reading the style guidelines or discussions on those pages, then we'll continue to see results like the 30000 articles in WP:V0.7 (which is not pretty, let me tell you). So: please visit WT:WPMOS. I'll warn you that it's going to be a lot to read by the time everyone has had their say; I pledge that I am trying to mention only those things that I know for certain people care a great deal about, and I try to say what needs to be said in the fewest words possible, because it's a lot. It's important, it's hard if you don't know the style guidelines (so please consider volunteering if you are somewhat familiar with them), and it's somewhat urgent because of WP:V0.7. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, let me clarify; I don't mean that Wikipedians write crap. I mean that 30000 articles on an official Wikipedia DVD is going to cause problems; our competitors are going to pick out the worst bits and represent that as being "typical" of Wikipedia, and we're not going to have our usual defense available of saying that it was "work in progress" or "vandalized"; no one's going to believe that we didn't put our best work on our DVD. So when I said "it's not pretty", what's not pretty is the image in my mind of what the news stories are going to look like the next day. I'm hoping that people will help us get all 30000 articles copyedited at least once before the next DVD, WP:1.0. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Per questions elsewhere: there's not actually any such thing as "FA people" as opposed to "wikiproject people", but there's a perception that there are, and this perception is hampering work on the style guidelines. Also, in the section above, I talked about the fact that it's policy on WP that people are supposed to pay attention to guidelines. That's true, but I'm not naive; over the years, people have put style guidelines in kind of a special category, and many people aren't sure which style guidelines have broad community support. This has been a thorny and complicated issue, but progress is being made. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Youtube as external link

Are links to Youtube allowed in GA articles or as article external links? My understanding is that Wikipedia does not allow Youtube links as they may violate copyrights. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:YOUTUBE, "each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis." Aside from the clumsy prose, it's clear that there is no blanket prohibition. As a GA reviewer, I would require a GA candidate 1) have only worthwhile YouTube content--obviously a subjective judgement, and 2) it be labeled as a flash/rich media link per WP:EL#Rich media. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams for example, a YouTube link would be appropriate (in this particular case, however, it's using Google Video, an alternative.) Gary King (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Career and personal lives

I've got a query that I'd like some more opinions on. I'm presently reviewing Michael Ingham (footballer) and Jesper Blomqvist, both of which are articles about athletes. While they go into detail about the athlete's athletic career, they leave out (or at least they did when first reviewed) any details about their personal lives. In my opinion, a person's career is only a portion of their life, and aspects like relationships, early life, family, other jobs, education, religion, or anything of that nature should be included. Am I wrong here? What about shorter articles, such as Ingham's, where the athlete is relatively minor and that sort of information is unknown. IMO, I should fail the articles for lack of breadth b/c as I said, a person is more than the career they happen to have. Am I being to strict? Nikki311 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is more to a sports-person than just his career stats, IMO, a section on "Personal life" is necessary for "comprehensiveness" (FAC) as well as it a "main aspect" (GAC). I think, put the article on hold and request such a request to be added, if there are no other GAC violations. If there are more GAC violations, the article can be failed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's not a WP:BIO article if it's not reasonably broad. One way to get round the problem, if little is known about someone's personal life outside the event/activity they are notable for, is to re-cast the article so it's about the event/activity rather than the person, perhaps just by changing the title, but this isn't always realistic or even possible. EyeSerene^talk 07:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Although biographies should usually have a "Personal life" section to meet the broadness criteria, this should not be a hard-and-fast rule. Remember, GA was created for the articles which could never be comprehensive enough to achieve FA status. There may be 19th-century athletes whose careers are well documented but have personal lives which are shrouded in mystery. We should also consider that including a "Personal life" section in an article about a non-public figure may cause said article to violate the BLP policy. Do we want articles that violate the BLP policy to attain GA status? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true, common sense always applies, although in such cases I think it's useful to explicitly mention that little is known about an individual's personal life to avoid giving the impression of a half-finished article. Sometimes too a lack of information may indicate a lack of notability (per WP:ONEEVENT), though again it has to be taken on an article-by-article basis. That's really what I was getting at with my earlier post. To take Michael Ingham (footballer), all the article currently mentions is where he was born before going into his footballing career. I'd expect a little more information in an article named for an individual, although if, for example, he was a subsection of the York City F.C. article, such information would be superfluous. EyeSerene^talk 09:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether all articles on athletes should be treated as a standard biography. Some obscure athletes, such as Olympic Gold Medalist, Dwain Chambers have little personal information available and what is available is intertwined with their athletic career as is the case in the Chambers article. I recommended, perhaps wrongly, to the article writer that he integrate the personal information into the rest of the article, as the Personal life section only had a few sentences in it. The personal information seemed better integrated and made more sense when presented in the context of his career. For example, it made little sense to describe the scrapbook he was completing for his son until the reason for the scrapbook was described. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not say Dwain Chambers is obscure - quite the opposite. Indeed, any athlete biography really should have some personal life section if it wants to attain to GA section. Peanut4 (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be some personal life stuff, but keep in mind these are bios of athletes, not of family members. Wizardman 01:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jacklee and I are planning to collaborate on articles about two Singaporean athletes who have won Paralympic medals (one also holds a world record in her sport). Since they are Singaporean and coverage of disabled sports is limited, information about their personal lives is scarce. Short GAs about them would truly embody the spirit of GA, but can short GAs about them be written without "Personal life" sections? This discussion shall answer my question (and hopefully the answer will be yes). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll chime in and disagree with other (above). if there ain't no personal life info, that would probably prevent it from being FA, but should not prevent GA. The original purpose of GA was for shorter articles. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)}

