Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Future sporting events

Does the "don't nominate movies that haven't been released yet" rule apply to sporting events for stability rules? Someone nominated UEFA Euro 2008 but since the event in question is a year away and obviously massive amounts of editing will be done to reflect the circumstances that actually occur (obviously there can be no general "results" section yet, for example), should it be quickfailed? Cheers, CP 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem with this. Of course, once the UEFA Euro 2008 competition has occured, and the article meets the criteria in place at that time, there is nothing wrong with it becoming a GA then. Wikipedia is not in a rush... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If the event is close at hand, there's hardly a point in making such an article a GA at all, the content will almost certainly change radically in the very near future, barring catastropic disaster which disables Wikipedia. However, if the article probably won't be changing radically in the near future, why not acknowladge an article in such a state as good if it really is good? Such an article could maintain stability and quality for many months after all. But i'm only speaking about a hypothetical article, in this particular article's case, there seems to be so little information that the article is more like a list at the moment. Homestarmy 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to quick fail this when I saw it turn up yesterday, for this very reason. I was going to use the precedent set at 2007 Rugby World Cup, and the good grace the Rugby crowd took that failure, as the rationale in the talk page. In the end though, being a very recent addition to the GA reviewer crowd, I chickened out decided to let a more experienced reviewer do it! There are also only 5 references in there. Exactly the same reasons were used for failure when they took the article to FAC a few months ago. Carre 07:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's not even limited to future sporting events. What about future construction projects? A lot of the sections just have one sentence because there simply isn't enough information out there yet, so I suppose this one would fail for "broadness of coverage" most likely. Cheers, CP 20:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How about using Y and N in GA Fails so future reviewers know what to look for?

An idea, based on my experience: When a reviewer fails a GAC, it would be helpful for future reviewers (after the article has been improved and re-nominated) if the first review lists the criteria, followed by {{Y}} and {{N}} tags. This way, the second reviewer can easily see what was good about the article and what needed work. (Obviously, improvements and negative changes are possible, but this would give us a good place to start considering what to look for.) I personally feel limited by templates like {{PGAN}}, but the checks and X's would be useful for me.

What do other folks think? – Scartol · Talk 16:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You could use {{GAList}} instead of {{PGAN}}. Geometry guy 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) G'guy beat me to it! Yes, GAList uses buttons which cover pass, fail, question, and (apparently) "what the fuck?". LaraLove 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In the good way, I hope ;) Geometry guy 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone's going to have their own personal opinions and preferences on how to pass/fail articles, so whatever works best for a particular reviewer is fine with me. Personally, I'm not a big fan of {{Y}} and {{N}} tags; I see them used quite heavily at WP:FAC, and I don't think it really helps the process much -- it gives the false impression to editors that, by fixing the specific issues that are listed, the article will pass. This isn't often the case, as many times, its impossible to list ALL of the issues that are wrong with the article, so it's better to direct your review more closely to the GA criteria (or FA criteria, for that matter). {{GAList}}, IMHO, does a far better job at this. Plus, it's only one meta-data tag, instead of potentially using several, which could slow things down (the heavy use of the {{Y}} and {{N}} tags at WP:FAC is one of the major reasons why that page takes a long time to load, BTW),... Dr. Cash 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I generally use the list, and then write a detail explanation of exactly how I feel the article fails to meet the criteria, so sort of the best of both worlds. Also, if there's confusion on my review on behalf of the nominator or a future reviewer, they're always welcome to draw me back to the article and explain myself. I hold myself accountable for everything I write. On a tangent, Dr. Cash, the hold on Labrador Retriever is over twice past due now, might be time to shoo it away. Easier for me to prod you here than on your talk page. =)Cheers, CP 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this all really need to be mandatory? Some people (like myself) might prefer to give a GA review in paragraph format, explaining how an article meets or does not meet the GA criteria, rather than running through a list, or using any templates at all. Besides, those templates can't list specifics, so a reviwer won't know exactly where to look in an article to find old errors, i'd hope a reviewer would look for violations of any of the GA criteria in a review, not just the ones mentioned by a previous reviewer. Homestarmy 18:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In my view, the prose is the most important part of the review, so I definitely approve of Canadian Paul's approach. I don't think any template or style of review should be mandatory, but it would be reasonable to define "best practice". Geometry guy 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what I do...although only a newbie here, I figured that the list is an easy & quick reference to the fails, but recognizing it doesn't give any help to the editors on how to fix, the sectioned prose following goes into the specifics. I guess pretty much what CP does. Carre 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! You should write the "GA review best practice" essay! Geometry guy 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oooh. Carre yours is even better than mine because yours divides the prose by section too. I do mine chronologically (at least, in the order that the information appears in the article), which generally prevents me from doing it by section - but I think that any review that clearly states where and in what capacity the article fails in is good. And like I said, the reviewer should be able to go back at any time and explain exactly what the issues are to other editors and the nominator. Cheers, CP 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah, I guess {{GAList}} is the best option, but the aesthete in me just doesn't like the side-by-side (and lowercase) a and b style. I'd like to make an alternate, but I don't feel comfortable with subst and /doc stuff yet. If I design something, could someone else help me or do that part? – Scartol · Talk 01:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've done up a modest proposal in my sandbox. In addition to the style stuff listed above, I've rephrased the items as questions, and made them all into positive options, so that the use of pro- or con- icons is consistent. (Does a pro- vote for "Lack of images" – 6b – mean the article does lack images or does not lack them?) Comments and feedback are welcome, and again if someone can walk me through the next steps I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think of it this way. A "nay" vote for "Lack of images" means that the article lacks images despite the fact that free images could be reasonably believed to be available. Example: Wade Mainer got an award from the United States national government, but I never thought to check the award's site to see if there was a free picture until someone suggested that I do - and indeed there was. So if I had submitted that article for GA before I got the picture, I could get a "nay" because an image was available that I did not use. Cheers, CP 17:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

But that's not what a "nay" vote for "Lack of images" suggests to me. It's like asking: "Does this cup lack fluid?" "No" would mean it does not lack fluid, meaning it has fluid in it. Notice that all the other items on the template are positive-format: Well-written, etc. Those make immediate sense to me. It's a minor point, to be sure, since both templates will remain available. – Scartol · Talk 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jumping back in late to the conversation. I don't think any one format should be required or even recommended. I started with one, went to another, then decided on the way I do it now (example here). I use GAList (although will now use GAList2) and then list issues below that in the order they appear in the article with the same section headers used in the article. I think that makes it easiest for the custodians to find issues. LaraLove 03:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

COI and GA status

In reviewing the article Dale Smith (playwright), I come to find that its primary author is, well, the author himself (via his account of User:Sheriff Bernard). I am going to fail the article on other grounds, but it brings up an important point: what effect should strong evidence of conflict of interest have on a GA review? VanTucky ^Talk 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Chuckle. I think that a COI like this should be quick-fail. Isn't it a kind of WP:OR? – Scartol · Talk 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless the article itself suffers in quality because of the COI, i'm not sure what the problem is :/. As long as the references don't say "This statement is true, because I said so. Signed: Dale Smith", or anything like that.... Homestarmy 02:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I stand with Homestarmy. Of course, such cases need extra caution, but there's no reason to deny self-written articles the GA review. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 02:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not okay not just because of the immediate potential for biased content, but because people should not be writing autobiographies, on general principle. Wikipedia is not a web host. Not only has the author self-cited anecdotally in directly editing, but his own website is used a "reliable source" for completely inappropriate verification. If that's not "suffering in quality", nothing is. VanTucky ^Talk 04:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If this kind of problems are detected in the review, then they should be used as a basis of the fail. Predisposition against an article because of a conflict of interest in its writing should not, in itself, be a reason for fail; such conflict should just make the reviewer extra careful.

From the pragmatic side of the things, it is not really a good idea to punish openness and honesty, and that's exactly what we'd be doing if we'd be excluding self-written articles from the GA process. It would lead people to hide their conflicts of interest -- because this would be the rational thing to do --, and this would be a bigger problem. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we might cause people to hide their COIs, but it seems to me that the truly rational thing to do is not write about oneself in articles! I thought this was a given on Wikipedia. I don't see any rules or guidelines prohibiting this sort of thing, but the COI page does mention that user subpages are the best place for autobiographies. While I suppose the two aren't inherently linked, I can't imagine how a person could add to a page on him/herself without creating COI or other significant problems which will prevent GA status.

Besides, as the Onion article posted above demonstrates, I think it's just sad/silly for a person to pad an article about him/herself. A person's legacy is decided by others, right? – Scartol · Talk 14:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The link you were perhaps looking for Scartol (that very strongly discourages, but does not blankly forbid, autobiographies) is WP:AUTO. The bottom line is, it's allowable if the content has been vetted by the community in a very clear cut way. Obviously a case such as this one, where the content was in reality exclusively edited by the subject without significant outside involvement along the way, is a violation of that prohibition. VanTucky ^Talk 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah, that's precisely what I was looking for. Thanks, VT. Next time I should try typing in WP:NAMEOFTHINGI'MLOOKINGFOR. – Scartol · Talk 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that autobiographies are more than likely problematic for an encyclopedia the majority of the time. To be broad, there must be a criticism section, usually. And I doubt most people would write their own accurate (according to reliable sources) criticism section. LaraLove 03:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.

   Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[1]

——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but there is a difference between contributing to an article of a subject you are invested in and writing an article on yourself, by yourself (for the most part, if not entirely). Personally, I don't think there's any problem at all with editors working on articles for which they have a vested interest as long as they follow policy. Michael Vick could edit his own article and that would be fine, in my opinion, as long as he wasn't removing sourced criticism, information on his legal issues, etc. or adding unsourced information that he knows to be true. That's my view of it. LaraLove 03:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GAList2 now available

If anyone's interested, I went ahead and made a {{GAList2}} template. Each item is on a separate line, and the headings are questions. Thanks to AzaToth for the original code. – Scartol · Talk 00:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic Admirals in the United States Navy

I was going to fail the article because I felt it was original research in that it did use sources but the sources never directly state anything specifically about Hispanic Admirals in the US Navy, it was just more facts that had something either to do with Hispanics in the military or admirals in general. I would like another reviewer to look at it as well. T Rex | talk 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's OK - for as long as the sources back up the fact they're placed inline with, it should suffice. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That't not the issue, it's whether the topic is supported by sources itself. T Rex | talk 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• T Rex, you asked for a second opinion of an experienced editor and that is what User:Dihydrogen Monoxide has given you. As I have stated before "Original Research" did not go into this article. Everything has it's verfiable source as required by Wikipedia policy. This is an original article which I created. Look at the "Hispanic" surnames or the place of birth of those Hispanics who do not have Hispanic surnames. This artcle is about "Hispanic Admirals" per se and is not advancing to make a point. When you gather different ideas or sources to advance another position, then that would be original research. However, this is a listing of various Hispanic admirals in a well organized article with the proper title. I always write about themes and subjects which you rarely find in the internet. To give you an example of my work, you can check these: Military history of Puerto Rico and Hispanic Americans in World War II. Hey I know that you are well intentioned and I take it as such, but I hope that another editor will look into the situation and make a decision since it has been almost a month since the article has been nominated. Thank you Tony the Marine 06:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the article GA class (01:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)) the debate was dormant and other then haveing few sources the article is above GA class. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 01:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple of questions

I have some questions for the more experienced reviewers out there:

In the course of reviewing Wisden Trophy, I did a fair bit of copy-editing. Does that invalidate me from having the final say on pass/fail? (The article is on hold for other reasons at the moment, but once sorted I think it should pass).

Is an online citation source that requires a viewer to register (in this instance, cricinfo) acceptable for GA?

I was going to ask for a second opinion, once the on-hold issues are addressed, for these reasons. However, if I ask the questions now, then I may not have to! Thanks. Carre 14:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You can actively improve an article as you review it. You just don't want to review articles you've already contributed substantially to prior to nomination. As far as sources requiring registration, you want to avoid those if other sources are available. However, if you can find no other sources, they can be used. Those that require a subscription are even less appreciated, so for those you really need to find another source. LaraLove 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Though in some fields such as chemistry, nearly all of the primary sources online require (very expensive) subscriptions - so for an article like aldol reaction there may be no choice....! Walkerma 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because something isn't found online for free doesn't automatically invalidate the source. Even academic journals can still be obtained for free by pretty much anyone that wants it, by **gasp** going to the library! Plus, most sites requiring subscription will at least off the abstract free of charge. Dr. Cash 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor things like copyediting are acceptable for GA reviewers, and almost expected, for many articles. Even finding a few citations yourself for uncited material is fine. What you want to be careful of, is reviewing an article and then adding complete sections of information before passing it yourself. Dr. Cash 00:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say that I didn't mean that paid subscriptions invalidate a source. I just meant you should try to use free sources when available. That aside, for what Dr. Cash has said, if you feel there are whole sections needing to be added or changed, talk it out on the talk page with the review and let the editors of the article make the changes. That's how I do it. LaraLove 04:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Using sources which require log-in to access to archives are fine, just as it's fine to use literary sources like books (more people probably have access to the news archive than many books). An article I wrote passed FAC with about 50% of sources which are now-archived news reports. Daniel 05:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Streamlining

As a side issue to a pointless discussion about merging GA with PR, it has been pointed out that the GAN page is rather complicated. I guess it hasn't been looked at for some time, as some of the instructions were out-of-date. Anyway, I've taken the liberty of giving it a bit of a copyedit and tidy. I hope I've not done anything controversial. In particular, I've moved the instructions to a /guidelines subpage, and intend to work on it a bit there. I hope others will join in if necessary. Geometry guy 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks great. I was going to talk to you about the possibility of changing around so that the two columns would no longer be columns but one above the other, then I saw you'd done it. Looks good. Lara❤Love 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes, mostly cosmetic. Those interested are invited to check out the /guidelines subpage. Geometry guy 23:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 29/9/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 29th September 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Derek.cashman
2. Canadian Paul
3. VanTucky
4. Carre
5. Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Epbr123 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good work everyone! VanTucky ^Talk 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to all of the other four reviewers! Keep up the great work! Sadly, the backlog still isn't getting any smaller,... On another note, I'm a bit surprised that I got the #1 spot again -- I thought I was slipping a bit as I was busy with other things, like trying to salvage Criticism of Wal-Mart from losing its GA status! Dr. Cash 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was doing well early in the week...2 reviews a day at one stage. But it couldn't last...maybe next week :D  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think everyone's putting in such great effort, but it's a bit disheartening how little, if at all, the backlog goes down. I try to do one review a day (quickfails not withstanding), partially because I want to make sure the one review I do gets the attention it deserves and partially because nominating articles like this for deletion shows how "You don't seem to understand the purpose of wikipedia.org". Sigh. Part of the reason I started assessing articles was because it's more pleasant to work on quality from the top than the bottom. Anyhow, congratulations to Dr. Cash and all those who are reviewing! If nothing else, we're at least keeping it below 200 most days! Cheers, CP 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to thank you all as well. I don't review as much as I should (I'm more interested in building articles myself), but I do plan to do more of it once I've finished with my three front-burners. Your diligence is appreciated. – Scartol · Talk 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of discussions

I have moved some of the discussions, such as those pertaining to the 'Good Article Ladder', 'streamlining', and 'feature good articles daily', over to WikiProject Good Articles, since these deal more with issues pertaining to the development of the overall GA program. Dr. Cash 05:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Wrad 05:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How to do a review

I added Cave Junction, Oregon to be reviewed, so I figured I'd review one in return. I've never done it before, so I'm a bit uncertain. I was thinking I'd do Roslin Castle. It needs a better lead paragraph, but otherwise I'd say it's a good article, except for maybe needing references. It doesn't have a ref at the end of each paragraph. Should this be a sticking point? They aren't controversial statements, mostly sentences like

Roslin was more severely damaged by the Earl of Hertford, who burned the castle during the War of the Rough Wooing in 1544. The keep was all but destroyed, and its one remaining ruined wall can still be seen.

or paragraphs like

The castle was rebuilt in the late 16th century. A new five storey east range was built into the side of the rock, and the gatehouse was rebuilt, this time with a permanent stone bridge. The upper part of the east range was renovated in 1622, with renaissance details and carving to door and window surrounds. Roslin suffered again from the artillery of Cromwell’s commander in Scotland, General Monck, in 1650. It was further damaged by a Reforming mob in 1688.

The bulk of the refs are books, so I imagine it came from one or more of them, but I can't tell which one, or which pages. Should I give it a hold-on and list all the problems on the talk page, or is it acceptable. - Peregrine Fisher 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for taking on a review yourself - although it's suggested on the Nominations page, it's much appreciated (and rarer than it should be!).

Secondly, the good article criteria are listed here, if you haven't already found them. You are correct in saying the lead needs work; this is enough of a reason in itself to put the article on hold. The consensus on citations for GA currently seems to be that there should be a minimum of one per paragraph (preferably at the end), with additional cites for sentences that obviously need them. Whether this is a 'hold' or 'fail' criteria would depend on the extent of the problem - basically your judgement call. I also noticed that the books given as references don't have ISBNs - we'd recommend to editors using the templates on WP:CITET for this.

Personally I'd be inclined to put the article on hold, but I've seen other reviewers fail similar articles. Again - your call ;) I hope this helps, and thanks again for your input. EyeSerene^TALK 22:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That helps a lot, thanks. - Peregrine Fisher 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How long should I wait for a response about improving the article before I assign a fail? The nominator hasn't made any edits today since I commented on the articles talk page. - Peregrine Fisher 03:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Seven days is the norm. I've updated the article template to reflect your hold; you've done a good job on the review - your comments are fair, informative and in line with the criteria. You may also wish to notify the nominator that you have placed the article on hold; this sometimes gets more of a response (although as you noted, with a drive-by nomination this may not bear fruit!). All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 07:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

GAs of uncertain notability

I was thinking about reviewing Mon Calamari cruiser, but I'm not sure it meets notability standards. All but two of its refrences (Mon Calamari cruiser#References) are related to Star Wars and George Lucas. Are we supposed to take this into account? In other respects it's a good little article on a little subject. - Peregrine Fisher 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it meets notability standards. Lara❤Love 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll review it. - Peregrine Fisher 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If an article isn't notable, then it should probably be sent to AfD instead of being reviewed. Homestarmy 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Homestarmy, but I also think that this isn't a notability issue. I think the article is fine in that area. Wrad 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Review workshop

All reviewers taking part in WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:PR, are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia:Content review/workshop. While there's no specific proposals on changing anything currently, we're trying to initiate a friendly discussion regarding the review processes on wikipedia as a whole, and how to improve all of them. Dr. Cash 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have argued against the fast set-up of this workshop by Marskell at WP:VPR#Workshop. I think it would be better if Mike Christie drove the process. However, any initiative whose goal is to generate friendly discussion and improvement of process cannot be a bad thing. Geometry guy 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I've made a proposal to add to the quick-fail criteria at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing good articles#Addition to the quick-fail criteria.3F VanTucky ^Talk 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

LONG

The LONG modification appears to be a throwback to the days when 32K mattered. Now every article has its length in the edit history, so I will remove it. Geometry guy 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nowadays all it means is Not Short. Wrad 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it is important to me! I never review those, as I simply don't have the time to give a thorough review to an article of this bulk. I also believe we should still encourage authors of longer articles to go straight for FA, as I believe they somehow clutter the process OR force not-so-stellar reviews (in my experience, reviewing a long article takes about three to four the same time than a short article, if done thoroughly). I am wasting all the time I could use reviewing posting on those talk pages anyway... PrinceGloria 06:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PrinceGloria: it is a useful disclaimer to any potential reviewers that the article will take a bit longer to review. Regardless of what it used to imply, it still seems useful to me.Drewcifer 06:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For every listed article, much more precise information is just one click away: history. Geometry guy 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't "discourage" people from posting them here. I really believe this process doesn't work too well with too long articles. Also, conversely, it is a very little thing a nominator can do for the reviewers. PrinceGloria 06:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal, having queried the relevance of the 'long' label before. IMO it's just as easy, and more informative, to quickly scan through an article before deciding whether or not to review. EyeSerene^TALK 08:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

G'guy, how dare you make such a bold, unilateral move without consesnsus! :P Personally, I agree with SandyGeorgia. I don't really do GAN anymore for the time being, but it was useful to me b/c I too would quickly scan past those for lack of time. Lara❤Love 16:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty radical, aren't I! A whole line of process removed at the click of a mouse :) Seriously though, no one reads instructions anyway, so you can expect people used to marking LONG's to continue to do so, and others to omit it, whether the instruction is there or not. Geometry guy 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep long tag. Everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that some browsers crash when trying to load pages over this length, as is widely known. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that was only old browsers from back in the day and not really an issue anymore. Lara❤Love 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question on Images in BLP

I'm working towards nominating an article that I have been working on for GA status, but I had a question. Forgive me for my ignorance, but I remember hearing that a BLP can't become a good article if it has no picture (which, of course, means a free picture in most, if not all circumstances). Is that true? My attempts to acquire a free picture of this individual have met with much frustration, but I was wondering whether or not this was a requirement. This will also be useful as I review BLP articles myself for GA (I've avoided reviewing BLP's; this is one of the reasons). Cheers, CP 23:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this rule before, and it sounds very silly if its somehow part of the GA criteria. Fair Use images of living people are not always readily available, and certainly shouldn't be expected in 100 percent of all BLP's. Homestarmy 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The "rule" is that images be included if available and when appropriate. If there is no free image available, then it can be GA without. You just don't want to have a fair use image included. Lara❤Love 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay great! Thanks! I was working through all the points on the peer review and worried that something like that might stop it... Cheers, CP 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Not needed for GA, although at FAC they might get a bit more picky.  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Marathon

Tomorrow will make one month that this article has been listed. Is it appropriate to ask someone to review this today or tomorrow since this year's race is on Sunday.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Easy: unstable. :-) Geometry guy 20:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on how the article is structured, would having the information about this years race really change it that much? Homestarmy 21:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke, sorry for any confusion. Geometry guy 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Logo needs a FUR. --Nehrams2020 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the race is a current story this week. So when I was reading a magazine on the bus this week I saw info that helped improve the encyclopedic content of the article. So yes, adding this years info is worth adding.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect to WP:FUR, most athletic organizations such as Major League Baseball, Los Angeles Dodgers, Montreal Canadiens, New York Giants, Olympic Games and Indianapolis 500 are allowed a Fair use image. I will try to run it up the flagpole however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The people at WP:FUR, think you meant it needed a WP:FURG, which they have helped me to provide. Again, any assistance in an expedited WP:GAC review would be greatly appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration about the wait, but why is it imperative that it be passed or failed before the race on Sunday? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I doubt it makes a difference. VanTucky ^Talk 19:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in Tony's defense, the article was listed on September 5, which was about a month ago. So it has been on the page awhile. I don't think I'd say this is a case of an "expedited review" here. As far as stability is concerned, I don't think there's any edit warring in the article, and I think it's unlikely that the article will see a huge increase in editing after the event, unlike things like football & basketball teams & games, which tend to have far more passionately involved fans that are far more likely to insert inappropriate POV into an article than a couple of marathon runners. Plus, the article is about the chicago marathon as a whole, not just a single year's event. Dr. Cash 00:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, there are at least five articles that haven't been reviewed that were posted before Chicago Marathon. IvoShandor 10:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Backlog

This may be obvious, but isn't it possible that a big reason for the backlog is that we're in the middle of GA sweeps? That's taking up the time of some of our best reviewers. While I admit we have a backlog, I think that we are just in the middle of an unusual bottleneck period. I don't really think the system itself is under threat. Wrad 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Once sweeps are done, more time will be freed up by some of the more experienced reviewers, so it will get better. Plus, the backlog has gone down a little bit this week, too. Dr. Cash 20:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That's probably it. Also, there have been a couple of users just going around and nominating all the big name articles, which doesn't exactly help things. VanTucky ^Talk 20:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

How are sweeps doing, anyway? How do you do them? I've been debating jumping in... Wrad 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this maybe wishful thinking. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/Project_quality_task_force/Sweeps/Running_total, there are only 11 reviewers doing sweeps. Admittedly, they are generally among the more experienced and prolific reviewers, but in several cases (e.g. the impressive Dr. Cash) they continue to review many good article nominations. Geometry guy 16:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

First review

Hi, thought that I would step in and pick up a review as I have made a nomination. Took a look at an article in the list and found to is under formal arbitration - presumably this would constitute a quick fail even though there are no current edit-wars. Keith D 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Which article is this? Wrad 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami - I have not marked it as yet on the page. Keith D 22:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Took a quick look at it, and I can't say the article is ready for GA. Lots of manual of style issues, lots of short sections, referencing is sporadic and inconsistent (two sentence have like 10 cites on them?!?!), there's some listing going on at the end. It looks like the article needs quite a bit of work. Dr. Cash 08:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 6/10/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 6th October 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Derek.cashman
2. Canadian Paul
3. Johnfos
4. VanTucky
5. Noeticsage.
Epbr123 09:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to Derek and others. I feel we put a dent in the backlog over this past week... Johnfos 09:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to all the other reviewers! The backlog did make a noticeable jump downwards this week, which is good. Maybe once sweeps is over, we'll get rid of the rest,... ;-) Dr. Cash 18:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another one for Dr.Cash :). Man people must envy you. Congrats though. Can someone help me with these? I wanna be as good as you guys, but I make too many mistakes.Mitch32^contribs 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright Cash, that's the last straw. I'm calling in my favor from the Gambino family ;) Good work everyone! VanTucky ^Talk 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't wear cement shoes,... I only make them! ;-) Dr. Cash 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Quickfail of One Night Stand (2006)

As I plan to review December to Dismember (2006) later tonight, I'm wondering if the rationale for quickfail on that article was justified or not. At first I though not, because the self-published sources criteria doesn't seem to apply in that case, but perhaps I'm wrong or have missed part of the policy. Anyhow, I wanted to know because, if it is justified, it'll more or less force me to fail the December article (not quickly though, since there are SOME non-WWE sources in that one). Cheers, CP 17:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Simplifying GAN: do we need to keep articles under review on this page?

(This is partly a continuation of the streamlining thread above, but is a separate question that has emerged out of similar discussions.)

Although some further cosmetic simplifications of the GAN guidelines are possible, there is a limit to what can be achieved, because GAN has become a rather elaborated process. Articles are first nominated, then put on review, then maybe on hold, perhaps withdrawn, or a second opinion is sought, etc. etc. Why do we need all this? Or, to ask the basic question that prompts this post:

Once a nominated article has a reviewer, why should it remain listed at GAN?

Surely a simpler system would be as follows.

1. Article editors nominate articles by listing them at GAN.
2. Interested reviewers peruse the list and choose an article to review. One they do so, they remove it from the list and leave a message on the article talk page (not here).
3. The rest of the process is conducted on the article talk page: the reviewer studies the article, lists issues, the article is edited, and a pass/fail decision is made. Talk page templates are updated, and if the article is passed, it is added to WP:GA.

The sole purpose of {{GAReview}} is to inform other reviewers that the article is under review. Isn't it simpler just to remove the article from the list of nominations seeking reviewers? In this viewpoint, GAN is a dating service between nominators and reviewers: once the date is made, the agent does not attend.

What would we lose? Well, {{GAonhold}} would no longer be needed: this is a matter for discussion between nominator and reviewer on the article talk page. {{GA2ndopinion}} would no longer be formalized: an unsure reviewer could either call a friend, or have the article renominated. Such formalization is, in my view, instruction creep, and would be no loss at all. Geometry guy 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for anything that avoids instruction creep - the only concerns I'd have are...

• The 'second opinion' template is more likely to get the attention of other reviewers by being visible to everyone; relying on asking a friend etc assumes such people are accessible, and renominating adds the article back to the GAN page anyway.
• Tracking review progress: there have been a few concerns recently about reviews taking too long and multiple simultaneous reviews. These are more likely to be picked up with the 'under review' template also visible to everyone.

You've done a fantastic job on clarifying and trimming so far. The whole package is now much more user-friendly. It's possible that the complexity of the process puts off potential new reviewers, but, since the process is open to anyone to participate, I do think we are now approaching a minimum functional level of instructions. EyeSerene^TALK 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'll echo Eye's praise of your work on this page so far. But I don't think removing articles under review from here is a good idea at all. Otherwise, there is no easy, centralized way of keeping track of the status of all reviews. Without having them continue to be listed here until they pass or fail, reviews could very easily slip through the cracks. Being able to see which noms that have been "under review" and on hold for too long is an essential tool. There simply must be a page where all reviews currently underway are listed, and separate pages for unreviewed noms and those currently underway would just create more bureaucracy and confusion. VanTucky ^Talk 21:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with EyeSerene and VanTucky; I think the costs would outweigh the benefits. Epbr123 22:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments and the comments too, but... what's the problem, why centralize? Does it matter if reviews slip through the cracks? They can be renominated. Multiple reviews simply wouldn't occur if nominations were removed from the GAN page.

A couple of clarifications: first, the second opinion template was introduced barely a month ago and I think it is an example of the instruction creep that is inevitable when a process is centralized; second, I am not proposing any new pages: definitely no page for reviews underway (what's the point of that?), no new bureaucracy, nothing, just pure simplicity. Geometry guy 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, are you serious? Of course it matters if reviews slip through the cracks. We're trying to fix GA if we can, not make it more inefficient. VanTucky ^Talk 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very serious. You do not make a car more efficient by stopping it ever 10 miles to check its tyre pressures are optimal. Geometry guy 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny analogy, but I'm firmly against any measure that throws what modicum of efficiency we have here out the window in the name of cleaning up the page a little. Making people renominate, possibly even multiple times, because we have zero way of keeping track of reviews that are supposed to be going on is not an improvement. So the page is a little difficult to navigate? Deal with it. Removing a necessary function isn't worth being tidier. VanTucky ^Talk 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You totally misunderstand my purpose and my analogy. Imagining stopping a car every 10 miles to check the tyres. That is inefficient. I'm not talking about tidying the page, but the process. Events that occur rarely should not obstruct the entire process. It is rare that a reviewer offers to review an article but then doesn't. It is extremely common that an article needs to be put on hold. To which of these two process do you think it is best to add an administrative burdon? Geometry guy 23:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care how you phrase it. For reviewers, keeping the on hold and under reviewnoms on the page is essential. There's no two ways about it. VanTucky ^Talk 01:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How about placing "hold-up" templates on the article talk page, with the template containing a category–Category:Good article nominations under review or Category:Good article nominations requiring a second opinion? Statuses can thus remain tracked and the nominations page is streamlined. For those who want dates, get a bot to update a list based on the category members.–Outriggr § 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there already some page out there that gathers statistics on the current GAN list, including which reviews have a current status of some kind? Homestarmy 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one that tracks reviews currently underway like the general pass/fail statistical one. But the {{WikiProjectGATasks}} banner template does. VanTucky ^Talk 01:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was already this: Category:Good article nominees seeking second opinion which is added by {{GA2ndopinion}}. And Category:Good article nominees currently on hold is added by {{GAonhold}}. Perfect! What more is needed for tracking than that? So, I agree with Geometry guy. For articles simply "under review", just claim the review with an edit comment upon removal. I don't think knowing what's "under review" is necessary: if something gets missed, the nominator will speak up. –Outriggr § 03:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually believe keeping them all here is a good idea - it helps get an overview of how many reviews are actually completed. Artificially deflating the list by removing some articles to other categories is not really remedying anything. How would you keep track of prolonged "holds" and other attempts at, intended or accidental, procastrination? I believe a nomination should only be removed with a clear verdict - promote or fail. If anything, we could remove the "review" status (either you review or don't, don't "reserve for later"), as well as "On Hold" (if there is something to be fixed, fix it and renominate!) - but I could live with those too.

I believe it is more important now to restart the bot and keep track of overdrawn holds and "reviews" (though I really don't know what to do in the latter case - it might be that some editor has a pristine review almost ready, missing just a semicolon, or that they never got down to it). PrinceGloria 06:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's simpler to have all the info on one page, rather than reviewers having to keep checking on Category:Good article nominees seeking second opinion and Category:Good article nominees currently on hold. A nominee seeking a second opinion would recieve less exposure on a seperate page, which could slow down the review. Also, the articles at Category:Good article nominees seeking second opinion aren't categorised, which would make it harder for reviewers to identify the ones in there field of expertise. Epbr123 10:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a daily report generated by a bot that lists all the statistics for GAN. If these were removed, it would be much more difficult for me (or anyone else who feels inclined to do it) to track and deal with these things. Also, I find it to be a very big deal to let reviews slide through the cracks. The more poor quality articles we find during sweeps, the longer it's going to take. We want the community view of GA to improve. Having shotty articles tagged all the time isn't going to help in that. Lara❤Love 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a response to a couple of the issues raised. A talk page {{GAReview}} template could easily populate a category like Category:Good article nominees under review, and I think it would be a good thing anyway to notify the talk page that there is a reviewer. The category populated by the {{GAnominee}} template could then consist only of articles not under review. Such categories, together with those mentioned above, could be used to autolist the articles under review, on hold, or seeking a second opinion, either here, or on another page, if this is really needed.

The principle I tried to raise above is that the general process should not be driven by exceptions, as they slow down everything. Instead, as Outriggr points out, nominators should raise problems if something goes wrong (and be encouraged to do so).

This has limited impact on the statistics: the most important ones are about nominations which are not yet under review. Actually, as any bot-writer will tell you, it is much easier to read categories than parse pages, so a well-designed category system would enhance bot functionality, not reduce it.

Finally, policing the quality of good articles is going to get increasingly difficult as numbers grow: we need a decentralized solution to this issue, not a centralized one. Geometry guy 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Scalability

In posting the proposal of this section, I may have given the impression that my prime interest was in simplifying the instructions. Some of the replies have certainly indicated that simplification for its own sake is pointless, and I agree. However, my real interest is in whether the GA process will scale as the number of articles, nominations, and good articles increases. The number of articles is growing exponentially, and one might expect the number of nominations to follow this trend. It is therefore vitally important that the GA system scales well in response to this growth.

One of the beautiful features of GA is that scaling is built in, especially if nominators are encouraged to review another article. Because there is only one nominator and one reviewer, the same process can be happening thousands of times at no extra cost to anyone. However, any centralized aspect of the process will not scale, because everyone who needs to process centralized information will have to process a growing amount of information. This is my main reason for proposing to get articles off the nominations page as soon as possible.

It seems to me that there is currently a backlog crisis at GAN. If you look at the statistics, we now have 200 outstanding nominations: the last such peak was around 190 in May. Unfortunately, we don't have statistics on numbers of nominations being made, but anecdotally, editors have remarked that the numbers have increased (as indeed one would expect). It seems to me that even a modest increase in the nomination rate, like 5-10%, has the potential to overwhelm the process, and I think this may be happening now.

We do have statistics on the number of good articles we produce, and it is also easy to obtain statistics on the number of edits to this page. According to my calculations we are now generating 30% more good articles per month than we did a year ago (I averaged over Apr-Sep), but have 60% more traffic on this page. The discrepancy between the two figures is telling.

Instruction creep is related to this, in my view. Here are one or two oldid's from last year, just for comparison to our current process, even after my tidying up. In order for the process to work, we really need nominators to become reviewers. More precisely, we need the percentage of nominators who review an aricle when they nominate to be non-decreasing. Everything that discourages a potential reviewer damages our ability to respond to the increasing demand.

I have been glad to observe that suggestions to complicate this process further have been rejected, but I hope that proposals to simplify this process might be considered in the light of the challenge we face. Geometry guy 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Eloquently argued Gguy, and you do raise a very pertinent issue. All 'quality review' processes (FA, GA and PR) seem to be struggling at the moment; not only with increasing workload but also somewhat with their own purpose and identity. Without wishing to sound partisan, the GA project would appear to be coping best of the three. Yes, we have an increasing backlog, but we are the only one that also apparently has increasing participation (for purely pragmatic reasons, perhaps all three projects should come under the same banner per some of the proposals floating round at the moment, though I'm still on the fence on this one). I know it's not a new argument, but it's worth restating that "anyone can review a GA" ≠ "uniform review quality", so there absolutely has to be some method of tracking and monitoring reviews.

Personally I never found it time-consuming or arduous to update templates on the GAN page, even as a new reviewer. However, if such tracking can be done using categories in the templates, maybe we really don't need so much info on the GAN page. Perhaps we could give this proposal a trial - maybe a month or two - and see how it works?

On a related note, the part I do find time-consuming and arduous is actually passing a GA nom, due to the number of different pages and page sections that need to be updated. Any simplification of this process would be very welcome... ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The GA process is coping better than FA, because its basic model (one nominator, one reviewer) does scale: ideally, participation should grow with article growth. I understand and agree with the issue of maintaining uniform review quality, but we need to find a way to do this which also scales, and that is not easy.

I share your feeling about the tedious work involved in passing a GA nom. The same issue exists at GAR, because delisting a GA requires a similar number of edits. In my view the GA page should be autogenerated from article talk page templates. There is a set-up cost here, because we would need to add the lowest level topic to the GA template, but it would save a lot of work in the long run. Geometry guy 19:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Geometry guy, could you clarify what the benefits are for your idea? Is it to make the page tidier and shorter, and to save reviewers time by not having to add templates to the page? Epbr123 11:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Make the process simpler so that it can be understood, in outline, at a glance. I want a nominator coming to GAN to know instantly what it is about and how reviews take place, to maximise the chance that this nominator will also review an article, and hence add no net cost to the system. In the full-on version of my idea, the instructions would be shorter, and the page would only list articles seeking reviewers.
2. Carry out the rest of the process in one place: the article talk page. This is the best place for a dialogue between reviewer and nominator. Each template that the reviewer has to add is a cost, not just in terms of time, but irritation: contributing to the process should be a pleasure. Geometry guy 19:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking further about this today, and I realised that, in the long run, the key to making this process easier is to autogenerate both WP:GAN and WP:GA from article talk page templates. The nominator would place {{GAnominee}} on the article talk page, together with a parameter to define the lowest level topic of the nomination. This would put the article in a category, and a bot would list the articles in these categories at GAN. An editor wanting to review the article would go to the talk page and simply replace "GAnominee", with "GAreview" in the template. This would move the article from a category of nominations to a category "under review", and the bot would either no longer list the article at GAN, or add this information to the listing (as now).

• In the full-on version of my idea, there would be no further template changes until pass/fail. Everything would be a dialogue between reviewer and nominator. On pass/fail, the reviewer only has to replace "GAreview" by "GA" or "FailedGA" in the talk page template. This would change the category again, and in the pass case, a bot would automatically list the article at WP:GA.
• However, if editors here really want oversight of the review process (and I urge some reflection on the scalability of this), then intermediate stages of "GAonhold" and "GA2ndop" would be perfectly possible: they could be listed by a bot, either at GAN as now, or on a separate monitoring page.

The main point is that the whole story happens on the article talk page, eliminating the need to do almost everything twice. Geometry guy 19:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm liking the sound of this more and more - if all one has to worry about is pasting the correct template on to the talk page, the time spent making multiple updates (and the chances of accidentally skipping some) would be drastically reduced. One question though: how does this gel with the 'article history' templates in use on some articles? Would they all have to be changed back to specific GA templates, or can we adapt them as well (and who's going to tell Lara?).

Re tracking, wasn't there a bot that did this at one point? I'm sure I remember seeing a page that listed things like like overdue holds etc - could we just reinstate this and maybe add parameters for multiple reviews above a certain number, incomplete reviews etc?

EyeSerene^TALK 11:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Automating some of the processes is something I can really get behind, but we'd have to be more careful about watching the logs, since people sneaking articles through the system will become easier. As for ArticleHistory, I think the tags that aren't either GA, DelistedGA, or FailedGA could remain independent of the ArticleHistory template so the bot can understand them, and whenever one of those three tags does show up on the article talk, the bot could automatically add the information into a new ArticleHistory entry. Homestarmy 12:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) ArticleHistory is no problem: it just needs to populate the same categories as GA, FailedGA, and DelistedGA. The bot would function by reading the categories (or possible using "What links here") not by parsing the template.

(2) What we have at present is WP:GAN/R, which is updated by User:StatisticianBot. This keeps track of the backlogs, long holds etc. Geometry guy 14:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

On the logs, I was thinking more about the 1.0 GA statistics log, since that's the one actually tracking when the GA template is added or removed :/. Homestarmy 16:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea for a bot to maintain the list of GA nominees at all. Since the bot would very like run on a more limited time frame, probably about once every 24 hours, there would be a lot of time in between when an article has been reviewed and passed by not removed from the page, which would be very confusing to editors between updates. I suppose we could always just run the bot more often, like hourly, but that might be an unnecessary waste of bandwidth & resources, and I'm not sure if such a bot would even be approved with that frequent update profile anyway. In a way, though, these extra steps in editing multiple templates & pages is actually a good thing, since it's easier to track down some of the vandals and other editors that might try and sneak an article through the GA system by adding a template to the page. If it's still required to perform a few multiple edits to promote the article, then the less experienced vandals that try to sneak articles through will likely not be familiar with ALL the steps, and we'll find those bad articles a lot sooner,... Dr. Cash 00:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a 24hr update period as a huge problem for the GA list page - the appropriate templates will be on article talk pages and I'd bet that's all most nominees are concerned with anyway. How much passing traffic does the GA page actually get? I suspect little, other than when being updated. For the noms page, the original proposal was to remove these when they are taken for review, so presumably this would not be auto-updated anyway.

The point re drive-by passes is important... I suppose an updating bot could also look for a GA review on the same talk page (presumably containing a standard title or template itself), but this would just be adding complexity back into the process. If we can track when the templates are added/removed though (per Homestarmy above), it wouldn't be impossible to have a glance through the recent passes every now and then to quality-check; I don't think we're going to get away from the MkI Eyeball completely, scalable or otherwise. EyeSerene^TALK 16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The log i'm referring to does already track when the templates are added and removed, at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Good articles by quality log. Homestarmy 17:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

One update per 24 hours is standard for this kind of bot (and I don't think 24 hours is a long time), but if the bot is only reading categories and updating a couple of pages, it could run more frequently without adding a significant load to the servers. Checking the talk page for other templates is just too expensive, and may break when the review gets archived.

The whole question of quality checking needs serious thought independently of any moves towards automation, but the logs of changes would seem to be a good place to start, and should probably be more widely publicized. Geometry guy 16:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As there seems to be some interest in the automation idea (albeit with one dissenting voice) I think it is worth continuing the discussion, but possibly at WP:WGA rather than here. Geometry guy 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

automated review bots

Please refrain from the use of automated review bots while reviewing articles for GA status. The comments provided are very mundane and minor, not very helpful to editors, and really provide more information and go way beyond the Good Article criteria, which could be very confusing to some editors reading reviews. Dr. Cash 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Should we mention this in our review helps? Wrad 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so. In great big letters ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The two oldest nominations...

The two oldest nominations, Microformat and World Community Grid, are both listed as "under review" by User:Pursey, who has just indicated on his user page that he's taking a wikibreak for a family emergency. Since both these noms are almost two months old, should his "under review" notices been taken down so that someone can review the articles? Cheers, CP 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He was contacted about these early in the month and there was a response but no action taken. I would suggest someone take over these reviews if there is no response from Pursey a second time. VanTucky ^Talk 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 13/10/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Canadian Paul as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 13th October 2007. Canadian Paul is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Canadian Paul
2. Derek.cashman
3. VanTucky
4. Sandstein
5. Peripitus.
Epbr123 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see someone new on the top spot ;) Congrats all! EyeSerene^TALK 14:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Canadian Paul! You beat me, eh? ;-) Dr. Cash 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you gotta watch out for those sneaky Canadians! ;) Congrats to all though, the backlog never topped 200 all week, if I'm not mistaken, despite many incoming nominations! Cheers, CP 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand: I thought the GAN Reviewer of the week was supposed to be Dr. Cash. Has there been a procedural error? :-) Geometry guy 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha. A kink in the time-space continuum must have altered the results, somehow dropping some of Derek's work. Tragic. Lara❤Love 04:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oooh your streak got broked. T Rex | talk 05:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

More trouble than it's worth?

I think we should remove the Miscellaneous category from the nominations page. 90% of all the entries that go in there have to be removed and placed in a proper category. I've maybe seen five noms that truly fit the Misc. bill. I think removing it, and forcing people to have the patience to look for the place their nom should really go, is the best thing to do. Having to spend extra time reorganizing noms on this page is the last thing we want to be doing. Considering all the time and care reviewers give to nominated articles, I don't think it's too much to ask of nominators that they take the effort to help us out by properly categorizing their noms. VanTucky ^Talk 18:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Geometry guy 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section - the only article in it at the time (Guyball) was moved to the Miscellaneous recreation section. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree with removing this section, as there are some articles that could be somewhat more difficult to categorize and would be better left to more experienced GA reviewers instead of newer users. I don't think there's really a major problem and the miscellaneous category hasn't really seemed like it had a constant backlog. Plus, having it will encourage less experienced reviewers to submit an article if they're not certain of the category (if a more experienced reviewer has a better place for it, it's not a huge problem to recategorize it). So I think this section should be reinstated. Dr. Cash 01:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

But we can have Misc. sections for each larger topic, ala the Misc. recreation above. This way both purposes are served, confused nominators can have a place to go and reviewers don't have to recategorize articles constantly. And despite your perspective, there most definitely has been a backlog of uncategorized articles in the section. I know, I've moved several of them myself, and others have moved even more. VanTucky ^Talk 01:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's a backlog all over the page; but specifically, I've seen some categories in some of the pop culture categories with far greater nominees than in the miscellaneous categories. Dr. Cash 02:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is, those pop culture categories are actual categories that have a definition and scope. The articles that have been getting sequestered to Misc. belong in other categories. So reviewers have to move them, sometimes ignorant folk move them back, and it just creates more needless work. VanTucky ^Talk 03:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the difference in work between recategorizing an article in the Miscellaneous section, and recategorizing an article that has been wrongly categorized. The need for this section is marginal at best. Geometry guy 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I say keep the section. With no "Miscellaneous category" people will just try and guess and there will be misplaced articles everywhere. Yamanbaiia 10:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well how bout everyone who want to keep the section promises to categorize all the misplaced articles in the section from now on then? Because I'm certainly not going to waste anymore time doing it, and it can't stay a dumping ground. Proving my point here: the only new addition so far to the section belongs elsewhere (it's a gun). VanTucky ^Talk 21:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 20/10/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Canadian Paul as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 20th October 2007. Canadian Paul is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Canadian Paul
2. Derek.cashman
3. Awadewit
4. Yamanbaiia
5. Zeus1234.
Epbr123 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Goin' for a streak there, eh, Paul? ;-) Congrats! Dr. Cash 17:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What!? I didn't even make the list this time. I have to step up my game here! VanTucky ^Talk 21:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

First review query

I've signed up to review my first article. What I'm finding is that I could fix many of the writing problems in the article I'm reviewing, but that seems counter to the idea that reviews should not have significantly contributed to an article. The one I'm reviewing needs a thorough copyedit. So, do I edit and say "Now it's OK", or do I fail the nom and say "but now it's fixed and someone else can do the review"? What are my options, and which ones are preferred in this situation? --EncycloPetey 03:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The "don't review articles you've significantly contributed to" rule only applies before the article goes under review. Minor fixes (my rule for "minor" is generally that it would take me less time to fix them than to explain what needs to be fixed) are perfectly acceptable. Larger ones are technically acceptable, I suppose, although I'm not sure why you wouldn't get the nominator to do the tougher work themsleves. Also, you can put the article on hold for up to seven days to allow for changes to be made, the article does not have to be failed immediately if there are changes to be made. Cheers, CP 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If an article is in mostly good shape except for a couple of minor spelling or grammatical fixes, or even a WP:MOS issue, I just fix it and promote. So minor copyediting is perfectly acceptable. However, if I start doing too many of these, indicating that the article is in need of a more thorough copyedit, I'll stop and either place the article on hold or fail it outright. Just remember to keep with minor copyediting, spelling, and grammatical issues ... if you start adding major content sections, then you're going too far. Dr. Cash 06:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Notabiltiy of Darren Heitner

This is currently listed for review under "Misc", but reading the article I'm not convinced it is notable. Any opinions before I take it to AfD? EyeSerene^TALK 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just read the previous debate and in no way WP:HEY applies. Everything has been said in the article about this guy's life and it's just not worthy enough for Wikipedia. wait what??? it's on the main page!! please delete the article before more people go into it!! he just got his résumé featured in Wikipedia's main page!!!! --Yamanbaiia 12:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous debate appears ridiculous.[2] Keep without a single person arguing for it being kept? Another AfD of DRv's in order.. Wizardman 12:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On Aril 8 it had a "Notability" tag removed by ... User:Dheitner ! PamD 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all, that's good enough for me. DRV it is ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy nomination

There was some discussion about which category this article would be best suited to, on the homeopathy talk page, since we don't want to list it more than once, I thought a note here would bring it to more people's attention. Tim Vickers 21:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just create an Alternative medicine category on the nominations page? There are plenty of other possible candidates to fit into it. VanTucky ^Talk 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Under which topic? Geometry guy 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Health and medicine. I really don't see how it shouldn't go there in the first place. People may argue about how safe or effective the practice is, but it's inarguably dealing with health. VanTucky ^Talk 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you might want to visit the talk page. The problem is that "health and medicine" is listed under "natural sciences", but the consensus is that homeopathy is unscientific. For me, that is not a compelling argument about where it should be listed, but we are dealing with a controversial article here... Geometry guy 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, the listing category on the Good Article nominations page doesn't have any impact on the neutrality of the article. This seems like undue nitpicking to me. VanTucky ^Talk 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It sure is, but they will sort it out: there are some good editors there. Geometry guy 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been renominated so soon? Sheesh.... Homestarmy 00:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of work done on the article recently. I'm not saying so because I did the work (I didn't) but because I watch the page. Wanderer57 02:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that it does seem to be somewhat more stable. Homestarmy 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Yunus gone dead?