Agree with Ling.Nut. Giggy (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean that I'm looking for a full on bio here. I just think interjecting some personal info (maybe just a sentence or two) breaks up the boring statistical information. Sentence after sentence of stats/wins/losses/records does not make for good writing. Nikki311 22:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think these views refer to your original query: "What about shorter articles, such as Ingham's, where the athlete is relatively minor and that sort of information is unknown." The idea is that GA is more tolerant of this sort of article, unlike FA, and more flexible about mandatory inclusion. I don't think it was meant to reflect a situation where biographical information is ignored when it is readily and easily available. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

0.7 DVD

Although there's been some resistance to the WP 0.7 DVD, the WMF board and a majority of the Wikipedians who have weighed in feel it's important to get some version of WP, however imperfect, to people around the world who don't have internet access. The wikiprojects have now all been notified (with maybe a couple of glitches) about which of their articles are going to be on the WP 0.7 DVD. The deadline is Oct 20 for doing the best you can with your articles. If you're done with that, you might want to help other people out a little with their deadlines; maybe they'll help you with your deadlines in the future. WT:1C is where wikiprojects can list articles they won't have time to look at themselves, for help with spelling, word choice, and removing clear nonsense.. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone interested in GA to help out if they can. There's 30000 of Wikipedia's best and most important articles going out on that CD. Making sure these articles are decent is closely allied to the GA mission to bring as many of Wikipedia's 2.5 million articles as we can up to the really quite fundamental GA standard. Helping out here will lead to growth in GAs in the future, and generate some good will along the way too. Please chip in! Geometry guy 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to sound like a Jeremiah, the GA Sweeps Project struggles to look at 100 GAs a month. What chance 30,000 articles get looked at in 5 weeks? Bearing in mind that there are only something like 1,500 active editors on wikipedia? It ain't gonna happen. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's 20 articles per editor, i.e., 4 per week each, less than one per day :-) More seriously, this task is mostly already done by WikiProjects, and we just need to help out with stuff that has slipped through the cracks. There's still quite a lot of that, but not 30000 articles. Geometry guy 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you'll have to do my 20 articles for me. Is that OK? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) yeah—I wish they wouldn't do this, and I'm glad they're doing it. Oct. 20 is hellaciously short notice! I've made various commitments to various people for various tasks, and I need to try to weasel out of them to fix various articles... grrrr. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Martin and the other 1.0 regulars decided that people were going to be stressed about it, and the outcome was not going to be amazingly superior to what we've got already on Wikipedia, whether we had 4 months or 1 month, so they made it 1 month to keep from burning everyone out. Also, Martin's been saying it would be in the autumn for a while now. Not a lot of DVDs will be sold in developed countries, but One Laptop Per Child and others are very happy to get whatever they can get. We are aiming to make next autumn's version (probably 0.8) much better. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Backlog

Hot damn the unreviewed GAN backlog is past 150 again. I've tried to judo-chop my way through it, so it should now be under 150 again. One thing that I have noticed, though, is that the backlog usually does not have articles that have been unreviewed for over a month, so we're certainly making progress there. Gary King (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Should a notice be put on the main page asking for experienced reviewers to weigh in perhaps? -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been going up and up generally for quite a while. When the above notice was put up on this page about the size of the "Sports" section, that section went down for a while, but it's going back up again. As Escape Artist Swyer says, there is a dearth of reviewers to stay on top of the backlog. Peanut4 (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

On the plus side, however, there are now more than 5000 GAs. Congratulations to all! Geometry guy 22:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Woot!!! Go team! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Now to go through all of them for reassessments... :D Gary King (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Good lists

Hello GAN'ers. I now see we have a "good topic" process. Can we therefore (finally, and about time too) consider a "good list" process? For instance List of Soundgarden band members would struggle to consider itself the finest work of Wikipedia. Can we have a serious discussion over the merits of a Good list concept? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly this proposal has arisen several times, and has been outvoted. I personally love the idea, though there is a general consensus that there won't be a large enough gap between good list and featured list. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider that the opinion of there being not "a large enough gap" is less valid since the tightening of FL criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be. I'm not entirely familiar with the recent changes to the FL criterion, so I'm not sure. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We don't need "good lists" now that we have good topics, as the topic criteria has an "audited" option that allows such lists that cannot acquire FL status to complete a peer review to be included in a topic. The "audited" option also applies for say video games or films that have not been released, television or sports seasons that have not finished, and so on and such forth. I will say in regards to the "good list" process that the gap between a list that can be featured (the relative minimum that has been established per consensus at WP:FLC is ten items, with varying exceptions) and a list that should be merged into a parent article or list is so small that it doesn't warrant an entire process dedicated to it. The other problem is that for lists, there is no real "intermediate" stage between a non-featured list and a featured list, while for an article, there is a clear difference between a start to B-class article, a GA, and a FA. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 16:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see a "clear difference" between GA and FA with regard to very short but comprehensive articles. And that's where we have a grey-area with lists. GA has the statement "Good articles are articles which are considered to be of good quality but which are not yet, or are unlikely to reach featured article quality. " - why can't this apply to lists? Especially those lists which are shorter than others? If you can clarify the difference a "good article" vs "featured article" and "good list" vs "featured list" I'd be interested to hear it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My point was the difference in quality between a GA and a FA, not necessarily the amount of content in the article. There is no such "intermediate" stage for lists in terms of quality - when you try to improve a list, the line between a bad list and a can-be-featured list is passed very quickly. For articles on the other hand, the difference in quality between a good article and a featured article is obvious (copy-editing, comprehensiveness, etc.). As such, there is no "GA for lists" because in terms of quality, a list is simply featured or not featured. For those lists that cannot be featured due to a lack of content, again, the gray area between a list that should be merged into a parent article or list and a list that can be featured is so small that it doesn't justify creating an entire process for it. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a fantastic idea. I've seen lists being opposed and ultimately failed due to the fact they're small. This is logical, and I support it all the way. Qst (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not a fan of Good lists, for basically the same arguments that have been laid out before. Also, why can't List of Soundgarden band members be written like List of Dream Theater band members? Gary King (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think most people are missing the point - one of the definitions of GA is an article which "...unlikely to reach featured article quality" - this is usually for subjects which don't have a great deal of information for them, i.e. short articles. There's a direct analogy for short lists which meet all the criteria but fall short on the subjective "minimum length". As for the Soundgarden band members, current "consensus" is seven items would not be sufficient to be a featured list. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it even a standalone article in the first place, if it's so short? I'd rather encourage people to take short list articles and rewrite them as prose, leaving longer lists which really need to be lists to improve to FL status. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a rather unnecessary proposal to me, at least at present. Featured lists are nowhere near as difficult an attainment as featured articles. Wikipedia:Good pictures, on the other hand, would be a great idea. And after we get that running, probably Portal:Good content. Wikipedia:Good portals might be feasible as well, though I'm not sure how many applicable pages actually exist. --erachima talk 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for running down the FLC process and all those who contribute to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to disparage the FL process, I like it and have run pages through it myself. FL is easier than FA for very sensible reasons, and it being easier makes it no less of a contribution to the project.

To address why GL is unnecessary (and how it relates to FL being easier), notice that what makes a list and an article professional-grade are fundamentally different: For an encyclopedia article to be professional, it must summarize and collate the full body of knowledge on a topic into a single understandable, accurate, and coherent piece. For a list of facts, it just has to be accurate and clearly presented. The GA process is beneficial because it recognizes articles that comply with policy and are useful to readers, but are less finessed than the meticulously worked-over and expansive FAs. As such, it motivates contributors who are good at gathering information and writing but like highly niche subjects where you're working from the few published opinions on the matter rather than a real "body of knowledge", or just don't sleep with the Chicago Manual Of Style under their pillow. A GL process would not have comparable benefits, because the FL criteria simply require comprehensiveness, quality writing, and decent structure. None of those criteria are prohibitively difficult, so it does not serve any particular purpose to create a halfway level.

In a nutshell, no aspect of WP:WIAFL could be relaxed while still considering the resulting lists to be "good" in any real sense, so the classification of good non-featured lists does not exist. --erachima talk 09:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks everyone for the interesting discussion. It seems clear that GL is not required. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a very persuasive summary erachima, with which I wholeheartedly agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A GL process is not feasible because the gap between FLs and GLs would be too narrow. In contrast, GT is viable due to the large potential gap between FTs and GTs, which is currently not realised. With the current criteria, the gap between FTs and GTs is too small. Both demand that all articles to have at least GA status (or FLs, for lists), but FT also need at least 25% of articles to have FA (or FL) status. To be honest, GT currently seems like a tool used by pro-GA, anti-FA Wikipedians.

The GT criteria needs to be lowered. How about requiring that at least 50% of articles should be GAs (or FLs, for lists) and the remainder must pass an audit (and there must be at least three GAs/FLs)? This would significantly increase the gap between FTs and GTs, but GTs would remain fairly prestigious.