The article's nomination for GA status is lying there for ages. Is there anyway that can speed up the process a bit? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yunus hasn't even been up there for a month yet. There are many nominations that have been there for 40+ days. The article will be gotten to in due course. Cheers, CP 15:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Review the reviewer

I have been reading GA reviews and rules for ages, and last week i decided to be BOLD and start reviewing, but now i got some negative feedback after failing Hard Candy (film) (talk). I take GA reviewing very seriously and i really thought i was being thorough, but maybe i should step back for a while. I'd like to get some opinions about my reviews please, here are some of them: Animal Liberation Front (on hold), Barbara Gordon (passed)Yamanbaiia 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your review of Hard Candy is fair and correct. I would have failed it also. Some of your points could be seen as subjective, especially to editors who are not familiar with all of our policies; it helps to wikilink the corresponding policy or guideline that drives each of your comments. You handled the interaction well by suggesting a reassessment before the disagreement got out of hand. --Bloodzombie 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to be more precise next time, pointing out all pertinent rules and policies. Thanks! Yamanbaiia 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your review for Hard Candy, I would not be worried at all Yamanbaila. That was extremely rude, and is not a legitimate objection to your obviously cogent points. They didn't say, "I think you're acting subjectively outside policy and should reconsider". They just made ad hominems, apparently because they were sensitive about your suggestions for improving things. Hang in there, we all appreciate your hard work! VanTucky ^Talk 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, as well. Good work! Wrad 01:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(←) I agree with your assessment as well. I always try to throw some positives in so as not to seem too harsh, but your points, for the most part, were correct. (Lead sections don't require citation as long as the information is sourced in the body, as necessary. The point with the spoiler warning, I'm not sure where that discussion is at, but they are unnecessary and discouraged, as you pointed out.) Look forward to this in the future. Some articles are nominated by those hoping any issues will be corrected by the reviewer, which is most often not going to happen. You handled it pretty well, though, so don't be discouraged. Lara❤Love 06:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Yamanbaiia 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Maybe it would be helpful to editors—when they are writing an article—to tell them to leave the Lead to last, as it is a summary. I know this looks/feels strange when you are working on an article, but it makes writing the Lead an easy thing to do when you are ready to submit. How many times have you seen references in an introduction/preface in a book? :)--andreasegde 04:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly one way of looking at it. Although in my experience, I often see the lead section as a mini article in itself, and I find it helpful to write a good lead section first, then expand the main topics mentioned in the lead into the article itself, which is somewhat backwards from your suggestions. But whatever works best, I suppose. If the lead needs significant work, I usually direct editors to WP:LEAD. Dr. Cash 07:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 27/10/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Canadian Paul as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 27th October 2007. Canadian Paul is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Canadian Paul
2. Derek.cashman
3. Esprit15d
4. Awadewit
5. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage.
Epbr123 11:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Third week in a row for Canadian Paul! Now he's challenging my streak,... ;-) Congrats! Dr. Cash 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to all, since we've got the backlog back under 200! Cheers, CP 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, good work. I am considering starting to review again. :) IvoShandor 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I did one. Woot. IvoShandor 11:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm wondering what exactly the criteria for this list is. It's good that it's informal and easygoing, but do holds count? Don't tell me that simply placing a review tag counts? I think the results are pretty obvious when it comes to who deserves the barnstar, but could you elaborate Epbr? Thanks a million, VanTucky ^Talk 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• A review is only taken into account once it's been completed, as its thoroughness can't be judged until then. Epbr123 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The criteria are fairly simple, as long as there is an r in the month: if the week begins in an even month then the reviewer of the week is Canadian Paul; if it begins in an odd month, then the reviewer of the week is Derek.cashman. Unfortunately, there was an error on 8th September (which should probably be taken to GAR/ROTW), and I'm not yet sure what happens if there is not an r in the month. I guess we will have to cross that hurdle next May. Geometry guy 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Epbr! VanTucky ^Talk 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Time limit

Just wondering if there's a time limit under which Good article nominations must be reviewed before they are de-listed? If not, what's the longest a nomination has languished before being addressed?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to think that some of waht's up now has to be close to a record, I doubt things used to hang around for 1.5 months. Wizardman 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really are curious, you could browse through all the diffs at the bot-updated GAN report. That has a listing of all the oldest unreviewed articles, with and without "under review" tags. VanTucky ^Talk 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, they can't be de-listed if they have not been given GA status. They just languish in the nether regions of B-class articles until some plucky soul reviews them. What I find irritating is that after a GA fail, a lot of articles are put straight back on the list, with a few minor improvements (hoping for a kind reviewer). There should be a time limit stating how long it is allowed before they are put back on the list. Nobody can fix the problems in an article in a few days, and they should fully understand why it failed in the first place—meaning why did they put it up for a GA review in the first place when they didn't know the rules/procedure?) --andreasegde 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 3/11/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 3rd November 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Blnguyen
2. Derek.cashman
3. VanTucky
4. Canadian Paul
5. Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Epbr123 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! It's an odd-numbered month again... what happened?!?! Just kidding! ;-) Congrats Blnguyen! Dr. Cash 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GAN Nicktropolis

Macys123 (talk · contribs) put this article on hold as almost ready, but the author asked me to come and look at it anyway. Personally, I would strongly fail the article for lack of RS, lack of a lead and FU images without specific rationale. Can someone look at this please, since this is likely to end in controversy in any case. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A agree with your assessment. I would barely rate this article as a Start-class. --Bloodzombie 04:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just took a look at that article myself, and it doesn't even come close to pretty much any of the criteria (except maybe the stability criterion). I'd agree on assessing it Start-class. it's got a long ways to go. Dr. Cash 06:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a fail, has a long way to go. Large uncited patches, poorly written in places and needs major expansion. Also note that "Criticism" and/or "Controversy" sections are not kosher per WP:NPOV. If it passes I'd be inclined to take it to reassessment. VanTucky ^Talk 06:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA citation debate

I believe I am one of the most productive WP:GA authors. At last count I had 38 current GA credits plus two that have been promoted to WP:FA. For some time, I have constantly had WP:GACs in the queue for review. In the month of October at one time I had 9 GACs, as shown here, in the in the queue. In October, I had at least 7 GA promotions: including Rush Street (Chicago), Ricky Powers, Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood), Chicago Marathon, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Haystacks (Monet), Prairie Avenue, and Rainbow/PUSH.

Last month I posted Gilbert Perreault at WP:GAR (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault) because I felt it was being destroyed by another editor who was removing citations. The GAR was headed to a consensus to keep the article with the citations replaced. Then, User:Geometry guy closed the discussion as inappropriate for GAR and suggested I take it to WP:RFC.

You may recall that I had first taken the article to the talk pages of both WP:HOCKEY and WP:WPBIO without reply and then requested help at WP:PR after much back and forth editing and arguing.

Much to my surprise the RFC is headed toward a consensus to allow the removal of my citations and essentially authorizing people to remove citations at will if they are in the mood as has been pointed out in the debate. However, it is my opinion that I am being baited in the debate especially by User:Djasso who is making it appear that I am doing some unscrupulous. My most serious concern is that the way the debate is going, it seems to authorize citation removal from WP:GA beyond what I believe is appropriate and I feel I have a good sense of what is appropriate for a good article. Furthermore, the way debate is going it appears I will be handcuffed to sit by. I am very fearful that the persons I am debating with intend to tear the citations out of the GAs I have contributed and sort of need some backup so it does not happen. I had been thinking my work at finding citations was valued, but I am not so sure.

I am hoping that others here are concerned about protecting good articles will help reverse the debate back in line with the direction it was headed while at GAR. Please see Talk:Gilbert_Perreault#RFC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 08:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA reviews and personal expertise

(This topic may be covered somewhere in the GA guidelines, but if so, I didn't see it...) While nominating an article for GA status, I noticed the big backlog and figured I could help. The thing is, I don't know much (or anything, in some cases) about the vast majority of nominated articles. So I reviewed (and passed) a solid entry on a Beatles song, but have yet to review anything else.

What's the general feeling on this? Should GA reviewers have at least cursory knowledge of a subject, or is it OK to jump into articles expecting to be taught? My thinking is that if a reviewer goes in not knowing anything about the topic, the article may leave out important info or have a biased POV which might not be caught.

Your thoughts...? Zeng8r 13:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I think, because there are two sides to it. A reviewer who knows little about a topic is a good thing because it is a reflection of what a reader will perceive when they read an article. Most people searching Wikipedia do so because they lack knowledge on a topic. The downside of having little knowledge of a subject is that factual accuracy could be off or the key viewpoints of an important scholar in a field could be omitted without a reviewer knowing about it. I think its a good thing because I think most of the concerns that come up with it are more relevant at FA than they are at GA. Just my thoughts.IvoShandor 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Knowing little about the topic can also be good to see what needs to be put in context. I've read some articles that were beautifully written and excellent in every way, except I had no idea what was going on because the article presumed that I knew what all the terms meant, what the political situation was at the time etc. etc. If I had been an "expert" on the subject beforehand, that's something I might not have noticed, and a good article that's nearly unreadable to the layman is worse than a good article that makes mistakes with a few (emphasis on a few) technical details. After all, Wikipedia clearly states that it shouldn't be used as a source. A reader may not leave the article with a perfect understanding, but it's better than having them leave with no understanding at all. If you're worried about POV, check the citations. If it says that so and so was loved by all, or so and so was the best game of all time, it had better be backed up well, as that's easily challengeable. If I see something glowing or harsh, I always ask whether anything opposite was written and then see the response, which usually hints at the bias of the nominator as well. Just my two incoherent cents in the morning. Cheers, CP 16:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. I'd also add that, regarding POV, my personal rule of thumb is that if I come away from reading an article without being able to guess where the author(s) sympathies lie, it's probably sufficiently NPOV. Regarding content, that (as I was informed recently) is what A-class review is for, when an article is checked over by subject specialists. Nothing to stop you doing this too if you know about the subject, but as far as criterion 3 goes I think often all we can look for is that a reader comes away with an idea (not necessarily a full understanding) of what the subject is about and why it's notable. As Canadian Paul says, occasionally this will mean requesting additional context for certain things, which may be easier if we know little about a subject, but we can't be expected to catch stuff that's omitted altogether. That's the beauty of Wikipedia though - eventually someone will ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To fail or not to fail...

that is the question with Theory of Colours. Tarret has had it on hold since the 23rd, and no action was taken after the 2nd opinion was duly given by EyeSerene. Should we just fail it as an expired hold? VanTucky ^Talk 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That article has been listed since forever, but i don't see the need to step over Tarret, he's only 3 days behind. I think that if he doesn't reappear in a few more days then "Theory" should be failed.Yamanbaiia 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I say fail - there are heaps of issues that can't all be dealt with in the time given (and it's already gone over). — H₂O —  05:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've failed it, my apologies to User:Tarret for taking over but it has now been 15 days since he put it on hold. In any case, like VanTucky said, no action was taken after 2nd opinion. Yamanbaiia 07:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

GAN Pat Nixon

Looks like it's going to pass, but I've decided to drop a comment there, since it seems to not be very neutral. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

GAN Columbia River questions

This is my first time to review a GAN, so I had a few questions. It has been a week since I put the article on hold. Some edits have been made to it in the week, but nothing the past two days and no talk since the first day. Also much of the simple stuff (add metric units, for example) is still undone, as are addressing some more serious MOS and POV issues.

I basically have three questions I would appreciate answers to.

1) After I started the review I read that members of a Wikiproject should not review their own project's articles - I am am member of the River WikiProject and this is a river. Is that OK?

2) Now that a week is up and progress is slow (to none since Nov 5), should I just fail it?

3) If anyone is feeling ambitious, would you mind taking a look at the article and my GA review. I worry I was too hard on it (more FA requirements?).

Thanks in advance for any feedback, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any restrictions against members of a wikiproject reviewing the project's own articles; rather, if you made significant edits and contributions to the article, you should not review it. But merely being a member of the same wikiproject doesn't necessarily mean that you made significant contributions to every article in that project.

If an article goes for a week on hold without significant improvement, it should be failed. The average time for being on hold varies, but it should not be longer than one week (7 days). I think the original recommendation is two days of on hold time, but I think this is almost always violated. Dr. Cash 17:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As a person participating in the review, and an experienced reviewer myself, I don't think this is a fail candidate. I feel like we've done everything you've asked reasonably well, if you could be more specific in terms of actions to take (i.e. give solutions, not just problems) it would give us a place to work at. VanTucky ^Talk 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm the original nominator, and a major contributor to the article. I think the review was very helpful, and has led to some excellent points by other editors. Yes, the process has been slow, but it has been highly productive, and will lead to a better article. I will not be offended if the article is failed, but will continue to hammer away at the article, and probably re-nominate if it seems that all points have been adequately addressed at some future point. Above all, I was interested in getting feedback and additional attention to the article, after having done a great deal of editing without much input from others. It's possible a peer review would have been a better way to do that; sorry if I chose the wrong process. -Pete 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

First, here is the quote about Wikiprojects from Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#About_the_process: "Reviewers should avoid reviewing articles that they have been actively involved in editing, and should also probably avoid reviewing articles that belong to WikiProjects they are active members of.". I have made one edit to Columbia River, adding non-breaking spaces between numbers and units with a script.

Second, the boilerplate at the bottom of {{GANOH}} says "Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.", which is where I got the 7 days figure. There has been some work on the article in the intervening work, and it has been improved some.

Third, I respectfully disagree with VanTucky, as it now stands I believe the article is a Fail. I have listed 13 areas I raised that still need to be addressed at Talk:Columbia_River#Issues_still_not_addressed_for_GA. I am also not certain I met my obligations by doing a review in 48 hours (I reread it, but there was no discussion to reply to), so I am giving them 48 more hours. I also believe I was fairly explicit in originally pointing out specific things to address, some of which are fairly easy to address (merging one sentence paragraphs, adding metric units, adding refs to the article from the Infobox, etc.) although others would need more work / time. Skookum has also weighed in with some Canadian perspectives on the coverage / NPOV issues.

Thanks to everyone who weighed in here - I still would appreciate any feedback from a neutral party on my review. I have new respect for all GA reviewers. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV quick-fail?

Looking at the nominated Political positions of Ron Paul, I am tempted to fail the article as an obvious violation of NPOV. Fair treatment is only one half of NPOV, the other is representing all significant points of view on a subject. The article currently is a laundry list of statements by Paul, with no substantial commentary from secondary, independent sources. Every candidate says, I'm for this or against that. But there is almost always a contradiction from opposition. Currently, I think this article reads like a campaign pamphlet by Paul supporters. However, I would like a second opinion on this before I decide if I'm going to fail it. VanTucky ^Talk 01:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I support Ron Paul, I mean really really support Ron Paul, this article is clearly not a GA, and NPOV isn't the first thing that comes to mind for me. All I need to see is the size of that lead compared to the size of the article to know this article is in no way compliant with WP:LEAD. You could quick-fail for blatant NPOV violations if you can build the case for it, but i'd go with the lead violation myself :/. Homestarmy 01:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

As a non-American disinterested outsider looking at this (I neither know nor care who Ron Paul is), I can see POV problems with it. It lacks balance. The contentious word "contrarian" put me on notice. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional input! I've now quick-failed the article. VanTucky ^Talk 04:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: The article's contributors have filed an RFC on the matter disputing. VanTucky ^Talk 23:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Err, did we steer you wrong Van? Sorry about that....Do they know that GA/R is the right place for disputing this? Homestarmy 00:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Were you asking me for my opinion? I'm sorry, I was paying attention to someone else. Is there a problem regarding the RfC? Good friend100 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not big deal, no worries anyone. Feel free to chime in there, of course. VanTucky ^Talk 01:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim and Mary McCartney

User:Andreasegde wants everyone to know that the nominator for this article has been up for longer than a month, a comment that does not belong on the main project talk page. As a response, I point out that many articles have been up for longer than a month (one of mine was actually up for almost two months!), that there are some articles ahead of yours in the "queque" and that there are two lists for GA Reviewers to look at to see which articles have been up for longer than a month, therefore we do not need to be reminded which articles have been up there for a long time. I don't mean to be rude, but we're doing our best, and please consider that this is an entirely voluntary job within the voluntary job that is Wikipedia, right in the middle of time when many people are in the middle of tests and papers at their educational institutions. Cheers, CP 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, CP (the article is at the top of the list, though..) I won't put the comment back, and I do appreciate the voluntary work that reviewers do. Cheers, --andreasegde 16:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review for To Kill a Mockingbird

Hey guys. I contributed a significant amount of information to the To Kill a Mockingbird article and nominated it for GA review. A user named Daimanta posted on the talk page that he was going to review it, but requested that citations should be put in the plot summary, that the photos of Harper Lee with Alan Pakula at the bottom of the page should have a citation to prove why Lee is a notable person, which clashed with earlier advice of a GA reviewer who said all that was needed was a fair-use rationale. So in checking Daimanta's contributions, they are quite slim. I understand one doesn't need a PhD to review articles for GA, but To Kill a Mockingbird has been an article that has been vandalized quite some in the past, and I'm getting the idea that I'm not dealing with someone who is serious. This book is huge. Someone who knows what they're doing needs to review it. Any thoughts? --Moni3 20:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Plot summaries don't need citations. It's already obvious where the info comes from. I don't know much about Fair Use Rationales, though. Perhaps a screenshot from the movie would be better? Those are easier to justify. Wrad 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to prove the subject of a picture is notable, all there needs to be for GA status is justification for the image's presence, a valid caption, and a valid fair use rationale. Homestarmy 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

About the image, it's not being used in the To Kill a Mockingbird (film) article, so i suggest removing that fair use. Also the "source" links nowhere. And if the reviewer doesn't like "famous individual" i suggest changing it for "Pulitzer Prize writer". -Yamanbaiia 21:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should just remove this image from the article. It is under copyright, and you need a fair use rationale for using it in this article. Wikipedia is very strict about these, and I don't think there is valid rationale. The image could probably be used (although it is not) in the film article, provided more details were added to the current rationale, but its use for Harper Lee is more delicate. A screenshot of the film would only be fair use in an article about the film, not the book. Geometry guy 21:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It was at one time used in the film article. I don't watch or maintain that article, so I can't account why it was taken out. If the image was removed from the book article, would that have any impact on its eligibility for GA status since there would then be no images in the article save the book cover? --Moni3 15:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Apologies for not getting back to you on this sooner. The good article criteria only ask for images "where possible and appropriate". The image issue has been discussed discussed quite recently on the criteria talk page, and the current wording of the criteria reflects a consensus that the presence of images is not as important as ensuring that images comply with fair use guidelines.

I notice that a fair use rationale has now been added to the photo, but I am unconvinced that it is valid: a photo of the author is not essential in an article about a book, there is another free use image of the author in the article anyway, and the text does not appear to support the claim that "the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article". In other words, the article would be more secure in its GA status without this image. Geometry guy 11:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 10/11/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 10th November 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Blnguyen
2. Canadian Paul
3. VanTucky
4. Derek.cashman
5. Kane5187.
Epbr123 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oy vey! Third again. Guess I just love sweeping for quick-fails too much. Congrats Blnguyen :) VanTucky ^Talk 21:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up! You've been dealing with your RfA. Next week. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG! I'm slippin'! Congrats Blnguyen! Dr. Cash 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Blnguyen! Can't imagine how you managed to pull yourself away from Moraff's World to do all those reviews though... haha! Cheers, CP 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, well I don't have a copy of Moraff's on my PC. It used to be on a 5 1/2 which doesnt go on any modern machines anymore. But anyway, I can download for free can't I? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion

Talk:Alpha Kappa Alpha. I am a bit concerned about the official history book of AKA being used, but it has been pointed out that there is a nother fraternity that does the same thing and it is FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely willing to trawl through the whole article but if the official history book is being used to cite non-controversial and objective material, it should be good enough for GA I would think. By the way, is it customary to use the birth date and age template for fraternities and sororities? Cheers, CP 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the official history book a self-published source? If it's not vetted through an independent publishing house, it's unsuitable to use. Even if there is a precedent for that type of source, this particular book must be evaluated on its own. VanTucky ^Talk 21:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Official history books are not citing controversial material. The official history books are the only documents available to showcase history of Alpha Kappa Alpha, as with Alpha Phi Alpha. The controversy section is neutral, since the controversy section comes from sources such as CNN and independent newspapers. The sorority's history book is published by the sorority. However, I have placed facts from other sorority's history books to neutralize the article. Miranda 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter if they are called official by the organization. Self-published sources are not conducive to factually accuracy, and using sps is something you should be working hard to avoid, not defend using. Self-published sources may be used for uncontroversial and self-referential facts, but it's not to be encouraged. In articles that are supposed to be GA or FA class, it's especially poor form. If there's absolutely no other way of verifying content, then so be it. As to your neutrality comments, I was not asserting that it was non-neutral, only that using self-published sources is strongly discouraged by policy. VanTucky ^Talk 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked up some of the books and it has ISBN #. Is that a good sign? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of expired holds, what say you Blnguyen of Plano Stone Church? Cheers, CP 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I delisted it. It seems Ivo is on extended and indefinite break... and unfortauntely it might be a real one this time. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: if, as Miranda asserts, "The official history books are the only documents available to showcase history of Alpha Kappa Alpha", then in the article throw in "According to AKA official records", "The official publication by AKA states", "AKA say in their official publication", etc. - that way we're presenting the facts claimed in the book while balancing them against the fact that the source could be considered dubious by some. That is the most accurate and encyclopedic way to present information sourcable to only a self-published source, in my opinion. Daniel 01:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Slipping

I just noticed that if you check it out at the GAN report or other areas, we're back above 200 nominations. VanTucky ^Talk 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Someday people will realize that if they don't review articles, no one is going to review theirs. Have faith in the system, someday... Yamanbaiia 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The system is down! Yep, it's definitely a problem. I really like the idea of having a system for quickfails. Basically just burning through the articles quickly in a mass collaboration every week to determine what is clearly not GA and get it out of here fast. Wrad 21:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally try and sweep for quick-fails regularly. It would seriously help if everyone followed the instructions and gave an edit summary with a link to their newly nom'd article. That way I wouldn't have to crawl through the whole page looking for new noms. Ah, but of course, c'est la vie VanTucky ^Talk 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go back to doing GANs, since I've been devoting my time to sweeps. My section of sweeps made up of about 60 articles is almost done, and when it is completed I'll come back and knock off some more reviews later this week. --Nehrams2020 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can boycott people who nominate a lot and never review and see what they do. In the end though, the veterans will always have to put more back in since they are the ones who have developed the understanding of what a GA actually is. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll review. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

All complaining aside, the notion of boycotting those who want to nominate but not review is not only deeply inequitable, it's a practical impossibility. GA would collapse. VanTucky ^Talk 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasnt particularly serious, although I would hope that people who have submitted 5+ successful articles would help review, since they would have a good idea. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I wondered why you'd say that Blng. Sorry for any confusion. VanTucky ^Talk 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I was impressed that reviewers here managed to get the backlog under 180 recently, but we have been oscillating between about 175 and 210 for ages and I don't see that changing. My own view is that we need to simplify the system to make it easier to review. Related to this, I think we need to automate more of the system so that there are fewer mundane tasks to carry out (passing a GAN is a PITA at the moment). The added advantage of automation is standardization, so that, for example, sweeping GAN for new nominations will no longer rely upon the nominator linking the article in the edit summary. I don't yet have a concrete proposal to make, but have been working with others to develop these ideas further in the simpler context of peer review. Geometry guy 20:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When you say automation, are you referring to say, the GA template automatically adding names to WP:GA? Cutting down the preliminary and closing steps to GAC would be great. But automating actual reviews? Not so hot in my view. VanTucky ^Talk 01:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From earlier discussions here and ongoing ones elsewhere, this would only refer to automating the donkey-work (listings and multiple page updates), not reviews. The best argument (and IMO the only really defensible one) for automated reviews is for use as an editor self-checking tool prior to submission to a formal review process. EyeSerene^TALK 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the last point. Thanks for the explanation! VanTucky ^Talk 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant: sorry for not answering sooner. It is a mistake (IMO) to use automation as a substitute for what humans are good at: judgement of complex issues. Automation should only be used for mundane and/or repetetive tasks (where humans are not so reliable ;) In this case, automatic listing at GAN and GA are definitely on the agenda, but automatic reviews are not! Geometry guy 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest reviewers leave a standard statement plugging the need for GA reviewers at the end of their good article reviews, especially for those articles that pass (make GA)? Perhaps something like "If you have found this process helpful, please consider reviewing an article (or two) that you have not edited?" (linked to WP:GAN) As someone who has had 3 articles rated GA and only just done his first review (another to follow soon), I think this would have encouraged me to review sooner. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A nice idea. Such a statement could be added to some of the review templates such as {{GAList}} (see also the discussion below). Geometry guy 19:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

add sentence to project page..

after: "Reviewers should understand the differences between the criteria for a good article and those for a featured article. "

I suggest "The process is built upon the good faith efforts and the honor of its reviewers. Forming reciprocal agreements to Pass one another's articles is frowned upon."