I think that the FT process significantly worsens systemic bias by encouraging article writers to focus exclusively on over-represented American (and, to a lesser extent, European) topics such as music, sports and video games. A cursory glance over the current FTs supports this belief. Nobody in his right mind would try to write an FT on a Singapore-related topic. If the GT criteria were lowered per my suggestion above, I can think of at least two Singapore-related topics which are viable FTs (one of which I actively contribute to).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as GANs are incredibly easy to be gamed and have been demonstrably gamed in the past, allowing Good Topics to have articles of less than GA status is plain foolish. There's no systemic bias against foreign articles; those are simply harder to write, requiring foreign language sources in many cases, and we simply don't have as many editors interested in them. Finally, don't you think it's a bit of a conflict of interest to advocate lowering of standards so articles you have contributed to can make GT? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A-Class

Am I right in saying that to have an "A-Class" article, the article must have passed a GA-review first? D.M.N. (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No. A-class is only related to WikiProjects; a WikiProject can pass an article for A-class without requiring GA-class. Gary King (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the scale goes: FA > A > GA > B > C > Start > Stub. D.M.N. (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A-class is special; it is for WikiProjects to decide what it means, on a WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis. It is a common mistake to assume that A is below FA and above GA. Gary King (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no scale. It is all an illusion. You see a scale, but there isn't one! Each WikiProject has its own scale and different WikiProjects can rate the same article differently. It was a historical accident (i.e., mistake) to include "GA-Class" in the WikiProject assessments and thus confuse with community processes. Geometry guy 09:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

GA and FA are the only two that really matter, though :P Gary King (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusing redirect question

Resolved

 – Gary King (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has taken Talk:AXXo/GA1, the GA review for the article AXXo, and created the page AXXo/GA1, then redirected it to AXXo. I am wondering if this redirect will cause confusion in the future for those seeking Talk:AXXo/GA1. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it. Geometry guy 23:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was pointless, too. They should stay as red links, primarily to avoid confusion. Gary King (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to redirect, redirect back to the review, e.g., from AXXo/GA1 to Talk:AXXo/GA1 in this case. Geometry guy 23:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

My reviewer's AWOL

I nominated 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot on 22 August. It was reviewed by Chrisfow on 6 September, and placed on hold. I addressed the issues raised quite promptly, and noted as much on the review page, and his talk page. A fortnight's passed, with no action: Chrisfow has not made an edit on WP since 8 September. Do I continue to wait for his input, or can someone else here look at the article and review to see if it has been passed? (And yes, I am aware there is some irony here: not so long ago, I raised a question regarding the closure reviews made by other editors.) Gwinva (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll finish it if you want, as long as someone agrees that I should. =) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I hereby agree that you should. My, that was far easier than reviewing it myself. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Awww i shoulda waited two seconds. =( lol! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Except that it appears that someone else stole it from me!!! xD ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 03:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Gwinva (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Horse

My review of Horse has got some people worked up. They seem determined to dictate who may review an article. Care to have a look? --Una Smith (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Talk:Horse#GA quick fail
• User talk:Una Smith#GA review of Horse

GA reviews may not be perfect sometimes and reviewers may err, if there is any dispute about the article passing or failing, we have the reassessment process. Anyone feeling the quick-fail of Horse was unjustified. Please ask for a reassessment. There ends the problem. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree...see my review of Dol Guldur. Anyway, just nominate it again, guys, if you think that it'll pass. Cheers, ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 13:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

However, Una, you should not be reviewing articles where a major contributor is someone you are/were in conflict in... ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 13:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Horse article is renominated. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was going to post here but forgot. I renominated the article on the advice of several editors, and User:Malleus Fatuorum has agreed to re-review the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the review quite harsh, too, since it was definitely not a case of "now way this is a good article" and thus not a quick fail. But I didn't want to dig any deeper in the matter, since horses don't interest me that much. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry the review came across as harsh. The article is getting a makeover now, so all is well. --Una Smith (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Una, regardless of whether your review was harsh or entirely appropriate, the issue is whether you should have reviewed it in the first place. You say "they seem determined to dictate who may review an article": absolutely. It is entirely appropriate for the article editors to request an alternative reviewer, since you have been involved with Wikiquette and arbitration with one of the lead editors, which means there is a conflict of interest. You may well feel able to set aside your personal differences and assess the article objectively, but if any party has doubt or concern, it is better to stand aside, let another reviewer look at the article, while you turn your skills to assessing one of the other nominations, where your input will be valued. Gwinva (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwinva, you are a WikiProject Equine regular so I consider you to be an interested party. Per your own philosophy here, you should stand aside. --Una Smith (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Una, I am not a member of WP Equine, have never edited horse (in fact, I have not even read it) and have not entered into any debate there regarding the content. Note, I did not even comment on the quality of your review: for all I know, it might have been a good one (I did not read it). I do know the editors, of course; my interest in Medieval and military history articles has led us to collaborate on two overlapping articles (Horses in the Middle Ages and Horses in warfare). Because of this connection, I have not involved myself in any discussion regarding the review itself, or the content within the article. I am a GA regular, however, and am quite entitled to comment here, and felt it important since I am aware of the clash between you and one of the lead editors. I merely suggested that you stop courting disagreement (whether it is justified or not), and turn your reviewing skills to other articles. In the meantime, your concerns about horse have been noted, and will no doubt be considered by the new reviewer. Gwinva (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A conflict of interest occurs when the reviewer and the major contributor(s) to an article are allies. That is not the case here. Here, the reviewer and major contributors have different opinions re the content: it is an ordinary content dispute, and deserves to be treated as such. The article is not stable, thus it merits a quick fail. --Una Smith (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Instability created by the reviewer is no reason for a quick fail! The reviewer is supposed to be an impartial observer of content disputes! Geometry guy 22:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As an editor whose main interest is paleontology, I'd be strongly tempted to quick fail on poor coverage of the evolution of horses, including

• horses were AFAIK the first major group of placental mammals whose evolution was really throughly discovered and explained. The last diagram of this that I saw (some years ago) had about 20 equid taxa.
• the adaptive significance of various modern horse features. For example the digitigrade limb structure, on which the article currently comments in somewhat vague but enthusiatic terms, is a standard biomechanical "design" that has evolved convergently in several cursorial lineages, including dinosaurs (see e.g. Tyrannosaurus#Locomotion) and canids, felids and the extinct mesonychid mammals.

Since Horse is already quite a large article, I suggest Evolution of the horse should be improved first, and then the key points summarised in Horse. -- Philcha (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Philcha, you noted the article evolution of the horse, which covers the topic in depth. But that article is not very stable - the palentology crowd fights over it a lot, and periodically it gets hit by the creationist crowd as well, and no one at WPEQ has the palentology background to bring it up to speed (though if you want to help, please do!) In Horse, the evolution section got so long that is was spun off a couple years ago and what remains is, inevitably, jst a summary of what should be in the longer article. If you want to tweak what's left a bit, or translate what you just said above into terms I can understand (grin), please do. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:COI: "Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. " There is nothing in the COI guidelines about people being "allies" or "opponents." The point is that, according to the GA guidelines, a GA reviewer should be neutral on the topic. Here we have a situation where a GA reviewer quick-failed an because she has a difference of opinion with the direction of the article itself, a position very far from neutral. (Full disclosure: I am a major contributor to the Horse article) But to the point, the article has been renominated, the person who quick-failed it is now participating in the talk page discussion instead, and others, neutral parties, are doing a review. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see this section of Una Smith's talk page, which is mostly a discussion between Una and myself. I think given that Una raised a WP:WQA against Montanabw, (which ended up as being pretty roundly rejected, suggesting that the issue was with Una rather than Montanabw) she absolutely should not have been the person to review this article. I tried to gently make that point but Una resisted, insisting she was right. I think that pretty much makes the point right there. GA reviewers should be gentle, patient, and willing to work with people and admit error. They also should not have a previous history of either closely working with project members in the subject area, or of conflict with project members in the subject area. I further suggest, as was suggested on my talk, that Una is giving the appearance of forum shopping this conflict and letting it extend into different areas, because she's not getting the answer she wants. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes GA reviews go "bad". ( I'm reminded of SS Christopher Columbus for instance. Perhaps you remember it? ;-) ) I think Una was unwise in undertaking the review given the circumstances, but I can also see it from her pov. Anyway, the review is now in the hands of someone who's only been on a horse four times in his life, knows little about horses except that they come with very expensive vet bills, and finds them just a little bit scary. So a good result really. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree, if there is any type of personal conflict with a major contributor to an article, pass the review to somebody else - there is no shortage of work to go around! Stepping aside is easy, just drop somebody else a note or relist it yourself. This is what I did here with a review of veganism, for example, which avoided much drama. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the old legal cliché; the review must not only be fair, it must be seen to be fair. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! That explains why the few times I have done GA reviews, I try to take things like biographies of football players or something! Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

@Malleus... (grin) Why yes, I do seem to recall that GA review... the entire history there is instructive though, I think. After a bumpy first review (by a reviewer not in the ships project) and some rather hot words from a certain author (points at self), the article subsequently was vastly improved in the process of a review by another reviewer (points at you), the first reviewer went for RfA, failed, got a lot of feedback about their approach, which they took on board, the article went to FAC, made FA with help from the first and second reviewers, (and was on the front page 23 July of this year), and the first reviewer's second RfA went swimmingly, he's now an admin. The moral? avoid conficts of interest, and take feedback on board. I'd contrast that first reviewer with this one and say there's a vast difference in relative taking feedback on board-ness, at least so far. ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That second reviewer, on the other hand has failed two RfAs ... I'm not sure what the moral of that story is. And I'm not sure I want you to tell me either. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