• --Ling.Nut 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that this was really a problem (beyond the rare isolated incident). Is it necessary to explicitly state this? EyeSerene^TALK 17:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The rare isolated incident(s) has/have rec'd big-time publicity. It's destined to become a part of the anti-GA folklore. I'd like to write/do something far far stronger... but am sure I cannot. ---- Ling.Nut (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yup, unfortunately that's true; I've seen some of it around. Maybe it is worth including then just for that reason :P EyeSerene^TALK 17:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"The process is built upon the good faith efforts and honor of reviewers. Forming reciprocal agreements to pass one another's articles is an abuse of trust and is expressly forbidden." -- Tim Vickers (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the one above. VanTucky ^Talk 18:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that worries me about this is WP:BEANS. I wonder whether people who were going to do this in the first place would change their mind if it were expressly stated. Cheers, CP 18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if it will either deter or encourage, but it allows us to deal more easily with any cases when it occurs. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Good to go then. Cheers, CP 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But the word "forbidden" carries the implication that we can.. you know.. punish someone for screwing the system. Which we can't, AFAIK. The best punishment would be banning someone from GA reviews, but that is not possible.. remember the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" shpiel? Besides, some might make a case for leniency for first offenses, yadda yadda --19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Punishment and permission are two separate issues - to use a legal analogy, you may not be punished for a criminal act, but such an act is still criminal. -- Tim Vickers (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you guys talking about? when did that happen? --- Yamanbaiia (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen incidents of what look suspiciously like tag teams on GA nom. I've worked away at several projects in over a year, and editors become familiar. To me, at best, I see it as simple conflict of interest. The two reviews I've done have been outside of any project I've been a member of or worked seriously on. I have once complained on the talk page of a quickly passed GA because of the perception of an active tag team. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OK as per Tim's logic, I support Tim's wording. --Ling.Nut (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tim's wording is good. My RfA was actually opposed, in part, because of one of these incidents. Note that I was not the one making the deal. I was one of the editors who helped clean up the mess. While we can't "punish" anyone who does this, we can delist the articles that were wrongly promoted. Which was what I and another editor did in the instance I speak of. I think it's worth noting. Not only as a possible preventative measure and something to back up any needed cleanup actions, but also to show the community that we, as a project, do not consider such actions as acceptable and will not let them pass unchallenged. If we could ask such reviewers to leave the project, I'm sure we would. Since we can't, this is the next best option, imo. Lara❤Love 17:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK I added the following text (I added a couple words, but I'm sure they're OK too):

The Good article process is intended for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole, and is built upon the good faith efforts and honor of reviewers. Forming reciprocal agreements to pass one another's articles is an abuse of trust and is expressly forbidden.

• --Ling.Nut (talk) 06:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Lara❤Love 19:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 17/11/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 17th November 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Blnguyen
2. Canadian Paul
3. Derek.cashman
4. Yamanbaiia
5. Elcobbola.
Epbr123 (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, congrats once more! Also, congrats to everyone, as all of the articles under the "oldest untouched nominations" backlog are less than 30 days old now! You'll all have an easier time for the next week or two, as I'm going to be taking a break from reviewing GA articles. The main reason is that I won't be on Wikipedia at all Wednesday through Sunday (at least), so it wouldn't be fair to start new reviews with up to a seven day hold. Cheers, CP 03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

172.194.181.36

This anon nominated 11 articles last night: Metatron, Sodom and Gomorrah, Stade Français, Sergey Brin, Google bomb, Autophagy, Nemertea, Dopamine and Hydraulic conductivity. He also nominated The Shakespeare Code and Blue Harvest (Family Guy), but they were removed by Sceptre. They are all missing the GAN tag on the discussion page, the anon has not contrbuted to any of the articles and they all seem to be pretty inactive, so any "on hold" would be useless. Should all of them be removed? this nominations don't seem serious. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to be registered to nominate, so they all should be removed. Homestarmy (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i've removed them -Yamanbaiia (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed TSC as a quick-fail because it's nowhere near what's expected for a DW GA. I did the same to Blue Harvest as it was right underneath it. Will ^(talk) 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I nominated those articles because I thought it was the best step to getting some feedback I could work with. Chris Chaucer (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Nominating a dozen articles at once puts a serious strain on the resources of this project. A review, if done properly, usually takes 30 minutes to an hour, assuming that the article is not quickfailed, whether or not the end result is pass, hold or fail. Please take into consideration that many volunteers here spend their considerable talents here reviewing the works of others, and that there is already a giant (200+) backlog despite our best efforts. Throwing a dozen more articles into the mix is not inconsequential. Further, and of course I cannot speak for others on this, but I know that I will not be performing my usual (one per day) number of reviews due to the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, and I suspect that other reviewers, prolific or otherwise, may not be either. We don't mind reviewing articles and giving comments for improvement (or at least I don't), but asking us to do twelve at once without the ability to do any of your own (as GA review prevents anonymous users from performing reviews for various non-anti-anon reasons) is a little unreasonable, at least in my mind. I suggest nominating one or two at a time and understanding that it may take up to a month before the articles get reviews; that's just the nature of the project. Sometimes I see something that I really want to review and review it a day after it was nominated. Other articles aren't so lucky. But every article is gotten to, sooner or later. Cheers, CP 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with what CP said. The basic point also to remember is: if you were just looking for feedback to improve upon, that is what a peer review is for. This process is for rating and recognizing content that already should be up to a certain standard of quality. VanTucky ^Talk 05:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that peer reviews are geared towards articles that are already “high developed” and progressing towards FA status. If you’re just looking for some feedback, you might want to post the articles on the Requests for Feedback page. If, however, you truly believe the articles are candidates for GA status, then, by all means, post them here. I’m not sure we want to discourage the process by limiting GA nominations; if you have a legitimate candidate, list it. We’ll get to it eventually. It just has to be understood that, as Canadian Paul said, there will likely be a significant delay before the nominations are reviewed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 05:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Silent Hill 4: The Room

Silent Hill 4: The Room has been on hold by Macys123 for 13 days, and the reviewer has yet to review it again. Is it to be dropped by default or can I request a second opinion? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to contact the user, but to no avail. I'm not sure what other people think, but I think that a second review is in order personally, just because the original one doesn't seem to be very helpful. Cheers, CP 03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

GAList3 is now available

I've modified {{GAList2}} to allow comments after the individual items' ranking. (There's also a way to do easy overview comments before the individual items.) So now {{GAList3}} is available for anyone who wants to use it as a tool for Quick-N-EZ GA reviews. Cheers! – Scartol · Talk 17:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! Thanks Scartol. VanTucky ^Talk 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, thanks! It seems to me though, that this extension is compatible with {{GAList2}}, so a new template is not needed. We could also give {{GAList}} the same treatment to further encourage reviewers to comment on the tick boxes. I'm willing to do that, but let me know if I have missed something. Geometry guy 19:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're all very welcome. GG, are you suggesting we just combine them all into one template? Or make {{GAList2}} and {{GAList3}} the same template? Or what? – Scartol · Talk 21:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Make {{GAList2}} and {{GAList3}} the same template, i.e., update {{GAList2}} so it works like {{GAList3}}, and delete {{GAList3}}. Also {{GAList}} could be updated with the commenting feature of {{GAList3}}. Geometry guy 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll combine GALists 2 and 3. As for {{GAList}}, you can use comments on it already. Basically, anything you type comes out, whether it's "Pass" or "Fail" or "Pass. You have some good images, but…" or whatever. The only difference between it and GAList3 is that GAList3 is all formatted nice and has the fancy pictures. – Scartol • Tok 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be referring to {{FGAN}} and {{PGAN}}. {{GAList}} is much like {{GAList2}}, although there is only scope to add one comment per numbered item here, rather than one for each criterion (1a, 1b etc.). Let me know if you want help merging GAList3 into GAList2 (e.g., I can make page moves preserving the edit histories if that would be helpful.) Geometry guy 21:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Sorry. If you want, I can add the comment feature to GAList, but it'll have to wait until later. I made GAList2 like GAList3 was, and put a SpeedyDelete-author tag on GAList3. Now I can go back to reverting Balzac vandalism. – Scartol • Tok 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've deleted GAList3. If you db-auth the /doc subpage at some point, I (or someone else) will delete that too. Good luck with the counter-vandalism work. If I have a moment tomorrow, I will tweak {{GAList}}. Geometry guy 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the GAList3 documentation, and gave GAList the same treatment as GAList2. Please report any problems. Geometry guy 23:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Six noms on page; will try to review some...

Heya, I put six noms on the page, but lest ye think I am spamming ye: one is my own article, and five are the (relatively) best from when I assessed 70 or so articles for WkiProject Ethnic groups. I'll try to review an article a week or so for the next six weeks or so, to make up the diff. Later! --Ling.Nut (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking...

that the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article should probably be failed as instable. It recognizes right from the start that it's about an unfinished legal dispute. What do y'all think? VanTucky ^talk 23:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how you’re approaching instability. If you’re interpreting the quick-fail criterion regarding edit wars to mean that unstable topics shouldn’t pass, I’m not sure that would be appropriate. Articles about “unconcluded” (the language in the article - not a real word, by the way) issues, however, are inherently lacking a major aspect of the topic. Thus, with that phrasing alone, the article already has issues with 1A and 3A. I wouldn’t quick fail the article, but I would likely fail it “at the normal speed”. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. VanTucky ^talk 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I will try

Where is the section for Biographies? I'll try to nominate one. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 09:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one: most biographies are listed under the main subject to which the person contributed: on WP:GA there is often a separate listing for people (e.g. artists) who have contributed to a particular subject (e.g art). I hope you will also consider reviewing an article (in a similar area, for example). Good luck! Geometry guy 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I got your point. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 07:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 24/11/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen VanTucky as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 24th November 2007. VanTucky is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. VanTucky
2. Blnguyen
3. Canadian Paul
4. Yamanbaiia
5. Tovojolo.
Epbr123 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WAAaaaaa, second week in a row that i'm on the list! I'd like to thank the November 2007 strikes in France, without you, dear strike, this wouldn't be happening. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this must be a slow week. I hardly expected to be the top reviewer with less than a dozen! Good work everyone. VanTucky ^talk 02:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It must have been a REALLY slow week. I didn't even do any reviews and I still got third place! Nice work keeping down the fort everyone! Cheers, CP 06:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Tefillin, 17 days on hold

The reviewer, User:Chesdovi, didn't leave a review in the article's talk page, plus, he has contributed extensively to the article. I don't think it's fair to Tefillin's editors for us to fail the article only because the reviewer dissapear. Re-nominate? -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that User:Chesdovi didn't contribute significantly to the article before the nomination (the pre-nomination edits are contained in this diff), so I don't see a conflict of interest here: it is good when reviewers help to fix problems. Also, the article doesn't need to be renominated because it is still a nomination. However, nothing has happened on article talk for a month, so I've removed the "OnHold" so that another reviewer can review the article. (The GAN page is not the place to hold discussions about an article.) Geometry guy 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my bad, it's just that he had marked the article as "being reviewed by" on Nov the 7th, and when i saw all those edits from October...i guess now i understand that discussion over at GAN. Thanks. Yamanbaiia (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Which category to put Henry Allingham?

I looked at all the categories and cannot find a category to put Henry Allingham in. Can someone put the nomination in the correct category? --Kaypoh (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I placed him under war and military and, since I am familiar with the article without having contributed to it significantly, have decided to review it later today. Cheers, CP 15:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Subsubtopics

Why do we list subsubtopics on this page? Surely it is enough to separate GANs into the topic and subtopic. The further subdivisions are different from those at GA, and don't seem to serve a useful purpose. I think they should be removed. What do others think? Geometry guy 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup - either that or bring them into line with GA, but the simpler the better in my view. EyeSerene^TALK 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do this later today, unless there are any objections. Geometry guy 11:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. There may be a temporary inconvenience to reviewers, as articles under review have been resorted. Apologies for this, but I hope that the simpler set-up will prove to be more convenient in the long-run (e.g., for identifying older nominations needing review). Geometry guy 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Some editors have expressed a concern that (essentially because of the current large backlog), one or two of the subtopics, such as "Music" and "Sports and recreation", now have long nominations lists. I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, but if there is a case for splitting them in two (either as a temporary fix, or as a genuine split of a subtopic into two), then it is worth discussing it here. Geometry guy 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Once an article's promoted

When an article's been promoted to GA is it kosher to go into the project tags and bump up the rating or is one supposed to notify the project or what? Seems odd to have articles with mixed ratings. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do that, and add the {{GA}} template, but like this {{GA|oldid=nnnnnn|topic=topic name}}. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Or even better yet, Template:ArticleHistory. Usually it's not kosher to play with the ratings of the Wikiprojects unless you're a project member, but since the author to promote articles to GA or FA status rests solely in the hands of the respective departments, there's no problem. Start and B Grades and importance ratings can vary from project to project (with WP:CANADA, I tend to expect a lot before I give out a B, and I can think of at least one project that I've never seen give a Low importance rating), which is why only project members should be changing those. GA and FA standards are "universal" (at least in theory), so you can subjectively apply them to an entire article. Cheers, CP 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Green

Does anybody else think this new green color is, um, not the best choice? Awadewit | talk 02:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm colorblind, and it shows up startlingly weird for me. I just didn't know if my experience was just my own... Wrad (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not colorblind and it looks oddly bright and distracting to me. It is hard for me to concentrate on the text. I think we should change it to something less "lime". Awadewit | talk 02:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think what causes the difficulty for me is the clash of the light-green with the pinks. My eyes have difficulty seeing both, so the two colors kinds of mesh and make it difficult for me to tell which is which. It's really distracting. I can only imagine what such a contrast would do for others. Wrad (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes for some interesting reading (in other words, it was Sceptre's fault, AFAIK :P). I'm personally not bothered, but I did see it and thing "woah!" when I first saw the changes. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The main background green comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles and the newsletter. However, there is also a stronger green used in the first panel. It would be nice to have a consistent look throughout the project, but getting the colour right is tricky, as colours are rendered differently on different browsers, different computers, and different operating systems! The colours don't look lime on my set-up, but if they look lime on yours, then they definitely need to be changed. Also, if they are distracting, they need to be changed. So, questions...

1. How does Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles look to you? Is that bad also?
2. Is it the paler background green or the stronger green that looks bad, or both?

Thanks for any comments. Geometry guy 11:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In my macbook it doesn't look terrible, but it is hard to concentrate with a background that dark. If what you want is homogeneity, instead of changing the background, why not have all the pages with that dark green line around the important stuff like in WP:WGA? -Yamanbaiia (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - on my computers (all three) - it is a terrible, flourescent lime green. Light, lime green. By the way - I like the border idea. Awadewit | talk 13:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: For me, it is just the background, light green color. Whatever that is. But it is the same on both pages - icky. :) Awadewit | talk 13:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so i am now in my other computer, with a LCD screen, and the green looks beige, almost white. :s -90.27.157.191 (talk)(Yamanbaiia) 13:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused by the answers because I did not ask the questions carefully enough. There are two background colours here, one in the panel headed "Good article nominations", the other in the remaining 8 panels starting with "How to nominate an article". Which backgound green is the disgusting one? Geometry guy 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think they are both pretty bad, but the "GAN" one is slightly worse for me. Awadewit | talk 14:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I switched from Linux to Windows and checked both Firefox and IE, and the colours looked the same on my computer, and not limey at all! Anyway, for comparison, I've tweaked the very last panel (the article history footnote) so the blue and red levels are the same: in theory this should not be limey anymore. On my computer it looks rather cyan, which was why I lowered the blue level slightly. How does it compare at your end? Geometry guy 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Both greens look almost the same to me, in both of my screens, now that i got used to them they don't look that terrible. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The article footnote box looks better now (cyan? isn't that a blue color? how it can look blue and green?) Awadewit | talk 05:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyan is an additive mixture of approximately equal amounts of blue and green, but if a particular computer/browser/OS renders blue strongly (as mine apparently does) then a colour which is primarily green can appear to be cyan. Anyway, I've tried to lighten the colour at WP:WGA without making it look like cyan on my set-up. How does it look to you? Geometry guy 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Looks better to me. Awadewit | talk 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've used this for all of the panels apart from the first, which I think needs to be darker. For the first ("GAN") panel, I've tried to use the same strategy to make a colour that does not look cyan to me, but hopefully does not look lime to you. Did it work? Geometry guy 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I still think the whole thing is too bright, but it is better. One of the problems is that there are so many green panels. One is overwhlemed, I think. What does Wrad think? Obviously issues with color-blindness should come before aesthetics. Awadewit | talk 10:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The + is also green. Everything is green. What other colour is good? --Kaypoh (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That is part of the point, of course: green is the "GA colour". I checked out the colours on my office computer today, and the background looked fine, but I found the border a bit bright. Would a darker/less saturated border help? As for the number of panels, I have a couple of comments. (1) Did they look any less bright when they were all a bright blue? (2) This is a separate problem with WP:GAN: it has become too elaborate and has too many instructions. Perhaps the multiple panels were easier to ignore when the familiar blue bred contempt?

Anyway, I would also be very interested to hear what Wrad thinks, as well as other editors. Geometry guy 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The blue is much better in my opinion - it isn't bright at all over here - it is nearly white (although I guess that could be considered bright). Awadewit | talk 21:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The blue is fine. It actually looks a tad greenish to my eyes, which fits well. Wrad (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you've asked... the light green (instruction boxes) looks rather nice on my display; very subtle, almost white. The darker green ("Good article nominations" box) doesn't look quite so good; not because of the colour, which is pleasant enough, but because it washes out the GA logo. I can live with this though, but I really dislike the baby-pink for the top few boxes ;) EyeSerene^TALK 21:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling WikiProject

The above WikiProject has 7 articles nominated at WP:GAN.

• Randy Orton
• WrestleMania III
• Don Kent (wrestler)
• Amy Dumas
• Mickie James
• Royal Rumble (1994)
• Briscoe Brothers

If someone is interested in reviewing the articles, please do so; as members of the WikiProject to not want to review the articles, because of accusations of conflict of interest. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't regard it as a conflict of interest for a member of a WikiProject to review an article written by others in the WikiProject, as long as the reviewer has not contributed significantly to the article in question prior to the nomination. All reviews should be based on the criteria, not on personal interest in the article. Sometimes an article needs a reviewer with some expertise in the subject. Other times, though, it is more helpful to have some outside input, so thanks for commenting here. Geometry guy 10:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with G'guy on this; I have to admit that the 'not reviewing articles from a WikiProject one belongs to' is advice I routinely ignore :) I can understand why it's there, but IMO it's based on the false premise that such articles will be simply nodded through. I think in practice most of us would want areas in which we work to have only the best articles - there is more incentive for quality reviews, not less. EyeSerene^TALK 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Hello all, I've nominated this article for GA as I think it is ready. Even though I know only one of you will do the actual review I would welcome all of you to come along to the article, have a read and let me know on the talk page of any improvements needed or any of your own thoughts relating to the material/style etc. Thanks everyone, I would really appreciate this! LordHarris 08:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 1/12/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Nehrams2020 as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 1st December 2007. Nehrams2020 is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Nehrams2020
2. Canadian Paul
3. Awadewit
4. Drewcifer3000
5. Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Epbr123 11:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Alphabet

Shouldn't the article nominations be in an alphabetical order? --andreasegde (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The older nominations have to receive more attention first. Alientraveller (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean the title/headers for the article groupings. At the moment "Law" is before "Film and cinema". --andreasegde (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This was an error caused by the recent split of "Media" into "Film" and "Television and journalism". There is a related discussion at WT:GA#Correct section?. I agree, they should be in alphabetical order, but am unconvinced that "Film" should actually be a subtopic of "Social sciences and society" at all. First and foremost, film is an artform, and should be listed with "Theatre" under "Arts". Geometry guy 19:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Home Alone, "arts" indeed. Hmmm. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

:-) Or (perhaps more topically) Turner prize and bear. Geometry guy 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The headers should be in alphabetical order - it doesn't matter what the sub-sections are, but they should be alphabetically sorted as well. --andreasegde (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The order of the top-level topics is a long-standing tradition used in several places. In particular, the order here, follows WP:GA and WP:0.5, and is used in multiple other places. If you want to change it here, you have to change it in all these other places. I'm not convinced that this is worth the effort. Geometry guy 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing the ordering at WP:GA will be a waste of time and effort. I really don't see the point, as long as they're accessible via a TOC. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 08:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's the first time I have seen an editor write that it will be "a waste of time and effort". What are we here for exactly? What's the point, unless it is to get it right? :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see the point either, but if you want to re-order everything go ahead. It will be a big job though. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If everyone thinks it will be a waste of time, then who am I to argue? :) I shall now look up my favourite group under "Architecture", because they once played at The Casbah Coffee Club. Ho-hum... :) --andreasegde 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold placed but user has not specified what is to be done

For force, a hold was placed, but the user placing the hold has not specified what needs to be done to remove the hold. Therefore, I ask that this hold be removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've checked the page history (see this) and I am suspicious that this particular GA hold has a whiff of WP:POINT. If no-one else has any objections or comments, I'll remove the hold and relist the article at GAN with the original nom date. EyeSerene^TALK 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EyeSerene here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've taken another look at the article and think I've unravelled what's gone on: The original nom date was 26th November. On 2nd December Awadewit reviewed and quick-failed it for lacking citations. She added the appropriate fail tag, but this was reverted by ScienceApologist on the 4th, thus restoring the original GA-nom tag and date ([3]). ScienceApologist also reverted Awadewit's removal of the article from the GAN page ([4]) - again restoring the original nom date. However, references were added to the article. Also on the 4th Miraceti placed the article on hold, for reasons I remain suspicious of.