The article on Pier Gerlofs Donia, greatest of all Frisians should become a GA (Good Article). I hope it will be reviewed quickly and gets upgraded to GA-class since it truly deserves to. 193.172.170.26 (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (Jouke Bersma)

Your enthusiasm does you credit ;) However, I think you need this page, which is where articles to be reviewed for Good Article status can be listed. There are instructions at the top of the page that explain how to nominate an article - if you need a hand, you can drop me a note or ask anyone on this list. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Struck above - noticed you've already nominated it :P I've moved it to the correct section and added a GAN notice to the article. EyeSerene^talk 11:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange transclusion problem

Over the last few days, I have found that when I add to the Talk:Article/GA1 page it does not update the GA review transcluded to the article talk page. If I repaste the Talk:Article/GA1 to the talk page, then it updates. This has happened multiple time now. Is anyone else having this problem? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PURGE. Geometry guy 19:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had similar problems on lots of pages, not just the GA Talk pages. If you change your preferences to have the time at the top right corner, you can purge any page by clicking on the time. Peanut4 (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Quid pro quo to help with backlog

Should we set up a system where people who review an article can have their article reviewed faster? Probably a perrenial proposal, but I just nominated an article and would like to review one to speed up the process. I'm one of the few who reviews at least on article for every one that I nominate, but I'm telling you right now, I would review one much faster if it would fast track my article Kevin Wu. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made a bunch more reviews than had my own articles reviewed but I just see it as part of the backlog. However, I am more likely to review other reviewers' articles or those of people who are genuinely appreciative of a review. Peanut4 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I nominated an article for the first time this week and I think it's only right that I should perform some reviews to help with the backlog. It's an interesting idea to give priority to nominations placed by people who have performed reviews themselves, but is it feasible? The real problem is that some subjects are much more popular than others and so they will get reviewed sooner. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's so weird to see the page go from 194 nominations to 210 nominations in just one night! I tend to review one or two per day, because I just don't have the time. Some articles are more time consuming than others, and the ultimate problem is that not enough people are reviewing articles, as compared to nominating them. I consider it common courtesy to review articles after nominating one of your own! Some people get discouraged when they see their articles being put on the backburner, while an article that was nominated a week ago gets reviewed right away. Should we have a cut-off date? Like, articles that have been nominated for a week or less shouldn't be reviewed? Just a suggestion. CarpetCrawler (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As articles are reviewed voluntarily, I don't think that potential reviewers should have obstructions placed upon them, such as, e.g. being forced to take the top article in the list, or not being able to choose an article that has been on the list for less than a week.Pyrotec (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as I only review articles because I enjoy doing so, not because I nominate articles. So, please do not reduce the pleasure for me! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would never review an article I'm not interested in, so I would probably never review an article again if I'm not allowed to chose freely. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the wait to be around 2 weeks for a review. It doesn't bother me, that's just part of the process. I'd rather start bringing another article up to GA standards. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely frustrating to see a newer article be reviewed before yours, but it is part of the process. The backlog is long enough without enforcing more rules of what articles to review next. I don't always choose the top article for some of the reasons cited above; particularly, it's best to review an article people are comfortable with.

Right now, the backlog is growing and growing, somedays quite dramatically. The best solution is to leave the guidelines and process as they are, but try and find more reviewers. Peanut4 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would review, but I'd rather go through the article and fix things myself adding fact tags where appropriate and such. It would be a pain to be like in the second sentence of the 14th paragraph there is a misspelling, you know? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's just typos or other minor copyediting issues, it's easy enough to fix those yourself, and it certainly doesn't disqualify you as reviewer to do so. --erachima talk 06:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I know, but I like taking a more personal approach when i read over an article like that. I'd rather search for a source my self or reword a paragraph instead of telling someone else to. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a first-time nominator, I would prefer to think that my article would be passed, criticised or rejected by somebody who knows the criteria well. I myself would not feel confident at this stage to "pass judgement" on somebody else's work. I would hope that when I'm more familiar with the process I would get involved in reviewing. Scolaire (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the original idea, that there should be a "quid pro quo" to ease the backlog, it's an attractive idea. However the book-keeping could get messy, even if only individual editors have "accounts". A further complication is that some GAs are near-solo efforts, but some articles are collaborations by a whole Wikiproject - e.g. Rules of chess (nominated) and Stalemate (probably will be nominated within a month). In such collaborative cases it's hard to know who should get "credits" (for completed reviews) & "debits" (for nominations). Maintaining separate individual and Wikiproject "accounts" looks like a nightmare. An alternative would be "accounts" only for individuals, but reviewers can specify that the "credit" goes to someone else. But that could lead to disagreements. Reluctantly I conclude that "quid pro quo" is unlikely to be workable.