Given the confusion surrounding the various stages, and the apparent intention of ScienceApologist to dispute Awadewit's assessment, I have listed the article at GAR instead. I have also restored Awadewit's GA fail tag on the article talk page. EyeSerene^TALK 10:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Walker (Star Wars)

Went to review this article and found that it had already been passed by User:Vikrant Phadkay with the following summary:

Good language, content, sourcing and images. GA passed. Vikrant Phadkay 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the article makes it obvious that it requires some work (the lead for example), although it would require a full review to decide whether a hold or a fail is appropriate. The question is, since the "reviewer" didn't update the article's class or even update the good article count, should I be bold and revert the pass, or is it more appropriate to take it to WP:GAR, which, given the nature of the article, would likely end up as a full review anyways? Cheers, CP 05:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the formalities; feel free to overturn it, put it on hold, and write your thoughts on the talkpage and we'll see if we can put them to good use. — Deckiller 06:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You can boldly delist, if you wish. No need to add to the GAR backlog. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK great. I figured as much, I just didn't want to cause a stir by doing it without at least some general agreement. Will get to reviewing it soon. Cheers, CP 23:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sports and recreation section

There is currently 38 articles in this section waiting to be reviewed. To my shock, I notice that one user (TonyTheTiger) has nominated nineteen articles, half of the articles in that section alone! This, in my view is an abuse of the GAN process, and putting an enormous strain on the GAN project. Ninetten is a huge number, and I personally believe they should all be removed until the backlog has gone down (or been cleared completely). I wouldn't mnid if someone had four or five on there, but nineteen is just putting a enormous strain on the project. The GAN report clearly shows he is abusing the process. Davnel03 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, we're having a more general discussion about this two threads up and your opinions on the matter as a whole would be welcome there. Cheers, CP 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 8/12/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 8th December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Dihydrogen Monoxide
2. Canadian Paul
3. The Rambling Man
4. Derek.cashman
5. Elcobbola.
Epbr123 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! I'm back in the list again! ;-) Congrats DHMO! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too! Yay! And well done to H2O. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

*takes a bow* :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you a run for your money again later this month when I have my winter break. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm on summer break - bring it on! — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well deserved. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Er? Uh? Summer break? Dr. Cash (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, in Australia it's summer now. I've been off since my birthday (Dec 1), and am off until late January. And thanks Metal Head :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of concurrent nominations

I was wondering if there should be some sort of informal limit on the number of nominations made by one contributor? GAN gets pretty backlogged and it does make me wonder whether this would help limit the problem. Sorry if this has been discussed before. - Shudde ^talk 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea - we want to be encourage as many GA(N)s as we can, I'd think. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with having a limit on active nominations by nominator, but I think it would be nice to encourage those that nominate many articles to also review a couple of articles themselves. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My only problem with it is when someone nominates a significant amount (which is completely subjective) and then does not even review a single one of their own, especially if they've had enough articles of their own reviewed to have at least a decent understanding of the GA process. While I don't think anything can or should be "done" about it, I find it very inconsiderate towards the others who have nominated GAs and don't want to have to wait until two dozen from one person are reviewed before theirs gets reviewed, especially if they're one of the "nominate one, review five" type. We had this discussion earlier and I'll repeat some of what I said there. Nominating a dozen articles at once puts a serious strain on the resources of this project. A review, if done properly, usually takes 30 minutes to an hour, assuming that the article is not quickfailed, whether or not the end result is pass, hold or fail. Take into consideration that many volunteers here spend their considerable talents here reviewing the works of others, and that there is already a giant (200+) backlog despite our best efforts. Throwing a dozen more articles into the mix is not inconsequential. We don't mind reviewing articles and giving comments for improvement (or at least I don't), but asking us to do twelve at once without doing any of your own is a little unreasonable, at least in my mind. Cheers, CP 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

you have hit the nail on the head. I don't think it should be necessary to have a limit, but clearly some users are nominating 10+ articles at a time and doing very little by way of reviewing. I know that many people that regularly nominate articles also review others, and that's great, but having a limit of 10 or even 15 doesn't seem to harsh to me. - Shudde ^talk 02:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you check here, you'll see that one particular user has over nineteen articles nominated. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 00:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a limit is necessary. However, the balance between nominating and reviewing should average an even amount, which is a supportable idea. And of note TonyTheTiger has 23 total at GAN.^Mitch32^contribs 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There are also two practical reasons why too many simultaneous requests can be bad. First, if a series of similar articles (all in one area) are nominated, chances are they will have similar problems. If just one model article were nominated first, then the suggestions / comments for it could in large part be used for the others in the series (the first is a model article). Second, if two or more articles are reviewed at the same time and put on hold, it may be too much work to fix them all at the same time. I had something like this happen reviewing Supergirl (Kara Zor-El) - I put it on hold and Batwoman was on hold at the same time from a different reviewer with similar issues. Neither passed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah in my opinion 23 is insane. If we have a backlog here of ~200 articles (quite common), that's over 10% of them. I don't know how many articles Tony has reviewed, but according to User:TonyTheTiger/Reviews#Reviewer Record it's only two. Maybe the statement "When you nominate an article, please consider also choosing another article from the list to review." in the How to nominate an article section should be changed to something more explicit. - Shudde ^talk 04:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If somebody can write and nominate 10 articles (that are good enough for GA) a month then we should be happy. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But if everyone nominated 10 articles without reviewing any, then GA would be screwed. - Shudde ^talk 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

23 at once without reviewing any, is way too much. There should perhaps be some limit placed like 10 or 15. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Spitting out 23 GA candidates about major topics that has at least a minimum of relevance outside of the topic is indeed worthy of praise. However, in this case we're talking about articles which have almost zero relevance to anyone without a dedicated interest in the subject (in this case primarily little-known American football players). Most of these guys are so obscure that the majority of the articles aren't even past the 10k mark, and that's not even taknig into consideration the heavy use of citation templates. And just look at George Lilja, particularly "Family and faith". I mean, c'mon... "Lilja is not related to Ryan Lilja" and then finishing off with a Bible quote? Surely Tony has been around long enough to know that this doesn't exactly constitute a top-notch contribution

I think Tony should be considerate enough to limit himself to a handful of these articles instead of throwing them all out there at once. It's not like they're going to spoil if he waits a bit longer to have them assessed.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

IN MY OWN DEFENSE Hey all. Yes I am the mad GA nominator. I like creating and am getting decent at it. Yes you have chosen the weakest of the 26 articles with my name on them to pick a quality control fight. You don't seem to be picking on me for nominating Tyrone Wheatley, for example, which is also in the queue. Maybe Lilja is a little weak. Not being related to Ryan is a natural interest. In fact, I have seen queries on the web about whether current NFLer Ryan is related to the former NFLer that I am writing about. So if someone were looking up George that would be one thing a reader could be looking for. We have the info. No need to exclude it from the article. As for whether this is one of my best, it is not. Of the 26 listed it may be my worst, which is I am sure why you picked it out. As for my reviewer record. I concede, I do not review very often. I was going to review Walter O'Malley but someone got to it before me. When it got failed, I attempted to clean it up and renominate it. User:Cbl62 and I are cleaning up the {{Michigan Wolverines Football}}. I met him because he added this template to my Greg Skrepenak article which is on the list of overdue GACs. I notice he was working on a lot of interesting stuff, but producing start-class stuff. I know a thing or two about GA articles as you suggest. I have begun to work with him and now he is producing quality stuff. His last two articles hardly need my help (Jamie Morris and Butch Woolfolk). He is coming along and now producing really good stuff for the project. I will try to reveiw something before the weekend, but I will not be reviewing 26 things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lilja is not the only one with pretty obvious problems. If you want more examples, particularly of poor handling of prose, see Jim Detwiler, Ted Petoskey and Julius Franks. Repetitions of "In year X" and one-sentence paragraphs are very common. Considering the amount of GAs you have under your belt, I can't seriously believe you need a GAC to be aware that these are problems. And it's not like we're talking urgent core topics either. Out of all these nominations that are actually rated by any project only three of the articles (Al Wistert, Jon Burge and Toni Preckwinkle) are considered to be of mid-importance, but that's only within topics with a really narrow scopes such as Chicago or college football. The Preckwinkle-article was even upheld as a deleted entry as late as September 28 this year. That's not an argument against the article's status as a GA, but it does show that there's been a very real problem establishing this person's notability.

I believe the problem here is demanding far more attention and reviewer resources than these articles properly deserve.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Counting Elmer Gedeon and Dick Rifenburg, which have already gone through the process, I imagine at least two thirds of the batch will get promoted. Some of the items in the queue might get rejected today, but likely will be improved a bit before they rise to the top of the queue. Yesterday, I spent a bit of time working on infoboxes and will continue to do so today. I will continue to clean some of these up, but everything on WP is always a work in process. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

an idea that truly blows goat chunks.. {{GAReview}} templates!

Hi, sorry for the strong subject heading, but I stand by its content. The purpose of these is to avoid more than one person reviewing an article, I guess..? That idea sucks. Let's not pull our punches here. Why? Because:

1. Main reason: No one WP:OWNs a review, just like no one WP:OWNs a page. I don't care what you think. I don't care what you believe or say. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and that trumps any template.
2. Two sets of eyes are far better than one! That's esp. true since the biggest knock on GA is the "One reviewer system sucks" spiel... But even aside from that, why do we care if more than one person looks? What, are we concerned about reviewers' pride??
3. People slap tags and then take some kind of holiday. Not fair. Wrong. bad. Not good.

..but reasons 2 & 3 are actually just irrelevant gravy. The tag is against Wikipedia practice (umm.. policy? I forget if the "anyone can edit" bit is policy, but it is certainly accepted as a foundational element of Wikipedia).

I suggest deleting this template.

'Nuff said! Ling.Nut (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The point is not that someone gets to pick an article they want to review (or own it as you say). It's to avoid multiple people reviewing the same article at the same time. When there is a massive backlog, like there normally is, it's pretty inefficient to have articles sit their for ages whilst others get two reviewers. I've actually used the template, and then spent 30mins reviewing an article, and whilst I've been doing this, had someone fail it! Bit of a waste of my time don't you think, and that's what the template is there to avoid. If it does this, then it's a great idea. - Shudde ^talk 08:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything that reduces redundancy and keeps things as efficient as possible is a good thing. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually wasted hours reviewing Winston Churchill before I discovered someone else was reviewing it who, apparently, won't put a tag on it. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• (undent) Hiya y'all. Please think of me as a friend, because I am. :-) However, I sorta expected everyone or almost everyone to disagree. At this moment (unless someone can tell me why WP:CONSENSUS trumps the slogan emblazoned across the main page) I feel willing to TfD (which will fail, as a popularity vote) and then go step-by-step up the arbitration/dispute process. This template is evil because it violates "anyone can edit". It is also simply poor practice because of the other two reasons above.
• These "editors bumping heads" probs can be avoided by, you know.. this thing called, umm, discussion... Ling.Nut (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• PS, Awadewit, your hours weren't wasted. Did you post your revview on the article's Talk? BTW, the "one reviewer system" is a foundation that needs to be shaken. It is realy the main flaw with GA (which I happen to support). Ling.Nut (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• (PPS - I'm waiting for the peer review. Awadewit | talk 09:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC))

(ecx2) The template itself states "This article is under or has been partially reviewed by...", not "You may not review this article because someone else is." There are no ownership issues here (or if they are, it's not the fault of the template. You state above that ""editors bumping heads" probs can be avoided by, you know.. this thing called, umm, discussion", but that is not realistic: who is going to pick an article off the GAN page without somehow finding out who also is interested in reviewing the article? Further, deleting the template won't reduce the possibility of ownership issues (if these issues really exist). Firsfron of Ronchester 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The template implicitly condones ownership of a review, regardless of whether the language is explicit. GA should make it clear that multiple editors can contribute to a review — and even encourage the practice. having this template is setting an Unwritten Rule to the contrary... Ling.Nut (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

PS Moreover, perhaps it is the "one reviewer" system that is actually malformed. Perhaps the template is a symptom. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping a second person from reviewing the article, and certainly not the template, which not only doesn't enforce a one-reviewer-per-article, it doesn't even state anything like "only one reviewer allowed". Deleting a template because it states something it doesn't state makes no sense to me, and there's a difference between imply (to suggest) and infer (to guess, surmise, or speculate). One hints at something unsaid, while the other is a conclusion.[5] You've inferred that template condones ownership, but there is no implication of this in the text of the template: it states that the article is under review: no more, no less. Any inference is made by the reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Feel free to provide multiple diffs of counterexamples in which more than one editor examined an article after the template was placed.. and the second editor was welcomed. Otherwise, I'd have to consider your args as being... arguing over the semantics of a template text, rather than discussing real facts on the ground. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

PS As a purely stop-gap measure, prior to a TfD nom which itself is subject to the otcome of this discussion, I have changed the template text: "This article is under or has been partially reviewed by the undersigned editor. However, the input of other reviewers is actively welcomed." Ling.Nut (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, semantically speaking, I can't technically provide counterexamples until examples have been given. Multiple diffs, showing clear ownership by the reviewer? Firsfron of Ronchester 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no. Examples in which:

1. The tag was placed on an article's nom,
2. One or more other reviewers (who were not contributers to the article) joined in to the review, unrequested, after the tag was placed.
3. Those reviewers were welcomed by the reviewer who placed the tag. :-) 11:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Those would be counterexamples showing lack of ownership issues. I'm asking you to provide examples of ownership issues arising from the placement of the tag, in the form of multiple diffs, since you brought the issue to the attention of this discussion page. Traditionally, counter-examples come after examples. So far, I haven't seen any diffs showing ownership issues arising from the template, and am asking for them. I can't counter them if they haven't been made. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) New related thread at the Village Pump. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point: WP:OWN applies to main space edits, not talk page edits (which are signed), and "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is also referring to mainspace (even there, there are protected pages). However, I agree that the {{GAReview}} template should not stop other editors from reviewing the article, and a change in the wording to emphasise this might be helpful. I notice Ling has made a change along these lines. Geometry guy 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We're kinda blowing smoke here folks. Let's see explicit language encouraging multiple reviewers, to counteract the longstanding culture of implicit ownership of an article's review.. Hecky durn, let's say that more than one reviewr is required. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

But FAC requires consensus from multiple editors; there are articles I won't take to FAC, and I'd like to have a QA section which is not FAC related and which has absolutely nothing to do with FAC or the already flawed FAC processes. Requiring multiple reviewers to weigh in on GACs takes GA a step closer to a system (FAC) which already has many flaws. I'm still waiting for diffs showing clear ownership issues because of the GAReview template. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Encourage: yes. Require: no. I see your point, but you are approaching the issue from the wrong angle in my view. It is very important that reviewers take responsibility for their actions, and that is a form of ownership. No matter how many reviewers comment on an article, someone has to remove the article from the nominations page and say yay or ney. All comments on the talk page are owned by the people signing them, and that includes reviews, be they single or multiple. It would certainly be great if more articles had multiple reviewers, but with a 200+ backlog, I don't see that happening. Geometry guy 12:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• (reply to G-guy) I'd be happy with explicily encourage (across many GA-related forums/pages) for now.. for now... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Ummmmm. The tit-for-tat on the diffs things is... I'm at a loss for useful adjectives. I could say i asked you first, but then I'd sound like Peewee Herman... No diffs required for standing practice: One article, one GA reviewer... Both GA and FA have flaws (the biggest at FA is fan-club voting). The biggest flaw at GA is single-reviewer system. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The biggest flaw at GA is that it is too complicated. If it were simpler, then there would be more reviewers, and articles would receive multiple reviews. I'd like to see a system in which consensus on an article's status is reached by multiple reviewers assessing the article in series (rather than in parallel, as is the case at FAC). That requires the listing and delisting of articles to be easy. Geometry guy 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

# The template still has to go.

# Too complicated, how? Get rid of WP:GAR as was suggested earlier? That idea sucks, for reasons i gave at this forum. Get rid of the many steps required for a review? the steps are there for a reason, or at least, many of them are... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a big backlog. The template and "one reviewer" system is the best way to fight backlog. If we take away the template and there is more than one reviewer, the backlog will grow faster and articles will take a long time to get a review. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There will always be a backlog, and the "one reviewer" system will always be malformed. Choose your poison. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! D'oh! No diffs needed 'cause this thread supplies examples of "one article one reviewer" as an iron (unwritten) law.. see others' comments about long reviews that were not posted... Ling.Nut (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no point posting a second review that says the same thing as the first. People don't like to simply repeat the work of others, it's redundant to have two people say the same thing. If the two reviews disagreed, that would be a different story, but in that case GAR would be the best option. - Shudde ^talk 19:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to be a storm-in-a-teacup based on a misreading of what GA is for. The template itself is nothing more than a quick, convenient method of communicating with the project. It notifies anyone who cares to look (including the article nominator) that they should expect a review to appear shortly, and it lets other potential reviewers know that the article is being attended to. It's simple, it works, and it reduces wasted effort. This is not FA; GA merely attempts to ensure that articles are of an acceptable minimum standard for the encylopedia, which one person who understands the criteria can do as well as two or more. I really can't see what the problem is. EyeSerene^TALK 13:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The template serves its purpose. Wryspy (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It’s unfortunate that this has been brought up in such an immature manner; use of bold text, phrasing of “blows goat chunks” and “sucks” and explicitly expressing rejection of the opinions of others are in no way appropriate for engaging the community in a legitimate and civil discussion.

• 1. Asserting violation of WP:OWN is a mischaracterization of the spirit and letter of the policy. The policy exists to prevent ownership of an article’s content in-so-far as such ownership would preclude others from altering the content. Save minor corrections they may choose to make, reviewers are, by definition, not touching the article’s content. Tagging a nomination with the template in no way, explicitly or implicitly, precludes or discourages other editors from contributing to the article. The review itself is one editor’s opinion; there is no policy requiring consensus or various input before expressing an opinion on an article’s talk page.
• 2. Two opinions are indeed better than one. Please be constructive and suggest a system and/or method the GA process should use; if you’re going to criticize something, be prepared to offer a solution. Merely demanding removal of a template does nothing to address this concern.
• 3. I agree that this behavior is rude and I would support policy requiring that an article be reviewed within x days of being tagged. This is, however, a failing of the editors utilizing the template, not the template itself.

Please consider that no system is perfect. The GA process is not a “one reviewer” system; it’s a “one reviewer at a time” system. Confusing though it may be, there is a reassessment process and no provision excluding renomination. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the template to simply state "I am reviewing this article. If you wish to contribute to the review, please comment on the article talk page.". Hopefully this is both friendly and unambiguous. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

{{GAReview}} is no more a violation of WP:OWN than {{inuse}}. It's just a courtesy tag, no more. This is not an encyclopedia tag; it only appears on the WP:GAN page, which clearly states: Paste #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry; this avoids multiple reviews of the same article. If we overload the {{GAReview}} with all sorts of excruciating disclaimers, the WP:GAN page is just going to be reiterating the same thing down the line. The template was just fine the way it was.—Twigboy (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with Ling, but I agree that "one reviewer at a time" is the essence of the GA approach, and I don't think this is a concept which is fundamentally flawed, as long as it is easy to delist, renominate etc.

Ling's idea apparently hasn't found support, and I agree with Tim's rewording of the template. I actually think Ling targetted the wrong template: {{GA2ndopinion}} is the bad idea from this point of view, because of the implicit suggestion that second opinions are not welcome unless the template has been used! Anyway, I find this template unhelpful for other reasons, so I will start a new thread. Geometry guy 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If you review an article, put it on hold and fix some of the issues yourself, can you pass the article?

I nominated Glasgow for GA. Somebody put it on hold. I tried to fix some of the issues. The reviewer said that according to the rules, he cannot pass the article if he fixes the issues. What is the rule about this? I know there is an instruction that says "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it", but it means only contributions before the review, not after the review, right? --Kaypoh (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's fine. I mean, I personally hate it when someone at GA or FA gives me a laundry list of minor minor grammar things and then I have to hunt for them all. David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual phrasing is "as long as they are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed"; there is an important distinction between what you quoted – this is not in past tense. That being the case, what a reviewer is allowed to do is open to interpretation (not only in terms of tense, but what constitutes a “major contributor”). I think the “spirit of the law” here is that you can’t review articles in which you have a personal stake. If the first time you’ve seen the article is for a GA assessment, it’s unlikely that you have a personal interest and/or would be adding enough content through minor detail corrections to be a “major contributor”. The strict interpretation that reviewers can’t touch the articles, however, is also a technically valid point (although, I would argue, not exactly common sense). Ultimately, the reviewer you get will not act “according to the rules”, but “according to their interpretation of the rules”. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 14:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with fixing an article as you're reviewing, since you're only making the changes you'd be recommending as part of a 'hold'. However, if the reviewer's made major changes - adding whole new sections etc (rather than just copyediting) - I'd say they should then withdraw from further review of that article. EyeSerene^TALK 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you post your answer on Talk:Glasgow? --Kaypoh (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Short answer (to the original question): yes, you can edit an article while reviewing it, and then pass it.

Before the long answer, a minor request: could people please provide links when quoting guidelines (NB. they are guidelines not instructions or rules)?

Long answer. The text at WP:GAN uses both tenses: WP:GAN#Good article nominations reads "anyone who understands the criteria and the instructions below can review a nominated article, as long as they are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed." However, this is an overview of the GAN process, and the present tense is referring to the moment of deciding to review an article. The more detailed guidelines at WP:GAN#How to review an article state "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it". Here the past (perfect) tense is use. Notice also that it does not say "you cannot pass an article if you have made significant contributions to it". Again the sense is that you should not have contributed significantly to the article before reviewing it.

I am strongly in favour of encouraging reviewers to fix problems with articles, even to the extent of making significant contributions, such as finding sources or providing a thorough copyedit: the goal is to ensure all GAs meet the criteria. (I do, however, agree with EyeSerene that if a reviewer makes a major contribution, in the sense of adding substantial new material, then another reviewer is probably needed.) I would therefore support clarifying the wording of the two quoted phrases so that the interpretation I have indicated is completely transparent.

And you can quote me on that ;-) Geometry guy 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording in the guidelines should be explicit on this point. I agree with the position. It does seem odd and a waste of every one's time not to do the actual copy edit, if need be, rather than being coy about it. What about getting into an actual collaboration with the pre-review contributing editor. I have only reviewed a couple of articles but each time there is only one contributing editor who is quit keen on a collaboration. In honor of the spirit of a GA reviewer, I've always held off but I think that is wrong. It is in the spirit of Wikipedia to collaborate. I think as long as you make the GA review and place the article on GA Hold, and have stated explicitly what the problems are, then the GA reviewer can enter a collaborative effort. At the end, since the GA reviewer would be marking off the previously stated problems, the GA Reviewer can still pass or fail. What does every one think? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m also all for uniform, explicit phrasing indicating that it’s perfectly acceptable – indeed, encouraged – for reviewers to assist with corrections and “minor” additions. I think, however, we need to be careful to ensure that such assistance does not become an expectation. It is, after all, a review process, not a request for copyediting. I could easily see reviewers being snapped at for holding or not passing articles that “they could have fixed themselves”. If a collaborative process is desired, perhaps the Collaboration of the week should come back? (In a different form, that is.) Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Encouraged but not required" is definitely what I have in mind. As for COTW, this has been discussed in a previous thread, but no one had the energy to take it forward. Please (anyone) take it up if you do! Geometry guy 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now added this explicitly, and rephrased the guidelines so that they read more consistently. Geometry guy 19:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Virginia

Any thoughts? I put the article on hold exactly a week ago now, and I feel a sufficient number of references have been provided (which was the reason for putting on hold), however there are still some issues I need a second-opinion on, like the sports sections lack of sources for example. If you need any other information, don't hesitate to ask. Regards, — Rudget ^Talk 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd AGF and pass it, with a note that the sports section could do with more sourcing (the articles linked too might be able to cover that). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah I'm going to pass it now. The sports section has been rewrote and referenced. Good work by all the parties. — Rudget _{Contributions} 13:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On hold and second opinion

Those who know my views will know that I am very much in favour of reviewers giving editors a chance to fix issues with GANs. I am also in favour of multiple editors contributing to a review (even if that is not very realistic when the backlog is so large), as long as one reviewer takes responsibility for the final decision. What I am against, however, is bureaucracy, and I believe that the templates {{GAOnHold}}, {{GAonhold}}, {{GA2ndopinion}} and {{GA2ndoptalk}} are at best marginally useful, and at worst, rampant instruction creep.

At the moment, to put an article on hold, a reviewer has to do three things: add comments to the talk page, replace {{GAnominee}} by {{GAonhold}} on the talk page, and replace (or augment?) {{GAReview}} by {{GAOnHold}} at GAN. Similarly, requesting a second opinion requires three actions: commenting on what the issues of uncertainty are, replacing {{GAnominee}} (or {{GAonhold}}) by {{GA2ndoptalk}} on the talk page, and replacing (or augmenting) {{GAReview}} by {{GA2ndopinion}} at GAN. What is the point of signalling the same action three times? Or, to adopt the paradigm of WP:CREEP, what problem is this intended to solve?

Surely, from the point of view of reviewers, articles are "on hold" as soon as someone adds a {{GAReview}} template to the nomination, and stay that way until the review is complete and the article is listed or failed. From the point of view of nominators, "on hold" is a chance to fix problems, so it suffices for the reviewer to list the problems on the talk page and give the nominator and other editors a time limit. Similarly, if you need a second opinion, why not simply list the issues, and remove the {{GAReview}} template from GAN, so that another reviewer can review the article, using your review as a starting point?

This is not a perfect replacement for the multi-template approach, but it is so much simpler. The "on-hold"/"second opinion" processes are major contributors to the length of this thread. I understand that regular reviewers may enjoy keeping track of articles with this elaborate system of templates, but they add considerably to the list of instructions at GAN, and surely put off other editors becoming new reviewers. Encouraging new reviewers is, in my view, is the only way to solve the ongoing backlog crisis. Geometry guy 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Second you completely. There are too many steps for no useful benefit. As you say, removing the GA Review template is the equivalent of signaling a second review. And, the GA Hold makes no sense to me. Using the GA Review template with a note if things will be delayed should be satisfactory. Basically, Good Article review is a place where editors ask the question: "Is this any good?" GA reviewers have only three possible replies: "Yup", "Nope", and 'Hey, this is pretty good but you've got to do a bit more. Go for it." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Those templates, and sticking to the steps, are what makes reviewing with GA a workable (and thus, enjoyable) system for me. I suspect I am not alone. Without these templates, it would be simply impossible. I'd just have to create new ones. There is a learning curve with any Wikipedia process, this is a given. Currently, GAN is far less bureaucratic than many other processes. If you want to encourage new reviewers, place a big banner at the top of the page or send out a message on the mailing lists. In other words, advertise. But altering the system to make it unfamiliar to even the veteran reviewers isn't going to help things any. VanTucky ^talk 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How do they make it workable? What problem do they solve? If you believe GA is less bureaucratic than many other processes, I suspect you may not have read the thread I mentioned above. Critics have called GA "one of the worst examples of instruction creep on Wikipedia". I would like to counter the critics with a forthright and robust defence, but I find myself unable to do so with a clear conscience at the moment. Geometry guy 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not waste my time pandering to critics of the system who do not care to be constructive (Note that I'm not speaking of you here at all). Those who are willing to sit back and take pot shots at a working article assessment wing without truly engaging in a process of improvement are less than worthless, they are a hindrance. In the mean time, I have articles to review. Taking away the templates and things I need to do so would only hinder that process. For example: the idea of taking away formalized holds. This is a poor idea because it is largely based on the ability of editors to assume that an article is "on hold", or to garner all they need from an informal "the article is on hold" statement from a reviewer. Without a template, which precisely sets the date for the hold period and puts the hold solidly in motion, holds may be easily missed or confused, and reviews will be disrupted by needless quarreling over the mechanics of a hold. As for the instruction creep commentary, anyone who thinks an in-depth process of review and assessment isn't going to need detailed instructions is living in a fantasy. My motto is get over it and get to work. This constant rehashing of the same discussion doesn't build a quality encyclopedia. VanTucky ^talk 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with VanTucky (talk · contribs) here. In my experience I have found all of the above templates to be quite useful, both when doing GA Reviews myself, and when on the receiving end of a GA Review on an article I had worked on. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Note: all of these templates bar one, were only created in September this year. They are not part of any long-standing tradition, and I'm still completely unconvinced they are worth the effort they cause: three edits each time! They are a solution in search of a problem. The only template that the above arguments support is the talk page on-hold template. If reviewers are not able to articulate to editors of an article that they have a chance to fix it, then, sure, they can have a template to help them, but there is no reason for it to be part of process any more that {{GAList}} is. It is good to see that others agree that the instructions for this process are detailed and complicated. They don't need to be: other similar processes manage with far less complexity. Geometry guy 11:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with removing these templates as well. I think what makes GA so successful at this point is the fact that WP:GAN is a one-stop page that reviewers can go to (a) see all articles seeking review for GA status and (b) communicate various issues on the status of the review to other editors. If these templates were removed, that communication would be seriously stifled, and it would hurt the GA process and actually confuse things more. I don't want to have to click on an article, then click on that article's talk page, just to see if an article has already been reviewed, or if it's on hold, or if someone is asking someone else for additional comments. If people had to do that, then I think it would seriously slow things down, and the backlog could easily be twice what it is now. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Chalk me up as another disagree. WP:CREEP is a supplement to WP:BURO and is, therefore, essentially just elaboration – poorly worded, at that. Hold and Second Opinion templates are optional tools whose use is by no means “legislated”. Their meaning is transparent, their functionality is simple and they have been for me, and, apparently others, of great value. WP:CREEP does not apply here. Further, making three (or two, if you’re efficient) edits is hardly a burden. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree, after reading Derek's part, I couldn't second anything more confidently. — Rudget _{Contributions} 13:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Because everyone was disagreeing with me when I was logged in as Geometry guy, I logged off and logged back in as Ling.Nut in order to jack up the support for my suggestion. ;-) I mostly agree with myself, or in theory at least, that there are too darn many templates. I think the idea of "OnHold" is a good one — it simply feels more cooperative/collaborative than a "Failed ya, better luck tomorrow!" for articles that are NearlyPass... I do dislike the relevant templates, tho... Think about it... logically... why do OnHold articles remain listed on GAN at all?? Does anyone who visits GAN go from thence to any OnHold page to do something with the OnHold article?? Either the article will pass, in which case it will be removed from GAN, or it will fail, in which case it will be removed from GAN.. but while it's OnHold, no one from GAN ever does anything to help them except the editor who put them on Hold.. so why leave it on GAN at all, if no one from GAN ever does anything to OnHold articles??? Just remove it with an edit summay of "On Hold"... I despise the {{GAReview}} template as being un-Wikipedia-like... I suppose {{GA2ndopinion}} could be replaced by picking an existing subpage's TALK page and designate that as the official "2nd opinion requested" talk page. If anyhting has a long tradition on Wikipedia, it's the venerable Talk page... I dunno. Too many steps in the process, tho, as I said when I was logged in a G-guy. I am against reviewers adding any templates at all on GAN, period, end of story. Those should all be TfD'd. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You were logged in as Geometry guy, but then logged in as Ling.Nut? It doesn't say on your userpage that you have an alternate account? Or am I missing something? — Rudget _{Contributions} 14:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

hi Rudget, that bit was a joke. ;-) the rest was not. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a long-running joke that Ling is a sock of mine, as he always seems to agree with me. However, this is simply because he has the insight to recognise my wisdom in all things :) Geometry guy 14:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I walked into that... :) — Rudget _{Contributions} 14:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(I also disagree with removing them, for the same reason already given by Vantucky and Dr.cash) If the "on hold" articles were removed from the GAN list many of them would fall into the abism, because; what happens when reviewer X vanishes from wikipedia? Like what happened last month when Tefillin was on hold for over 2 weeks, if Tefillin hadn't been on the list it might have been unspotted and, if these articles were removed from the list, with time, the GA process would have "on holds" everywhere. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If the page has one or more dedicated editors who are watching its Talk, they will do something to bring the situation to someone's attention. If it does not, then OnHold serves no purpose anyhow! ;-) Besides, I would prefer to leave the article listed on GAN, but simply never put an OnHold tag on GAN... since I believe that the article should be there for others to look at and hopefully add to its review... I was just saying it's OK to remove the nom from GAN outright because NO ONE EVER DOES go from GAN to look at it. So maybe a far better idea would be to burn the template once and for all. Similar to {{GAReview}}, it discourages collaborative reviewing. The idea of OnHold is OK, but the template on GAN is un-Wikipedia-like. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

About your first point, User X might have worked a lot on an article, nominate it and then, during the month that it took for he's X article to be reviewed, just forgot about Wikipedia. Unless the reviewer is clairvoyant, he cannot tell that the editors have gone away and will not work on the problems pointed out with the "on hold"... -Yamanbaiia (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OK, I just walked away from the idea of removing the article from GAN as soon as it's On Hold. But the OnHold tag on GAN serves no useful function whatsoever except for the un-Wikipedia-like goal of discouraging other editors from looking at the article. So discontinue use of the tag on GAN'. 15:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling.Nut (talk • contribs)

Keeping 'Hold' articles on 'Good Article Nominations' (aka GAN, for those who are getting buried in the acronyms) makes no sense to me also. After reviewing and notifying and reviewing the article on the article's talk page, if the reviewer disappears and the article's contributing editors disappear so that nothing at all is done....well, so what? The article doesn't get listed as a Good Article. An abandoned Hold and a Fail result in the same thing. At some point, the article can be re-listed or someone will leave a message here. Personally, I've reviewed only a few articles but it is true that there are a lot of steps. Last week, I had to finish the process for someone who only completed pieces of the process. For reviewers who only do a review a month or two, the process itself becomes a barrier. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. I would like to draw attention to the section on templates below where we have lost a potential new reviewer because reviewing is too complicated. I am sure it happens all the time without us hearing about it. I urge editors to bear this in mind when supporting the current complex system. It may be slightly better for the experienced reviewers to have all these multiple states of articles listed in multiple places, but it sure puts off new reviewers. Geometry guy 15:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Question about fail

Hopefully this won't come across as sour grapes because I'm really trying to improve my understanding of the Good Article process/criteria and WP:CITE. A while back I nominated Steve Lukather for GA after working on it quite a bit. An editor then failed the article stating lack of references and listing several passages.

I believe this editor actually meant lack of footnotes, not lack of references. My understanding from reading WP:CITE is that footnotes are required for statements that are likely to be challenged but that we are allowed to have general "references" at the bottom of the article. In the case of Lukather, a lot of the text (more to the point, the text that the failing editor pointed out in his comments) is sourced from Lukather's biography which is listed at the bottom of the page. I didn't feel that I should dot footnotes all over the page to this one source for basic facts about the subject.

Also, I sometimes used a single footnote at the end of a paragraph when I took everything in that para from that particular source. Adding to my confusion, I have seen lots of GA's and FA's that have barely any footnotes. I feel like the article failed because the editor wanted more footnotes but that doesn't seem to be a requirement. --Bloodzombie (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick look and one big problem with your footnotes / references is that they are not fully expanded. Imagine if you printed the page, what could you do with a reference note like this? "Steve Lukather Biography" You need to provide the author, the publisher and the ISBN - i.e. standard citation format. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if the article is primarily from a single source, then inline citations (e.g. using footnotes) are unneeded except for contentious statements. I agree that you do need to add more information about the source. In particular, is it a reliable source? As it is a website, that is not completely clear. Geometry guy 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bloodzombie - sorry if I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my commentary. I think Wassupwestcoast picked up one of the main points that I should have made clearer (and I thank him for that) - it really is quite hard to verify something when all you have to work with is "Steve Lukather Biography". I understand your point about having a source only at the end of the paragraph, and I probably should have paid more attention to that (I write in a different way, so I missed that, I guess), but there are some paragraphs with no sources at all - I'm sorry, but it wouldn't be fair to pass a GA like that. Again, I apologise for the confusion and hope this clears things up a bit - feel free to ask me for further clarification, I'm only too happy to help. By the way, the internet references in the article should really be formatted in {{cite web}} style or similar - I can help with that. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates

The Fail section says:"The template {{FGAN}} may help you organize the critique. You can also use {{GAList}} or {{GAList2}} to generate a checklist." {{GAList}} produces an error message & appears to be defunct, & i can't for the life of me see how to edit {{GAList2}} - when you open in edit you just get the template itself. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you forgot to substitute the templates. Use {{subst:GAList}} and {{subst:GAList2}}. These templates need to be substituted, because the GA rules are notoriously variable, and the templates may change with time ;-) Geometry guy 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean the page is telling me to use the wrong templates, don't you? Don't blame it on me, pal, I was just following the instuctions! Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you are using the right templates, but are "transcluding" them, rather than "substituting" them. See Wikipedia:Template substitution. I know it is a load of complicated technobabble, but once you get it, you'll find it useful in the future. Good luck. Geometry guy 23:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be bothering, thanks. It still sounds to me like the instructions are defective. Good luck with your backlog. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I just spotted this exchange. I think John has a good point, lots of instructions all over WP fail to adequately describe how to "subst" a template. There's no need for every GA user to have to educate himself on the difference between transcluding and substing, if only the instructions are clear. I just changed the instructions to reflect this concern, which will hopefully prevent this from happening here in the future. -Pete (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pete! Geometry guy 15:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 15/12/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 15th December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Dihydrogen Monoxide
2. Canadian Paul
3. Elcobbola
4. M3tal H3ad
5. Jackyd101.
Epbr123 (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to DHMO, but I think his latest GAN action, "Reese Witherspoon on hold", may be wishful thinking ;-) Geometry guy 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well deserved again, almost single handedly cleared the backlog of 30+ music articles. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe Gg - you can expect a long review for a long article. We'll see what happens. And thanks again MH :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Reviewer of the Week?

Excuse my ignorance, but I don't know about this. Can someone clear some things up for me:

1. What is the Good Article Medal of Merit?
2. Who awards said medal?
3. What is the criteria?
4. Who came up with this idea?

Sorry for the hassle, but I just want to be more knowledge-ful, wikipedia-wise. Cheers, Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the GA project's way of recognising Dr Cash, CP and Dihydrogen Monoxide editors who contribute significantly to the project by reviewing lots articles from the WP:GAN page. The criteria are given by Epbr123 in the relevant section (above). EyeSerene^TALK 09:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

New guidelines for date formatting where not autoformatted

Not sure if this is the right place, or over at Good articles, but this'll do for now. People here may be interested in what's going on with date formatting. Tony1's addition, and subsequent comments, can be seen here: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#New guidelines for date formatting where not autoformatted. Since it revolves around an element of MOS, reviewers here could find it useful, and worthy of comment. Carre (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick-fail

I've just gone and quick-failed Principality of Sealand as it cotnains a load of citation needed tags and some of its sources are not reliable. Was I right to take this course of action? It's the first-time I've ever quick-failed an article. Davnel03 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a perfectly reasonable quick fail, myself. I remember this was at FAC not that long ago, and looking at the ArticleHistory template, it has also been through an FAR (delisted) in the past year or so. If the citations haven't been provided through all those processes, it seems unreasonable to hold the nomination in anticipation of them being added soon. There are MOS breaches in there too, here and there, but that's not so important. Carre (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely acceptable. It's arguable how many "citation needed" tags merit a quickfail, but seeing how that "refimprove" tag at the bottom has been there since November, it's a moot point anyways — that tag alone would earn a quick-fail. Cheers, CP 17:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with the quick fail in this instance, I think we need a better "quick fail criteria" than "contains a refimprove tag that the editor might've missed because it was at the bottom and he doesn't go and review the article's categories/navboxes regularly" (that doesn't apply to this article, and I'm obviously over exaggerating). I think we should actually take the time and read through the article, see how much referencing is actually needed, rather than just failing because someone else once said the referencing sucks. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 06:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that if you want another person (ie. a GA reviewer) to spend his time reviewing your work in a given set of criteria, then the least you can do is be sure that the article is free of criteria that will quick fail it. An editor should be fully inspecting an article BEFORE submitting it to make sure that, at a reasonable level, the concerns have been addressed. I'm not talking here about a tag that was added after the nomination of course, but if there's one that's been sitting there for a month, I don't see any excuse why it should be there upon submission. People put lots of effort into articles, and I'm willing to reciprocate that effort in a GA review. It's not a case of "someone else said the referencing sucks." We have to assume good faith for the tag. If it was a driveby, remove the tag and explain why on the talk page. If the person who added the tag adds in back, then there's cause for concern. If the person is being unreasonable, there are steps to be taken. There's no deadline for these articles to become Good Articles. If the article truly deserves to be a Good Article, then there should be no trouble removing the tag before submission. If there is trouble, that probably means that there are issues that need to be worked on for the article to be Good. Of course, I'm not talking about pure vandalistic or trolling tags, which can be dealt with rather quick as well. What I basically wanted to say is that if there's a tag, and it's not warranted, then it's very easy to remove and should be done before submitting. I just didn't want that to make it seem like editors should flat out remove tags if they think they shouldn't be there, flying in the face of other legitimate concerns. But in the end, if the nominator can't be bothered to remove a tag that doesn't belong, why should we be bothered to give it a full review? There's 200 more nominations out there that did put the effort in, and I'm more than happy to show it back. Cheers, CP 07:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you in general. My primary issue is with (quoting you) "I'm not talking here about a tag that was added after the nomination of course" - Obviously that doesn't refer to the article in question, but there are articles which are failed in such cases. I also want to re-iterate that it *is* possible to miss the refimprove tag, because it's hidden at the bottom of the article/it's been there forever/you missed it on your watchlist. A bit of extra time from the GA reviewer (not accusing anyone here) would prevent quick fails in this situation. But I'm really not sure what I'm asking for anymore... :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 07:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, well in that case I'd agree. I think it's a subset of my argument about reviewer effort. If the author/nominator has put in all that effort to write a good article, then surely a reviewer can take a few seconds to ensure that the tag was not added after nomination. After all, you have to check the article history to ensure that it meets the stability criterion anyways. We allow for a reviewer to have edited the article after the nomination to still review (to a degree) and it's not unreasonable to allow for a tag or two after the nomination (again, to a degree). I'm not a big fan of all the little caveats that have been added lately, but I wouldn't be opposed to a tiny notice next to that particular QF criteria along the lines of "reviewers should ensure that the tag was not added after the nomination." A tag can still be part of a reason for the fail in these cases, but not a criteria for quickfail (unless, of course, it's a red deletion tag, but that would fail it in stability anyhow). Cheers, CP 07:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"(unless, of course, it's a red deletion tag, but that would fail it in stability anyhow)" - Only if justified ;) And no, I'm not gonna rant on how more care is needed from the reviewer in this area too... — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 07:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 22/12/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 22nd December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Dihydrogen Monoxide
2. Elcobbola
3. Kane5187
4. Canadian Paul
5. Wassupwestcoast.
Epbr123 (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

...for the third consecutive week. Ouch... — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No surprise - congratulations! EyeSerene^TALK 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sports and recreation section

At the WP:GAC#Sports and recreation section, there are currently 42 up for GA, and this is the only section that has this many articles. Wouldn't it make sense to split this up into two or three smaller sections?--十八 02:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to appear pushy but I'm surprised that articles such as Dennis Franklin and Bob Timberlake haven't been failed yet, both of these are very small articles that don't seem to be broad when covering their scope, there are a few other simmilar cases there but I thought those were probably the most obvious ones, we should really try to avoid letting one user nominate twenty-one articles at once, that puts on some serious strain on the nomination process and creates a automatic backlog. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point - I'm going to fail those too, they really are week on broadness. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel either of your reviews was very high quality. See comments on similar efforts at [6].--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems the problem here is that you concentrated in nominating several articles that are unsuitable for GA without analizing the content properly, complaining that the reviews were "half-arsed" won't change the fact that several of these articles simply lack the content nessesary to go beyond "B-class", most of the articles you nominated were biographies wich if they don't cover enough aspects of the subject's life and/or what makes said person notable fall short of GA standards, most of the articles that were nominated on November 30 were beyond "On-Hold" repair, most of them would have a hard time passing as good B-class articles, however there is always WP:GAR if you stand by this opinion after analizing the content of these biographies. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to Dihydrogen Monoxide, the reviews were "quick fails" so they weren't intended to be high quality. Although, it does raise the question of whether quick fails should be discouraged. Epbr123 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'm not particularly fond of "quick fail" - I did try to put in a decent review in for both of them - the prose was fine and there wasn't much to talk about there (except jargon), so I really didn't have much to "complain" about. That doesn't lower the value of my review (at least, I would hope it doesn't); rather it says something about the quality of the article (specifically in relation to the broadness criteria). And I have stated on TonyTheTiger's talk page that I now specifically refuse to review any of his GA nominations in future, as I'm not particularly fond of my review being called "half-arsed" or whatever else he said about it. Sure, I didn't spend an hour on it as I have on some, but I tried to make it as useful as I could considering there was so little to talk about. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger just doesn't like that his articles are being failed. I gave him a longer review on Greg Skrepenak‎ and he still complained. When an article that is a biography doesn't even contain a date of birth or much about their personal or non-career life, then it's not very comprehensive, is it? I read through the article and left some comments about how the article could be improved. It could have been a little longer, but I don't think there is anything overly wrong with it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

People ask why I don't do more GA reviews. As you can see by the three I've done, I don't do quick reviews. If I do a review, I do it for the purpose of helping another person achieve a GA where I think I can make the difference by reviewing it. I have only done three and intended to do a fourth Walter O'Malley, but it was failed before I could do so and I thus helped renominate it. I very much appreciate it when a reviewer takes the time to say this is not a GA, but it could be with a specific set of changes. I am disappointed when an article is close enough that a decent reviewer could direct me toward a GA with a hold and I get needlessly failed. It is detrimental to the project when this happens because the next reviewer has to start from scratch after a renomination. In this case, we had a single editor with 29 nominations and a series of talk page threads all over the place saying what should we do that resulted in 8 consecutive fails. I have taken several failed noms well in the past. This is a situation where there is a concerted effort to do something detrimental to the project to try to humble some cocky editor who nominated 29 articles at one time. It is not good for the project to quickfail articles that are close. Since User:Dihydrogen Monoxide is one of the best reviewers on WP and I am one of the most successful nominators on WP it would be very likely if he put an effort into writing a constructive GA on hold and I gave a good effort at responding to it, the project would have an additional good article such activity should be encouraged. That is what my point is. In terms of international importance, both Bob Timberlake and Dennis Franklin are low importance. They both might be low importance to any project they are associated with. However, WP:GAC does not consider an article's importance. I don't have access to common sources to do much more to expand upon the breadth of the article. I am much more disappointed in the reviews of User:Scorpion0422‎ than those of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Of the 8 fails, I will concede about half of them. However, I am considering renominating 4 or 5 of them at WP:GAR. I challenge all GA reviewers to look at Greg Skrepenak and say whether they are as skilled enough reviewer to have guided it to GA status with a constructive hold. I think the majority of reviewers could. That is my point here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidently you consider me a skilled reviewer. I looked at the reviewed version of Greg Skrepenak and could not see a justification for placing it on hold, short of "I've spent the last week finding sources, here they all are. Oh yes, and here's the prose that you can write based on these sources. Copy paste this into the article and I'll put it on hold." It's the same with the two I reviewed - I could critique what was there more than I did, and I don't want to waste my time finding sources that you couldn't be bothered finding (or, if you did search, they aren't there, so it's even more of a waste). Sorry, that isn't what GAC is about, and someone with as many GAs as you would surely understand that. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 04:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The article as it is is much better than it was. this is the version I reviewed. The fact that you followed several of my suggestions and expanded it significantly indicates that my review was somewhat valuable and it should just be renominated. It doesn't really belong at GA review. The purpose of that is when you thinkt the version that was reviewed deserved to pass. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I’m apt to believe that criticizing the efforts of volunteer reviewers is more “detrimental to the project” than not holding a nomination. The GA process is not here to develop articles into Good Articles; it is here to evaluate articles already “believe[d] … to be good according Good article criteria” and, if necessary, provide constructive criticism. If you believe a review to not be sufficiently thorough, politely asking the reviewer to elaborate or bringing the article to WP:GAR are appropriate actions. Accusations of a collaborative effort to fail articles to spite a nominator fail to assume good faith and undermine the GA process, which is “built upon the good faith efforts and honor of reviewers”. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This diff comparing the version Scorpion reviewed to the current version is evidence that his GA review did exactly what it was supposed to do. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the diff you are pointing to could have easily resulted from a 'Hey this article covers the guys whole life, but does not really elaborate on the NFL portion of his career, which is afterall in large part responsible for making his life notable.' A GA on hold could have gotten this result. Then the original reviewer could go back and look at the two paragraphs added and say. Yeah this is sort of what I was looking for. I am just saying that what you were asking for was some detail that could have been handled by a "If you can do this it would be a good article", which is what a hold is for. Now a new reviewer has to review the whole article, which is a resource drain on the project. There is no need to take special action and have this section and or Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_8#Number_of_concurrent_nominations. Just look at the articles and see if you can help bring them to GA. I do think most people who would look at the original version would have felt they could have brought it to GA with a constructive hold. Now, that I have done several sports articles I am finding that certain cities have extensive online search archives for the major daily newspaper going back 20 or 25 years. So far I have found that the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Houston Chronicle are all available. A reviewer could simply say this guy played a large part of his career in the Bay area and you should research their archives to expand his NFL career section. That would be sufficient for a GA hold.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(Quoted from [[Template:GANotice]) "It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed." - I hardly see how an article lacking a significant amount of content is "basically a good article" and I don't see how the content it lacks is only a "minor change". Perhaps we have different definitions of "on hold". — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"On hold" is for changes that you think the editor can make within seven days without too much trouble, IMO. Adding two paragraphs, which was more than was necessary on Greg Skrepenak could easily be done in seven days. In the case of the two articles you failed I think Dennis Franklin may be more complete than you think, because the information you request is not easily accessible by a simple internet search.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the information I requested couldn't really be added in seven days. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A-Class nominations

If an article is already A-class, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, can it still be a candidate for and/or pass GAC? I have left a message on the article talk page saying that FA would probably be the logical next step (it has already been to peer review), but should I still review and possibly pass the article for GA? --Malachirality (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. In contrast to good and featured articles, A-Class is matter for individual WikiProjects. From the GA perspective, it makes no difference whether a WikiProject regards an article as A-Class or not: all that matters is whether the article meets the good article criteria. Although FAC might be a more logical next step in this case, an editor has requested a GA review first: such a review should be a good preparation for FAC. Geometry guy 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A-class is a totally different classification altogether, and should be treated separately. Personally, I don't really like it all that much because it's seen as being one level "above" GA, yet for all the so-called A-class articles that I've seen, I almost never see a very detailed A-class review (unlike WP:FAC, and a lot of WP:GANs, which get much more detailed reviews). It seems like the various wikiprojects just slap the A tag out there with no real wikipedia-wide standard over their quality (every wikiproject has different standards).

When I review an article for WP:GA, I review it against the GA criteria alone, irregardless of whether it's A-class or not. If it passes, and it's A-class, I promote to GA and keep it as A-class as well. But if it fails GA, I have no qualms about demoting it's ranking back down to B-class, especially if there is no evidence of a proper A-class review anywhere in the talk history. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In the context of this specific article (i.e. assessment under WikiProject Biography), a GA review might be somewhat “regressive”. Not all projects require a review for A-Class, as this one did; in those instances, the letter grades seem more so geared towards addressing the meaningfulness and usefulness of the content and are less concerned with adherence to policy. GA reviews, conversely, care somewhat less about content (only that it must be ‘broad”) and more about compliance with basic content policies. Simply put, in this case, the usefulness of a GA review will depend on the thoroughness of the A-review.

The article is certainly still eligible for a GA review as far as the A-class is concerned. Indeed, a GA review would never hurt (for instance, several image captions end in full stops, despite not being full sentences, which is a current problem the GA review would hopefully catch). My understanding, however, is that articles should not be simultaneously nominated for FA and GA, as this is. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I believe this was a former FAC, so it should be ok. Thanks a lot to everyone for the quick and detailed responses. --Malachirality (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Just Checking

In the course of reviewing Elizabeth Cady Stanton, I made a series of minor edits that involved punctuation, ref placement, and minor reorganization of words and/or sentences. I just wanted to make sure that, despite making (admittedly insignificant) contributions myself, I can still promote this article to GA w/out it being a COI. Obviously, I'm not going to take any sort of credit as a contributor to the good article, on my userpage, in my mind, or elsewhere. --Malachirality (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on these edits I might consider abstaining - fixing typos and wikilinks is one thing, once you start copyediting you're sort of in too deep. It's up to you, it's not a clear cut COI yet, and considering the backlog you might wanna just wing it (it looks like a GA anyway), but in future cases I wouldn't go into copyediting. In this case I suggest you pass it, and we AGF on your behalf :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would it be considered COI to review an article written by a user who has previously reviewed and passed one of your articles and is about a subject whose Wikiproject you are a member of? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, only if you've directly edited the article, or if the user nominating it is influencing your judgment in passing/failing/on-holding. However, with Where We Land I requested a 2nd opinion, see the talk page for details. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 22:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to H2O) *Oh oops, sorry about that. I do some ce stuff for the LOCE too, so I guess instinct just kicked in :-/. Not to make excuses, but the article was already pretty good as it was that I didn't consider the changes I made important enough to bring in the contributors (who don't seem to be responding). Anyways, I won't do that again. I think I'll leave the nom up for a day or two and see if other users object to the changes and promotion as COI (please comment below). Alternatively, I could just list for a 2nd opinion (but again, considering backlog). Thanks for the clarification. --Malachirality (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the comment "once you start copyediting you're sort of in too deep". There is no conflict of interest here, and reviewers are encouraged to fix problems that they find with articles under review. This includes quite extensive copyediting, and even minor content fixes. The goal is to ensure that only articles which meet the criteria are listed. If reviewers can help the article achieve this, so much the better for Wikipedia. I believe in this case you are being thoroughly objective, and encourage you to promote the article if you believe it meets the criteria. If anyone disagrees, they can propose delisting the article or challenge your decision at WP:GAR. That is a key advantage of the one reviewer system. Geometry guy 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Geometry guy, though I do have one word of warning. I've been sniped at more than once for trying to help copyedit, so be prepared that, sadly, some people don't really appreciate it. I try to be modest, especially if I've never reviewed for them before. If I know that they're pleasant to work with, however, then I go ahead and copy edit to improve the article. Cheers, CP 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're saying you went to review an article, saw that it was nearly a pass, fixed a few minor issues, and want to know if you should then pass it or leave it for another reviewer to look at?