The only alternative I can think of right now is generous awarding of Barnstars to reviewers. To make this effective initially the rate would have to be generous, e.g. 1 Barnstar per 2 reviews,and can be reduced as the backlog reduces (market forces!). Such a scheme would also have to be well advertised - I've seen broadcast messages to all editors for the RCF on the Notability rules, perhaps a similar mechanism can be used. Barnstars awarded also need to be advertised by broadcasting, e.g. "X has just completed his / her Nth GA review", otherwise they sit unnoticed on peoples' Talk pages. finally rules would be needed to stop reviewers from gaming the system, e.g by issuing more quick fails. Perhaps more brownie points for passes than for fails?

Another possible refinement would be more brownie points for artciles that have waited a long time, perhaps because they're on subjects in which most reviewers feel they have insufficent prior knowledge so have to do some learning / research while reviewing. -- Philcha (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people unfortunately need some sort of reward to do the reviews or other such tasks. However, simply garnering barnstars on an ad hoc basis can be dangerous and lead to poor reviews. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center for more informtion on this. Peanut4 (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, happened to quite a couple of editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Summer 2007 and at the end, someone else has to do the entire review again. And I oppose fast tracking because tic-for-tac approach to reviews is not a good way. It only promotes hasty reviews. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

GA withdrawn Olmec

This article was withdrawn by editors for what was perceived to be excess work introduced by another editor / reviewer. (Most of the discussion can be seen here). In removing the GA nominee box from the talk page the link to GA1 has been broken, so there is no linked archive of the proces. Is there a concensus on what happens in these (hopefully) rare occassions. With Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 19:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

the above has been sorted, but with the knowledge I now have I would like to re-invite the editors to re-apply so that I can continue the review. This is because of the following:

• I started the review of the article 13 September
• I had completed a second review on 20 September

The following appeared on an editors talk page on 23 September by User:Wandalstouringwith the opening remarks of "I'm GA reviewing Olmec. After working through the article for the first time there are lots of {{fact}} tags"...etc

• from reading the talk pages and history the editor felt the best way to assist the article to achieve GA was to add 46 {{fact}} tags.
• none of this has appeared in any GA1 etc

My concerns are that (1) that an editor took over a review unfamiliar with the GA process.- it was listed as under review by me - though the editor has since reviewed and passed Execution of Lucy and James Sample (though without any GA1 or history of the review) - and Carrier Air Wing Six(2) The ongoing work the editors were undertaking has just stopped by the addition of 46 fact tags. Can I continue the review - or would there be an assumption that it would pass because I have asked for the re-application? and is this a reviewer (me) sticking his nose intop things that should not concern him!? Edmund Patrick – confer 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My view is that the second reviewer acted improperly in taking over from you, and his/her subsequent tagging of the article was little short of vandalism. In your position I would speak with the nominator who asked for the withdrawal, and if (s)he agrees then I would reinstate the article's GA nomination, tagged as being under review by you, and carry on with your GAN review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Review Page

I don't know whether this is the right place to post this, but I think that there should be an addition to the GAN Review Page template. I think the link to the article, like it is for Peer Reviews, should be added because if you just click the link to the review page, there is no link to it.--S_RX 02:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You could always hit the link below the page's title to go to the article's talk page, then click the tab to go to the article's page. That's the route I always take. Gary King (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that can be done with FACs as well, but we still have a link, I think it's more useful to have the link in the review page in that way you can click it to see something and go back and still have the connection saved versus clicking the talk page then the article page and then returning to the review page, the connection will have been lost by then.--S_RX 04:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. This will not affect current reviews, but new reviews should have links to the article (and more). Geometry guy 09:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I just thought it would be more useful.S_RX 14:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tested it once. Please let me know if there are any problems: it is easy to make mistakes coding templates like these. Geometry guy 21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Packages of articles

In the next month I hope Halkieriid, Wiwaxia, Odontogriphus, Orthrozanclus and Halwaxiid will be ready for GA review. The classification and phylogeny of Halkieriids, Wiwaxia, Odontogriphus, and Orthrozanclus are part of a complex, vigorous and occasionally acerbic scientific debate that has been going on since 1990, and is summarised at Halwaxiid. One of the major issues in this set of articles is how much of the debate should be in Halwaxiid and how much in the articles about the individual animals. Hence I suggest it would be most efficient for the same reviewer to review all of them together. Is this possible or advisable?
PS: AFAIK there is only one other English WP editor who has much existing knowledge of these animals and the issues they raise, he and I discuss these and other paleontology topics a lot and he has contributed parts of these articles, so I'm not sure it would be appropriate for him to do the GA review. -- Philcha (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're quite right, it would not be appropriate. What you'll probably find though is that whichever reviewer picks up the first of the articles will probably be quite willing to review the rest. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation styles - MoS question