My answer would be (in this specific scenario only) pass it there and then. Leave your usual review, and mention that you fixed a few minor issues (what they were and why). What you're doing is helpful to Wikipedia, and is far more editor friendly than placing an article on hold because, say, there's a badly formatted reference or a comma in the wrong place. --kingboyk (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've listed it as a GA; quick question--do I have to update the total GA article count (currently in the 3000s) manually?

No, this is regularly updated by a bot. Geometry guy 19:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Review please

Hello, is anyone interested in looking over an article, but not for GA? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are other more conventional places where to ask for this, like the irc channel and the peer review thingy, but whatever...drop it like it's hot here, I'll take a look. --Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the article is Greatest Hits (Lost), which has already been peer reviewed. At its FAC, a user has said that "nearly every sentence needs fiddling… find someone to run through the whole article." I have listed it for review by the League of Copyeditors, but it will be weeks before someone gets to it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about Lost so I had some trouble following the -Plot- section, apart from that, I don't think it's a terrible article. I have a MOS doubt though, I'm not sure this:"April 9, 2007 to April 12", is OK, wikilinking speaking.Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From my experiences with Tony1 (at FAC) he'll generally provide some examples of what's bad about the article, if you ask. Then you just have to check for re-occurances of said issue. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's still relevant/needed, I'll be happy to copyedit the article. --Malachirality (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting page statistics...

I just ran the Page History Stats tool on this page (it was the first run, so in future it should be quicker) and got some rather interesting results. The top editor of the page (with 407 edits) was Lincher who seems to have retired. Next was Canadian Paul, followed by Dr. Cash, Nehrams2020, and yours truly, all with over 270 edits. Nice work all involved. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what happened to Lincher. Doesn't look like he was involved in any wikidrama, his edits just stopped. That's too bad, he was a good editor. --kingboyk (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Theatre, film and drama

To match long overdue changes at GA (see WT:GA), film and drama are now listed under Arts and architecture. This includes television and radio drama, dramatic comedy, soap operas, fictional characters etc., but not television and radio journalism and other non-fiction. Apologies for any temporary inconvenience finding your GAN listings. Geometry guy 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In view of the discussion in the previous thread, any ideas for subdividing this subtopic would be welcome. The same probably applies to the Music subtopic, which is also rather large now. Geometry guy 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Why is architecture grouped with arts? Isn't architecture primarily related to engineering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

From an architect's point of view it may be. One reason art and architecture are grouped together is because one of the categories for featured articles has long been "Art, architecture and archaeology". That isn't a particularly good reason of course! However, if you look at the articles we have on architecture, they aren't really engineering articles. They are more about the significance and artistic design of buildings and other structures. Some of them are more like history articles even. Listing them with arts is a compromise, but not such a bad one in my view. Geometry guy 13:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 29/12/2007

Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 29th December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Dihydrogen Monoxide
2. AnonEMouse
3. Canadian Paul
4. Scorpion0422
5. Elcobbola.
Epbr123 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 5/1/2008

Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 5th January 2008. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Dihydrogen Monoxide
2. Canadian Paul
3. M3tal H3ad
4. Casliber
5. AnonEMouse.
Epbr123 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! DHMO is on a roll! Congrats! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2 in 2 days ^_^ — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking dates

Hi, I'm currently trying to perform my first review on Queen's Pier. The article is pretty much there, but as contributors claim: This article eschews the Wikilinking of dates.

My understanding of linking full dates is that it is a presentational issue for readers who have set their preferences to US, or International presentation. (MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking)

Two editors on the page have reached a consensus that such linking is not necessary. There are other issues of consistency between the article's use of the two date formats - which they are fixing while the article is on hold. If issues of date consistency are fixed, do I PASS this article, FAIL, or ask for a second opinion. My feeling is that (when date consistency is fixed) this is the only issue with the article.

Thanks for any advice more experienced reviewers can provide. As a neophyte, you may wish to look over the article and provide any additional advice on reviews on my talk page. Kbthompson (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking of dates is highly contested because autoformatting requires the dates to be linked, which introduces a number of drawbacks. There are a number of voices against it, which think the links do more harm than good. There's been a long discussion on it on the MOSDATE talk page, and even a petition to get the devs to fix the issue. User:Tony1 is working on a proposal to make it optional. henrik•talk 10:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Now I know far more about dates than I ever wished to! From the discussion I understand that it is currently compulsory but within the short term may become optional. It is not my inclination to make work for editors - particularly if they themselves are against wiki linking the dates - however, I have no right to anticipate a consensus on some future optional policy. Unless there are any objections, I shall PASS this article when consistency is achieved - but note my reservations as part of the review. Kbthompson (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Luckily (well, it is not by chance actually) the full intricacies of the ever-changing Manual of Style are not required by the good article criteria, only a few of its most important points are. In particular, GA is agnostic when it comes to wikilinking dates. If this is the only issue, passing is certainly fine. Geometry guy 13:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I will however ask for consistency between date formats. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick Failing an Aricticle due to nominator inactivity

Sorry if this question was raised before, but has anyone quick failed an article due to the nominator's inactivity to improve the article after the GAC has been placed on hold? miranda 13:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• If there are no improvements to the article within the seven-day on hold period, it can be failed. Epbr123 (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Indeed, and this is not a quick-fail, it is simply a regular common-or-garden fail. Geometry guy 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My introduction to the GA process occurred when someone uninvolved nominated one of my articles. It passed. Wrad (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Backlog and automation

Those who have read the latest GA newsletter will know that the current backlog is extremely large. The latest report has 275 articles at GAN, 239 of which have no reviewer yet. It is not surprising that the backlog has increased over the festive season, but the extent of the increase should cause pause for thought. Furthermore, the backlog has not fallen below 200 since 21 November, and has been over 175 since 9 September. It seems to me that the problem is quite obvious: up to late 2006, Wikipedia grew exponentially; it is no longer doing so, but instead articles are maturing and the exponential growth is feeding through to good articles. The number of reviewers and/or reviews, however, has not grown so rapidly, hence the crisis.

If we don't address this core problem, GA will be overwhelmed (and the statistics suggest that it already is). We desperately need rapid growth in reviewer numbers. I have been raising this issue repeatedly in the last months, but feel I have been whistling in the wind. Potential new reviewers are clearly put off by the complexity of GA, but there is a reluctance among many regular GA contributors to bite the bullet and simplify GA to attract more reviewers. (For past discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_8#On_hold_and_second_opinion, Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_8#Scalability and Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Recommendation:_make_GA_less_process-oriented.)

I am ready to give up: there is a chance that GA will emerge from the backlog in 2-3 years as the drop in article creation feeds through here. However, I have promised on several occasions that some simplification could be achieved by automating some of the drudgery involved in the GA process, and I want to make this promise concrete...

...

Take a look at WP:PR and WP:Peer review list. Both of these pages are automatically generated using the {{peer review}} template on article talk pages. This saves editors the burden of listing peer reviews on the PR page. The same technology could be used to autogenerate the WP:GAN page, so that no one would ever need to edit it. At the moment, it is the hottest page on my watchlist, so I know this would save a lot of edits. But this cannot be done without a price.

1. Nominators would have to specify the subtopic of the article in the {{GAnominee}} template. (Making it harder to nominate successfully may be a good thing, however.)
2. The different statuses ("On review", "On hold", "Second opinion") would have to be listed in separate sections. In my view, these statuses are a bureaucratic waste of time, but a few of the best GA reviewers seem to be wedded to them. Is it okay to list them separately or must they be listed together?
3. It would be impossible to add comments to the GAN page (such as "I will review this in the next 2-3 days."). (This freedom is often abused to add talk page comments to the GAN page, so I don't think it would be a great loss, but others may disagree.)

In the long-run, the same technology could autogenerate WP:GA from the talk page template as well, but GAN is easier to automate. Is there any appetite to do it? Geometry guy 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love you forever if you did this. As far as I can see, ultimately we need to simplify the process to the point where only the article's talk page is edited - changing the GAnom template to the GAonhold template to the GA template will cause a bot to edit this page, and WP:GA, as necessary. WP:PR is the precedent that this can be done, and I see no reason why we shouldn't follow. I think the statuses (your 2nd point) could be listed the same way they are now, and controlled by editing the article's talk page. So, what do others say? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree: the goal is to do everything with talk page templates. However, that means that the talk page templates have to inform the bot where on the GAN (or GA) page the article should be listed. The technology I have available for doing this is via categories: a template of the form {{GAonhold|subtopic=music}} (or perhaps {{GAN|status=on hold|subtopic=music}}) would place the article talk page in a category of the form Category:Music GAN on hold. This would cause the article to be listed on the GAN page in the Music subsection of the Art and architecture section. Notice that this is quite a proliferation of categories: there are 34 subtopics and 4 statuses, yielding 136 categories! In my view, this is a clear sign that GAN is intrinsically too complicated.

Anyway, the limitation of this technology is the following: if you want to be able to see, on the GAN page, which Music GANs are on hold (rather than nominees, on review, or 2nd opinion), then all "Music GANs on hold" would have to be listed together: it would not be possible to mix them in with "Music GANs on review" etc. Is that a deal breaker, or is love still in the air? Geometry guy 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also in favor of automating this process, but have two questions. One, would archiving / closing noms also be automated? This caused a problem at WP:PR initially, and it seems that removing GAN from the list would be a potential problem. Two, and this is related, would it be possible to switch to a separate GA page? This would then be consistent with what is already done for WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FLC, etc. Thanks for offering to do this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, GA reviews are not archived, so archiving/closing noms would be straightforward: change the talk page template, and, if necessary, list at WP:GA (until that is also automated). The article would automatically be removed from GAN. One could certainly have a separate debate about whether GA reviews should be archived, and whether they should be transcluded from a separate page, but there is a long tradition of having GAs on the talk page, and it is not clear that it would be easy or worthwhile to change this tradition. Geometry guy 21:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: I'm not sure if there would be a big enough time benefit to this to make it worth it if it were implemented, but is there a way to have a bot check all articles for a lack of sources/cleanup tags and auto-fail articles that would be quick-failed? Corvus coronoides _talk 00:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that is possible, but I don't think it is worth it, and I don't think it would be very popular: "A bot failed my article"! Geometry guy 16:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a backlog and/or lack of reviewers?

While I don't really care, I also don't buy the argument that people aren't becoming GA reviewers of the difficulty of the process. I just don't see any evidence that that's anything but a subjective interpretation of our current situation. Wikipedia is a volunteer job. Good Article reviewing is a volunteer job within a volunteer job. Someone was asking me questions about Wikipedia and they asked me why someone would spend their time working on Wikipedia. My response was that it was like any volunteer job, it's because you get some sort of satisfaction out of it. It's up to the individual person to have their reasons why they contribute. My best guess, and I admit that, like your idea, it is just a guess, is that, for the majority of the variety motives people have for contributing to Wikipedia, the motivation does not extend to reviewing the works of others. While I don't doubt that some potential reviewers are put off by the current system, my hypothesis is that a rough equal number of older reviewers would be put off by the newer system. They'd stop contributing not out of spite, but because of shifting motivations, wills and desires. So my theory is that any large such change will merely shift the experience level of the reviewers, not the numbers. Since I can't prove it, however, I have no formal objection, I'm just merely pointing out that the time spent on all this organization might be better spent on actually reviewing a few of the articles. My other question is, if we're so worried about making things accessible for new reviewers, why have we been continually consolidating the nominations? Maybe it's just me, but if I were a newbie, I'd find several large lists of nominations more intimidating and I'd feel like I could make less of a difference. I originally started reviewing because I saw several smaller lists and thought "well I bet I could review all of those articles." Everyone is different of course but, personally, I see contradicting efforts at work here. Cheers, CP 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You make interesting points. It is very difficult to obtain evidence for editor's motivations, as these usually don't get expressed on-wiki. My argument is that each complication in the process has the potential to put someone off reviewing: this affects the probability of attracting new reviewers, and hence the statistics. One piece of evidence for this can be found here.

I agree entirely that making big changes could put off existing reviewers. One of the features of the PR automation was that the appearance of the PR page did not change at all. Even though I dislike the complexity of the 2nd opinion, on hold business, I am entirely happy to automate the GAN page on that basis, with as little change to the current format as possible. I have mentioned above that there would be a small change in appearance, as within each topic, on-holds, 2nd opinions etc., would be broken down into separate lists. However, this may be a good thing according to your last point.

Concerning this, there is definitely no agenda to consolidate the nominations. Instead there is a tension between a pragmatic break-down of topics and a logical one. My own view is that we should be consistent between GA and GAN, and this has driven most of the recent changes. However, any proposal to split a subtopic into two (both here and at GA) would be welcomed. This has already happened with "Recreation" (now split into "Sport and recreation" and "Video and computer games") for example. Geometry guy 22:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree with Canadian Paul. I don't think the current process is a major reason for the lack of reviewers. The effort it takes to process a GA review is negligible compared to the effort it takes to do the actual review. Learning how to do a GA review, including reading all the guidelines and examining other reviews, is far more intimidating for a newbie than learning how to pass or fail an article. Epbr123 (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a point from a current newbie regarding GAN reviews. The reason I don't do more (I did one because I nom'd an article and it is suggested that if you nominate then you should also review one) is that I just don't want to make a mistake and either be 1.) too stringent or 2.) too lenient and pass articles that don't meet the criteria. Just my two cents--I don't want to make a mistake. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions: Is the current backlog problem due to a lack of reviewers or to an excess of nominees? Meaning - are most of the articles nominated actually at GA quality (or close to it)? What are the statistics on GA nominees - how many pass/fail? I wonder if the backlog is due to the fact that there are too few reviewers for lots of good articles or if the problem is that reviewers spend too much time on articles that fail.Corvus coronoides _talk 22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't failed an article straight out for over a month now...I've failed a few on holds due to no effort being put (and I mean zero effort) into dealing with the issues, but I'd say I've passed about 80-90% of my reviews (via on hold) in the last month and a half. And I've reviewed a heck of a lot in that time ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Corvus coronoides _talk 00:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, maybe I have insanely high standards, but my ratio is a little different. I have found a ratio of 60-40 for pass-fail, roughly. Personally, I do see a problem that certain editors are mass nominating not articles that they have worked on, but articles they feel are important but have worked on little, if any themselves. Many of these do not meet the criteria at all, and thus can be failed, but it still takes the time to review. Even worse, when an article is decent, but not quite there, one takes a lot of time to do a thorough review to get it to GA, then finds the nominator has no interest in fixing the article and just wanted to see if it could pass. For example, when I reviewed Star Trek and informed the nominator of the hold, they just posted on the Wikiproject and said "here's what you need to do to get it to GA" and nothing was ever done. I'm not saying that the majority experience, after all I've got a 60ish% pass rate when quickfails are taken out of the picture, and obviously not all fails fall under that category, but even if it were true for 10%, that would be 30 more articles. So while I don't think it's "the" problem, or even a large one, I think it's part of the issue. Cheers, CP 01:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be a more stringent reviewer than me (likely!), or it could just be that the music articles are generally good. I don't know. Also the fact that I don't go looking for quickfails (not saying that in an accusing tense, just noting). In any case, I do agree that nominations where people don't do anything after the hold are a bad thing, though I can't think of anything to do about it (short of sanctioning users, which is a really bad idea). By the way, I fixed a link in CP's comments, as he had accidentally linked to Extras rather than User:Canadian Paul/Extras. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link. The 60-40 ratio does not include quickfails, so it doesn't effect my results. In any case, you're right, there's probably nothing we can do about it, but I meant to note that it's part of the problem that indicates a backlog will likely always be present and that no amount of rearranging, short of, as you say, sanctioning the users, will solve it. So it's better to spend time in review than reorganization. Just my opinion though. Cheers, CP 01:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only making one comment here: I have always opposed and will continue to oppose any automation of the GA process. People hate PR precisely because it is an automated process that produces useless results. Anything that is worth doing takes time, and a temporary cycle of backlog problems is no reason to rush off and butcher the process. I wholly agree with CP here; substantially changing the nominations process will put off those who have taken the time to learn the criteria. Making it so that the only activity is on the article talk will draw in those who don't know squat about the criteria, and thus will significantly lessen the quality of reviews. Is it so odd to think that the only way to solve the backlog is to review articles? The only reason we have a big backlog now is because the holidays coincided with an unusual excess of nominations. VanTucky ^talk 00:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got the GA page on my watchlist simply so it's easy to go to, to check recent additions every now and again. But when I first came across GA, I was completely put off the review process because it sounded so complicated. I don't know if others would be the same but having seen this section, I thought I'd simply add my own experience in. Peanut4 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me, VanTucky, I find it hard to believe that it is an experienced editor like yourself commenting with such closed-mindedness and ignorance. "People hate PR precisely because it is an automated process that produces useless results." Where did that come from? My best guess is that you are referring to the reviews generated by semi-automatic scripts such as this. Some editors don't like them, and I don't much like them myself, but they form a very small part of the peer review process, which is actually rather active and popular. But we're not talking about semi-automatic reviews here. My point of view is: let bots do what bots are good at (tedious repetitive tasks), and let humans do what humans are good at (make assessments based on judgement and reason). I'm just talking about automating some of the tedium, not the review itself.

"The only reason we have a big backlog now is because the holidays coincided with an unusual excess of nominations." That's a head-in-the-sand attitude if ever I saw one. How do you define "backlog"? Before the holidays there were still over 200 articles at GAN and there have been for many months. Is that not a backlog? It has been steadily growing because demand for reviews is outstripping supply. How large does the backlog have to get before heads come out of the sand? 300? 500? Geometry guy 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m constantly amazed at how many people think the process is complicated and/or confusing. Aside from some contradictory polices/phrasing, it seems perfectly simple to me. If I am indeed unique in this regard, I echo the points already raised: the perceived complications serve as a useful barrier to entry which 1) ensures new reviewers have a genuine commitment and 2) requires reviewers have a thorough understanding of the “rules”. I think the problem, if you can call it that, is more so that doing a proper review is a large time commitment; I think a lot of editors feel their time and efforts are better spent elsewhere. Reviewing can also be contentious, as editors do not always respond well to criticism. Spending a lot of time to go (at the least) unappreciated is not the most attractive prospect. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 00:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a minor reviewer. I do a review here and there. The process is a bit complex. It is actually simpler to fail outright an article than to go through the process of passing an article. Reading a couple of the above responses leads me to think that a process to move through the back-log quickly would be to identify those articles where an actual review is pointless. Obviously, an article that meets the quik-fail criteria should be got through quickly. The "Bot" idea sounds good. Another group of articles as CP mentions are those who have no active editors. Before writing the review, it is probably best to confirm if there is anyone 'home'. No one home = quick fail. Anecdotally, I've seen an interested potential reviewer or two who would post a technical question on this talk page and quickly realize they have no interest in jumping through techinical hoops in order to review. They leave. A recent example can be found here. Anyway, I'll try to do two or three this week. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple observations:

• complexity of process: When compared to other Wikipedia procedures, or when considered by people who are fairly comfortable with technology, the process does not seem extraordinarily difficult. But those may not be the best metrics. I would say that, like many other procedures on Wikipedia, this one is too complicated. That's not a slam on anyone -- I know it's something that was made by volunteers. But it's important to keep in mind that the core skill we probably want in GA reviewers is the ability to assess and edit the written word, which is generally a "humanities" type skill. Many with those skills are not nearly as comfortable following lists of instructions and remembering or looking up little strings of code as are programmers and the like. I think there's plenty of room for improvement/simplifying, whether or not this is the "core" problem.
• An incomplete suggestion: Personally, I have yet to do a GA review. Part of this is, I'd rather review an article that is more or less in my area of interest. If the only way for me to find that is to scan through long lists, that's a fairly high bar. Yes, I know that in theory, reviewing any article is in the best interest of the overall project, but I suspect many people would be more motivated to review within their area of interest. If there were some way to rearrange things such that it's possible to see when articles in a certain category, or within a certain Wikiproject, come up for review, that might be helpful to drawing more people in. (Note, the existing classification system is better than nothing, but it's a one-to-one relationship: for instance, the Cascade Mountains couldn't be under geology, and Oregon, and Washington. You gotta pick one spot.) -Pete (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the complexity of process section. I don't review GA, but I do try review at PR, FLC or FAC because that's what you can do there, review. You need no other skill, but simply read the article, and add your comments. No other complexities. Peanut4 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

For those who are interested, I've made a graph of the backlog since late July: Image:GANbacklog.png. It shows the total number of nominations, and the number without a reviewer. Geometry guy 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool graph! Definitely helpful in seeing the scale of the problem. I'm working on my first GA, and have an observation/question. It seems like it would be helpful to be able to generate an outline on the talk page, before determining whether or not the article passes. That way, I could use the outline as a tool for assessing each piece one by one. Is there a reason why it's done the other way around? -Pete (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is much better in general to leave an outline/review before making a pass/fail decision, then give editors some time to respond. For some reason, in September, this was turned into a formal "on hold" procedure, but in my view it is simply a matter of courtesy. What you can do, if you wish, is use a template like {{GAList}}, but leave the final pass/fail parameter (7) blank. Then when you make your decision, you can add the pass fail parameter and substitute the template as {{subst:GAList|7=yes}} (of course there will be other parameters in practice). Previously the template generated an error message if it wasn't substituted: I've modified it so it doesn't do this when the pass/fail parameter is blank. I hope that helps. I'll do the same to some of the alternative templates. Geometry guy 18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You can also use {{GANOH}} of course. Geometry guy 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved discussion of a reform to bottom of page, to make it more prominent. -03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality vs quantity

This is generating a lot of interesting discussion, so maybe it would be good to step back a little. As I see it, there is a (healthy :) tension between two schools of thought concerning GA. The first wants to improve the quality and reliability of GA reviews, the second wants to make the process as lightweight as possible to maximize the pool of reviewers. It should be no surprise to hear that I belong to the second school, but I have a great deal of respect for those in the first. The comment by Elcobbola that "the perceived complications serve as a useful barrier to entry" illustrates nicely the difference, and others have made similar points before. I sympathise with the point of view even though I disagree. GA is often criticised for having no standards, being unreliable, unaccountable and with no authority. So the desire to make it more robust and reliable is quite natural. Personally, I ignore the snipes: the bottom line is that the existence of GA improves article quality, and that's a good thing.

I do care about the reliability and quality of GA, but in my view this is best achieved by the fact that an article can be listed or delisted multiple times. You don't need to contribute to GAR for very long to realise that there are a lot of bad reviews out there, but so what? If an article is incorrectly failed or given an unhelpful review, it can be renominated or taken to GAR. If it is passed when it doesn't meet the criteria, it can be delisted. There are plenty of GAs which don't meet the criteria, and plenty of good articles which aren't yet listed, but we're working on it!

The criticism that I don't ignore is from the "editors in the street" who increasingly find that GANs take months to be reviewed. I really do not think that this is a blip, so we have to do something to address not the quality but the quantity of GA reviews. There is one line on the GAN page which goes to the very heart of the GA one-nominator-one-reviewer process: "When you nominate an article, please consider also choosing another article from the list to review." At the moment this line is, quite frankly, a joke. How many nominators are going to wade through the screenfuls of instructions and guidelines to take up this suggestion? A tiny fraction. If instead, a significant number of nominators became reviewers, there would be no backlog. That is what I would like to see happen. Geometry guy 15:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with your general assessment of the "two camps" on this issue. I especially take to heart your last paragraph. It isn't fair for people to have to wait as long as they have during the current backlog. I think the way to improve GAN without pissing off people from either camp is to campaign to bring in new reviewers, not change the nominations. If we can bring in new reviewers with the present system and shepherd them through it where necessary, then speed of reviews can be increased and quality maintained. Speaking of my own experience, for example: I didn't even know what the sweeps were until the GA newsletter had a advert for new recruits. Then I asked to join. I think if we did a project-wide message to WikiProject talk pages, the Community Portal, the mailing lists etc. then we might draw in some new blood. To my knowledge, we've never done a very serious campaign, beyond trying to distribute the newsletter and talk to selected individuals. Even new reviewers that do a fraction of the reviews of people like CP or DihydrogenMonoxide would make a difference. VanTucky ^talk 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this helpful comment. Advertising is a good idea. Indeed, I'd support any idea which would increase the number of reviewers! In addition to the backlog graph, I made another graph of the number of articles on review. This is a rough measure of the size of the reviewing resource we have: unfortunately it is approximately constant (around 40 articles).