The Wikipedia:Good article criteria outline the criteria for GA. It does not say specifically that References must be in a consistent format as MoS does in some places. In reading other GA reviews, I see that some reviewers require this, while others say that if the general effort toward referencing is good and most statements are referenced, without considering reference style, that is enough for GA. What is the case? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Pyrotec (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K. So I gather that, unlike FAC, GA does not require consistency in referencing format? (In a quick scan of the page, I do not see consistency mentioned.) —Mattisse (Talk) 19:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the page says "Each article should use the same method throughout" and "Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent." Dana boomer (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice that many reviewers do not address this. It should be emphasized in the brief Wikipedia:Good article criteria. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, that's WP:CREEP. The important differentiator for GA vs. non-GA is that GA's are well-referenced, and for GA vs. FA that FA's are commensurately and consistently referenced. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Every single moment that a reviewer is tempted to spend checking consistency of reference format, I would encourage them instead to spend checking that the sources are reliable and support the assertions made in the article. Geometry guy 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. It's astonishing how many times, when you click on a link, it says nothing like what it's intended to be supporting. Or in one case I recently came across, a commercial web site for a B&B used in support of a claim about an area's geology. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! I go along with the suggestion not to spend time worrying about the consistency issue, but rather focus on other issues such as accuracy. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I would certainly mention the inconsistency, but I wouldn't fail because of it. More likely fix it myself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Links and reports

Yesterday, Geometry guy went through and added links to the appropriate GA section to each of the subheaders on the GAN page. However, this appears to have adversely affected the scripts that run the GAN backlog report and the GAN backlog template that sits at the top of the page. I've fixed the template one for now (it will go back to being messed up when it runs again!), but you can see what I mean by viewing the full backlog report here. I'm not sure if we should just remove the links, or if something else can be done. Thoughts from the community? Dana boomer (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the scripts are more important than wikilinks, but that once we get some wikilink-tolerant scripts in place, the links should be reinserted. Do we know who coded the scripts, and can we get them and Geometry guy working hand-in-hand? Jclemens (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! It is only the links in section headings which are problematic. We can keep the rest, which is almost as useful to nominators and reviewers. I'm afraid the editor who operates the bot is not very active, so there isn't much else to do. Geometry guy 18:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Featured short articles"

There's an interesting discussion over at WT:Featured_article_candidates#Wikipedia:Excellent_short_articles. A new designation for high-quality short articles could have an effect on which articles are brought to GAN and how they're reviewed, so please take a peek. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what kinds of impacts you see the Excellent short articles proposal having on GAN. I'm not sure I see any at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GA was initially created to recognize articles that were too short to be featured, so now that a new featured category is being proposed, it might greatly affect GA. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For better or for worse, GA has moved on significantly from that original vision. Which is why I don't see what potential impacts this may have. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This process is a wake-up call to the GA community. GA has strayed too far from its initial goal of recognising excellent short articles. With the introduction of FSAs, GA will eventually become redundant; this is what the FAC community want. I urge GA regulars to ensure that GA continues to successfully recognise excellent short articles - without excluding longer articles, of course. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your conclusion is premature. The wake-up call is to FAC, to reach some agreement about how "comprehensive" ought to be defined for that process. In turn, that may lead to a minimum length at FAC. Neither of these things have happened yet though. GA does not discriminate against short articles, so long as they cover their subject's major topics. Unless a new "Featured short article" process was to relax the present FA requirement for comprehensiveness I really can't see the point. Well, to be cynical, I can see one point; GAs will never be allowed to display the GA symbol, but Featured short articles would. 'Nuff said. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To a certain extent, GA has strayed from its original goal. In a recent discussion, several GA regulars said that articles about sportspeople need "Personal life" sections to attain GA status (although others, like me, disagreed). I believe that GA is still able to fulfil that mission (of recognising excellent short articles), but more must be done to ensure it continues to do so. The FSA process competes with the GA process and, if the proposal passes, might threaten the future of GA. Somehow, I feel that the FA regulars are doing this to get rid of GA, but I will assume good faith for now. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The initial discussion was about something called "Featured short articles". That probably would have had an impact of some kind, but more recent discussion has shied away from calling them "Featured" ... and I agree, Malleus. I suppose it's possible that "Excellent short articles" will have some kind of impact, but it's not something I'd be interested in pushing. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as per my comments above, it's no secret that I think the Featured short articles proposal was at best half-baked. I agree with your view of "Excellent short articles" though, can't see that setting the world of wikipedia on fire. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, one more backlogged community review process in need of reviewers is just what we need ;) I don't see it having much of an impact either, really, as I don't see how it would differ substantially from GA. EyeSerene^talk 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

G-Guy's idea

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

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

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

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

I think this idea has a bright future, and I'd like to see more input. For the benefit of folks who don't want all the GAN nominations in their watchlist, I've copied everything in this subsection to WT:WGA#DYK. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally! GAs may appear on the Main Page! Of course, the GAs would need to be checked before appearing on the Main Page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. The above-mentioned "quick review" should be focused mainly on fact-checking. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)