Advertising only works if it offers something that people want. Here I think we should take advantage of the fact that Peanut4 has become interested in this discussion, despite never having reviewed an article. This is the audience we need to reach. So Peanut4, how can we pitch GAN to you without making big changes to the process? Geometry guy 18:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest having seen the difference between GA, and PR and the two FLs, I like how democractic PR and FLs are compared to GA. A reviewer at the aforementioned may have skills and attributes and help an article improve rather than take on the whole article, i.e. prose, MOS, references, images, etc. Added to that the whole GA review process seems too complicated, using various tags and criteria, which put me off. Maybe if new reviewers were offered a kind of tutor to start with to guide them through the process.

However undemocratic or difficult I see the GA process as, I cannot deny it doesn't have an important place in Wikipedia. It provides a seal of approval to articles which aren't of an FA standard and the sheer backlog of nominations proves people want GA. Maybe start recruiting new reviewers from those making nominations. Peanut4 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to understand what you mean by "GA is undemocratic". My best guess is that you are sympathetic with the point of view, expressed by Ling.Nut recently (see here) that the "On review" and "On hold" templates effectively exclude other reviewers, but I don't want to put words into your mouth. Geometry guy 20:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It just seems to me one person does the review. Yes, you can re-nominate if it fails or GAR exists for incorrect passes but what is good or bad about an article is more in the mind of one reviewer rather than a healthy discussion, for example this huge FAC review - Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Western_Chalukya_architecture Peanut4 (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It helps to remember that GA is but one step in the “grading process” on the way to FA status - not even a required one, at that. It seems logical for the review processes to become more involved as the article grows: GA to confirm “good” level of content and policy compliance, PR to provide recommendations for expansion or polish needed for FA, and FA itself. Each level of “thoroughness” has its place as an article matures. If GA were to become consensus based, it might as well be merged with PR. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the point people miss with GA is that it is consensus based, it's just the exact opposite time line of FA. FA's evaluations are made by the community, and are accepted or rejected by a single experienced person (the FA director). GA works the other way: evaluation is made by a single person, and it is accepted or rejected by the community. Accepting the evaluation by a reviewer is based on (first) the agreement of those who nominated the article, and (if it is contested by those authors) the consensus of the larger community. Which in fact makes GA more democratic than FA, not less. VanTucky ^talk 23:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That’s technically true, but it’s specious reasoning. By that logic, every last edit made to Wikipedia is consensus based; that may indeed be the case, but leaves it merely a statement of the obvious. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to get off on a tangent, but that logic doesn't apply. GA candidates always have a nominator, so the reviews get vetted through others almost 100% of the time. With any other edit, they may very likely be overlooked, and thus not subject to a consensus. VanTucky ^talk 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) On the issue of attracting new reviewers, I was "caught" by Nehrams2020 after s/he reviewed an article I had nominated and in the review, said something like "Please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with backlog." I mention this as one possible way to attract new reviewers - if people are familiar enough with criteria to nominate an article that passes, perhaps they would make good reviewers. Corvus coronoides _talk 23:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done three GA reviews so far (so I am "even" as I have made major contributions to three GAs). I will say it is (at least for me) a much more invloved process than either PR or FAC. I think part of it is that I am the only one working on the GA review, so that I worry I will miss something (whereas at FAC there are always others chiming in, and PR is not meant to be as comprehensive). I happen to like the various templates and have found the GA On Hold template most useful. I have taken one of the oldest articles to review twice (which might have made things more difficult for me). I do agree that the best way to get more reviewers is to ask those who nominate to also review someone else's work. Just my $0.02 Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean {{GANOH}}? Per Corvus's comments, I've added a suggestion to the "pass" guidelines that the happy and successful nominators should be encouraged to review an article. I hope that all reviewers will do this, as it might make a impact (even if only a small one) on the size of the reviewer resource. Geometry guy 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue is that people percieve it as strictly a 'quality vs. quantity' issue. Personally, if we could have the process more automated, I feel that it would remove some burden on the nominators and a great deal more on the reviewers- I have to say, the {{ArticleHistory}} template is perhaps the most annoying one I have to use in the entire Wiki. But I agree with VanTucky that the automated Peer Review crap is not the way to go. Humans definitely have to do the reviewing. As for quality, it obviously depends on the reviewer, and I know personally I was more lenient on reviews when I was a newb. But I think as long as people learn from it, those poor GA's will eventually get delisted by WP:GAR and the Sweeps. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And by other individual delists I hope. I agree 100%: automate the tedium as much as possible, but definitely not the review Geometry guy 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll mention one other reason for the lack of reviewers: the attitude of the reviewed. I actually used to review quite a bit around here, but I stopped because it seemed to me that many editors nominating articles at GAC were not looking to improve the article but rather to get it rubber stamped. The templates of GA criteria that are often placed on article talk pages foster this attitude because editors expect to receive little icons or yes/no in response to the criteria. Unfortunately, I did not review that way. I took a great deal of care in the reviews I did and wrote out what were sometimes (apparently) extensive suggestions for improvement. I increasingly found, however, that editors became contentious and I had to ask for a second opinion over minor, non-controversial issues. I found that I could much more constructively comment on articles at WP:PR and even shockingly at WP:FAC. I don't know if this has been anyone else's experience, but it has been mine. (I should mention that, in comparison to other reviewers, I probably had higher standards for articles. I am unapologetic about this.) Awadewit | talk 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been my experience as well. Too many use the process to decorate their user page, not better Wikipedia. High standards and thoroughness appear decidedly unwelcome in practice. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting into practice

I copied over the relevant chunk of the GA review process to my userspace at User:David Fuchs/scratch. I figure that it might be helpful to create a possible replacement for the current guidelines as a proposal which everyone can work on, and then see where it gets us. The only things I changed right now are:

• Templates. I put in placeholders, but the idea would be to have one flexible template for all reviewing- generating a checklist, et al.
• ArticleHistory- the most confusing template out there, in my opinion, but it's much easier to keep track of progress from the getgo if we use this solely.

Righto, David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate reasons for a hold

I've recently reviewed the strangely named Þingalið. I've got some minor concerns, including a worry about OR, that is partly cleared up here. My review can be seen here A comment has been made that the article would perhaps better be merged into the Housecarl article, which would reduce my concerns over breadth of coverage of this article. Is it fair to leave a decision hanging until a concensus can be reached over whether or not it should be merged? Or would it be unreasonable to fail the article and suggest re-submitting it after a consensus is reached? Suggestions would be welcome! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Image licensing issue

Quick question as part of the House Martin review. Two images, Image:Bysvale.jpg and Image:House Martin-Mindaugas Urbonas.JPG, specifically ask for a credit to be given to a named party. It is my understanding that this means a photo credit in the caption must be used. Correct? VanTucky 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that she releases it under the GFDL mean that she doesn't have to be attributed? David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I figure that if they ask to be credited, then it's safer to credit them than not. There's no real harm in making a photo credit in an image caption. Plus, it's dual-license GFDL CC-BY-SA, not regular GFDL. And the second one is only the CC license. VanTucky 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think crediting them on the image page is enough with CC-BY. That's what I was once told, anyways. Legally, I think that's enough. It's easy to be nice and add it to the caption, of course. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is better in a case like this to leave the image credit on the image page only, as the credit isn't really part of the article or its verifiability. Certainly this suffices: the request for a credit on the image page is a reminder to anyone copying the image to another site that they can only do so with attribution. Geometry guy 10:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 12/1/2008

Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Nehrams2020 as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 12th January 2008. Nehrams2020 is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Nehrams2020
2. M3tal H3ad
3. Dihydrogen Monoxide
4. Canadian Paul
5. Miranda.
Epbr123 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear - I should do some work, eh? :P Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody had to knock you off your hill! I'll probably keep up with the reviews, but I still need to go back to doing sweeps reviews. The current progress on that is going by a little too slow. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, I was...erm...burned out from all the awesome reviews I had done. You just won by default because I stopped :D Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You stopped reviewing and you're still third on the list? Sounds like your name is permanently there. Hmmm...I must get to the bottom of this conspiracy. I guess I'll have to keep up with the reviews, and see if I can top you again. Bring on that "awesome reviewing" if you can! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I'm that great, even when I've stopped I review a bit. Usually while sleeping. Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sleeping? I'm doing all of my reviews while in a coma. A friend determines what issues should be addressed in each review, based on the differences in my heart rate. So although I have some help, I will completely remove the backlog in a day once I wake up! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, Wikiholism. Isn't it refreshing? bibliomaniac15 04:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Article failed by a major contributor

I nominated Islamic military jurisprudence for GA some time ago. It was failed by User: Yahel Guhan in the last 24 hours. Yahel Guhan has made significant contributions to the article. Using, this, I have determined that Yahel Guhan is the #2 contributor to article (after myself). The user has also been engaged in disputes and edit-wars on the article at different points in time.

WP:GAN says that "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review." Thus, I want this article to be reviewed by an outside party, one that has not been a major contributor. Should I simply renominate this, or should I seek a re-assesment.Bless sins (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend that you simply renominate it, as that would be the most likely consensus at a reassessment. VanTucky 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just renominate. If the problem repeats itself, take it to GAR. Geometry guy 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the reviewer to remind them that what they did was inappropriate, and I have made a talk statement on the article. VanTucky 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks VT, you are a star! Geometry guy 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Village pump discussion

This discussion might have some relevance here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Suggestion for new gadget. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Revision/simplification of templates, etc.

The discussion below is originally from further up the page, but it concerns a pretty major overhaul to how things are done here, so I want to be sure that it doesn't fly under anyone's radar. I'm going to get to work on this stuff, but will continue to watch the discussion. -Pete (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tips. I think I finally see the shape of this well enough to make a specific suggestion.

• Create a single template that replaces PGAN, FGAN, GANOH, GAList, and GAList2 templates.
• It should appear clean if not parameters are given, a simple list to be filled in.
• Change the instructions such that one of the first steps in conducting a review, is to place that template on the article's talk page.
• Eliminate distinction between "claiming" an article and placing it "on hold." In other words, from the moment when Bob decides to review the "Fast cars" article, until he determines that it passes or fails, it is understood to be "on hold."
• A parameter in the template, called "result" or something like that, takes either "pass" or "fail" as an argument. If left blank, the article remains "on hold."

So, why do all that?

• The reviewer doesn't have to know how the template works, before placing it on the page. It's possible to place a clean list on the page and use it to get to work, with zero investment into understanding the techy bits.
• The reviewer doesn't have to learn about four separate templates.
• The instructions become shorter and simpler; they look less intimidating to begin with, and are easier to follow.
• Following the instructions doesn't require the reviewer to make decisions that a new reviewer is not equipped to make (e.g., "on what basis would I choose GAList2 over GAList?")

I think the current set of templates comes from an attempt to anticipate every little possibility. Which is a good thing to try to do. But I think in this case, simply giving the reviewer space to deal with each unique situation, using their own words, is a better bet. I believe this would put the focus back on editing, rather than an ability to follow complex instructions and make informed choices. -Pete (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. You have come up with a clear plan to address an issue with GA that I have been trying to express for months. It would be much better to have a single talk page template, and make it as flexible as possible. If others agree, I think we should start a new discussion on the way such a template might work to the satisfaction of everyone (or at least, consensus!). Geometry guy 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Pete's above proposal 100%. I can help with the copy trim, but we need guys who know templates to work on some easy, user-friendly versions of what we have now. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like the idea of consolidating all the different review/checklist templates. You could keep the ability to add lengthy comments and still keep and "aye" and "nay" simple parameter if you want. Anyway, that would be better. I'm not sure of the benefit of making the review template one of the first steps though, not that I think it would do harm. What would that accomplish? VanTucky 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see this proposal is getting some consensus. Thanks to you all for the feedback and support. VanTucky, the reason for that is simply to quickly create a "space" for organizing feedback. Drop the outline in, and then get right to reviewing. This is the approach I was expecting to take, having seen these useful checklists in existing GA reviews; not sure about others, but to me it seems like the most natural way to set up the review process for a given article.

Assuming that there's no objection and we move forward with this plan (admittedly a premature assumption!), I would be happy to put my (fairly minimal) expertise with templates to use. Hopefully others with more expertise would be available, as I'll likely have questions. Any suggestions on a name for the replacement template? Template:GAchecklist, maybe? -Pete (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Streamlining the process is certainly to be encouraged. Although I doubt it will have significant impact on the number of reviewers and/or number of reviews completed, it will make the process more convenient and that, in itself, is reason enough to proceed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of combining the various checklist templates, although I've never used any of them myself. Epbr123 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to place an organizing template on the talk page as soon as reviewing begins. It helps to give the impression that reviewing is a process, rather than a rubber stamp, and it is often helpful to editors to receive an initial impression as soon as possible. The template can be updated as the review proceeds. I'm not sure the name "{{GAchecklist}}" best reflects this role, but that's a minor thing and the template looks good so far. I have some experience with tempalte writing and am happy to help with any template technicalities. I had in mind that the template would have some parameters like {{GAList}} does, but that would mean it would only be substituted once the review ended. However, the approach without parameters may be simpler and easier to use. Does anyone have any other views on this? Geometry guy 11:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The "{{GAchecklist}}" makes no mention of a common problem, that is not conforming to WP:LEAD. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Although that certainly is a common problem, I don’t think we want to get too specific with the criteria. WP:LEAD is more or less a sub-policy of WP:MOS, which is mentioned in the criteria. We should try to stay as “high level” as possible for the sake of simplicity; explicitly listing numerous sub-policies would make the criteria too cumbersome. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 17:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• On the template name: I chose {{GAchecklist}} just as a starting point. I don't care what it's called, if somebody has a better idea we should just move it. Right now, I consider it in "draft" phase, meaning do whatever you want with it, be bold, let's get it right before we deploy.
• The more I'm interacting with this stuff, the more I feel that "low-tech" is the way to go. I initially planned to keep some of the parameters that Geometry Guy mentions, but changed my mind; in order to be flexible in duplicating the functions of all the various templates, I think just a blank space where the reviewer can fill in whatever's appropriate is the best way to go. The down side is losing the neat circle icons for "pass," "fail," "wtf"; but to be honest, I never found those too useful anyway. I think an overall icon for pass/fail is useful, but having one for each section seems like unnecessary visual clutter. Six sections are not too many to keep track of without a visual cue like that.
• I'm not too sure on WP:LEAD. Note that the instructions direct a reviewer to delete any sub-section that doesn't help in their review; so on the one hand, I don't see much harm in including an extra guideline, if it's frequently a problem, even if it's a little redundant. But ultimately, I'll bow to the consensus of those who have done many GA reviews; you guys are the ones who know what the frequent problems are. -Pete (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You could keep the circle icons if you wanted, by adding {{GAList/check}} templates to the code (with commented instructions). Geometry guy 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I intend the commented, capitalized instructions to be redundant of the instructions on the main WP:GAN page, for convenience; they can be expanded a bit on the main project page. I'll start working on the full instructions too, I'll put 'em on Template talk:GAchecklist. Also, GeoGuy, I don't understand your suggestion, on a technical level; are you saying that with the template as it is, an editor could choose to incorporate other templates, without requiring any additional built-in functionality? Or are you saying we should build more code into the current draft? -Pete (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit of both: you could add {{GAList/check|}} (or a moved version of this template) to each section of the current draft, with the comment that editors can change this to {{GAList/check|yes}} (etc.) as the review proceeds. I'm not explaining myself particularly well, so I hope you get the idea. Geometry guy 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you just show me what you mean by doing it? -Pete (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Sorry, think I was being dense. That's perfect! -Pete (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can nominators review?

This may sound like a stupid question, but yesterday, an article was nominated, reviewed and passed by the same editor within the space of an hour. The review was deeply flawed, and Elcobbola has delisted the article, commenting that it is a violation of policy to nominate and review the same article.

I was about to point this out at GAR, when I realised that our guidelines do not actually prohibit this: as long as the nominator has not previously contributed to the article under review, nothing says that he/she can't also review it!

I checked the edit history of the article and discovered that David Pro made only one minor contribution to the article prior to the review (way back in April 2007). So although the review was flawed, it seems to me that the nomination and review was carried out in good faith.

So, the question is, do we allow uninvolved editors to nominate and review (as the present guidelines suggest), or do we explicitly state that the nominator may not review the article? The first option would seem to be more backlog friendly, but is it worth risking potential abuse or should we assume good faith? Geometry guy 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

David Pro could have just listed it as a GA without nominating it, as long as he'd left a rationale on the talk page. Epbr123 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm against it. The way we have it now makes it so that if an article passes, that means it has at least two people who think it's a GA: the nominator and the reviewer. I don't think it's fair to give other articles an easier road, and I think taking away that second person would cause more problems than it would alleviate. Wrad (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Epbr, is that kosher? I have always thought that GA differed from lower-level classifications, in that it had to go through a nominating procedure in order to be given that status. Have I misunderstood the whole time? (I think that's the understanding of everyone at Wikiproject Oregon, too.)

My non-policy-based opinion is the same as Wrad: the GA status should reflect least two people asserting their opinion that the article is "good," and at least one of them should be a non-contributing editor, and should evaluate their opinion against the criteria. It's fine if the second person wrote the article and doesn't do a detailed evaluation, but it still seems important that a second person should explicitly say "I think this is worthy of consideration for GA." -Pete (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the current GA process that allows for an individual list per Epbr, although we do allow individual delists. I think the primary issue is to have an independent editor make the assessment, so I'm still open-minded about the original question. Geometry guy 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is sort of the extreme of the tag team - nominator and reviewer working together - problem discussed some months back. However, I think it is OK as long as there isn't an obvious conflict of interest. Some people are just more lenient when it comes to reviews. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) If I may, per WP:GA, "If you find or contribute to an article meeting the good article criteria, you can nominate it on the good article nominations page for an impartial reviewer to assess" (emphasis added). This is the policy to which I was referring. Although not as explicit as I would like, the statement is clear in defining a separtation between “the finder” and the reviewer. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the concern. However, it all comes down to whether the actual result is competent or not. If an editor who acts as a finder can't identify a GA article, then even if the same editor should become a reviewer of a separate (different) article on the GAN page, the result is the same: an incompetent review. This is assumining good faith; but sincerity does not equal competence. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The question of nominators reviewing their own submissions is one of conflicted interest, not competence. Incompetence simply cannot be avoided, which is why WP:GAR exists. Conflict of interest, however, can at least be minimized with the common sense of not allowing nominators to review their submissions.

It’s absolutely asinine to allow nominators to review their own submissions; no matter our article writing or assessment skills, the contribution of others (either to affirm or deny that skill) is absolutely necessary and a core principal of Wikipedia. That’s to say nothing of fairness to other articles which followed due process or the reputation of the GA system. Epbr123’s statement would essentially allow anyone to slap a green plus sign on any article with an utter nonsense rationale. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So we don't chase away potential good reviewers, I suggest we emphasize transparency of the process. For example, a finder-editor can become a reviewer-editor of the same article as long as the editor places the article on the GAN page with the appropriate pasting of #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the nomination so that it is in the open. I would suggest that the nominator/reviewer cannot close in less than 24 hours, so that everyone is aware. Remember, we are not talking about an editor who wrote the article but found the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

West, there's more to it than just the end result of an article passing or failing. Ensuring that our process is transparent and sensible is important, as it cultivates the GA program's credibility; we want readers of Wikipedia to have a reasonable amount of confidence that a GA article is of good quality, don't we? Having the process require two participants, and maintaining, as Elcobb suggests, a strong distinction between "finder/contributor" and "reviewer," gives the general public a very clear picture of how we go about the process. I think that allowing exceptions to that will impact the integrity of the program. Also, if the backlog should continue to grow, we might find more people trying to take this approach, to avoid long waits. This is a slippery slope down which I'd rather not go (how much I'd rather be snowboarding right now, notwithstanding…) -Pete (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict, sorry. I think transparency (funny that we zeroed in on the same word) demands more than Westcoast suggests. Look at it this way: if a "finder" finds an article, and then has some time to do a GA review, why would they choose the same article? To my mind, the only reason they would do so is because they have some particular interest in getting that article to GA. I think we should be encouraging such reviewers to choose a different article, rather than streamlining the process for a particular article. Remember, we're trying to address items further back in the log, as well. -Pete (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

← (This is just a comment on the general thread, not the most recent comments.) First of all, ElC, you did entirely nothing wrong here, and I fully support your action. I also agree that the current guidelines are ambiguous. I also agree that we might want to require that nominators cannot be reviewers. However, I do not believe it is asinine to allow nominators to review their own submissions (it is a process decision that I would like us to make), nor is there necessarily an automatic conflict of interest. A conflict of interest arises if the reviewer has an interest in an article being promoted, for example, because they are a contributor. However, if the nominator is not a contributor and is acting in good faith, then they don't have a conflict of interest.

So, if we declare that nominators can't review, it is a new provision, possibly a clarification of existing ones, but I think it should be discussed. I would point out that delisting does not have the same status. Logic might suggest that we should renew WP:GAD where articles are proposed for delisting, so that at least two editors agree that an article should be delisted. I'm not against such an idea, but neither am I proposing it. I'm pointing out that there is no conflict of interest in deciding an article should be delisted, and then delisting it, as long as the editor is uninvolved. Similarly, there is no a priori conflict of interest in nominating an article and then listing it, as long as the editor is uninvolved. Geometry guy 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said, GeoGuy. I agree, there is not necessarily a conflict of interest in such an action. (On a slight tangent, I don't think this kind of conflict of interest is covered by WP:COI, which is more about editing your own company's article, than the vagaries of WP evaluation procedures.) The problem, I think, is with the potential for conflict of interest, and/or the appearance of conflict of interest. -Pete (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my point, it has never been formally agreed that an article has to go through GAN before being listed, and it has been allowed to happen before eg. here. But it seems it has been agreed on now. Epbr123 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the entire thread here, merely skimmed, but I must say I don't think it's a good precedent to be set if we allow users to pass articles they nominate, full stop. I like to think that more than one (even two is enough) people think an article is of GA standard. Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The case Epbr123 cited is not analogous, as it is an instance of an editor asking for a previously-conducted, impartial review to be reprised. The circumstances are entirely different. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 19:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion is beginning to become muddled. The process of GA has never required more than one non-contributing editor to pass an article to GA. The question in this case is: what if a non-contributing editor nominates the article? Can't the same non-contributing editor pass it to GA. Remember, the non-contributing editor has nothing to do with the development of the article; i.e. these are not self-noms. So, where is the 'conflict of interest'? As has been mentioned, a non-contributing editor can de-list an article from GA without a second opinion. And, to repeat, right now an article is passed to GA with the say-so of only one non-contributing editor;so, why can't that editor find the article also. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My qualm with that is that (in my eyes) the nominator would have some sort of POV in nominating the article, whilst it's less likely (however slightly) that some random reviewer would. Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the few articles I have reviewed from the GAN list, I have not chosen randomly. I have deliberatley chosen them 'cause I was interested in them. So, certainly there is a very real selection bias. What is the difference if I choose from amongst 2 million articles or 200 articles? I doubt that anyone who reviews at GAN is truly a random reviewer. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As a recent member of the reviewing community, it seems to me that to allow nominator reviews lacks credibility, If we go down that route, I for one would not wish to be associated with the GAN process any longer. I have better things to do with my time than be associated with an system even more open to abuse than reciprocal reviewing. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Spot on, Jimfbleak – one of several reasons I’m taking indefinite leave of the GA project. Look, this whole process actually consists of two assessments: 1) The nominator assesses the article (thus the reason they nominate it; they believe it meets the criteria). 2) A reviewer makes an assessment. If we allow nominators to review their own articles, we’re cutting the assessments in half and losing quality in the process. Take WP:GAR, for instance; I’ve never seen an article listed in which someone wasn’t able to spot one additional item, however minor, that needed to be corrected. We’re here to improve articles, and we need a second pair of eyes to do that. This, of course, is in addition to the inherent POV present when you nominate an article. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 19:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced by the arguments that nominator≠reviewer, and have clarified the GAN guidelines accordingly. I believe this reflects a consensus here, even though some (including myself) have argued otherwise. Geometry guy 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

While I'm flogging a dead horse, I do so 'cause I think this policy could end up being another nail in the GA coffin. For those who haven't been keeping score, the entire existence of GA has been openly deemed pointless by the folks at FA. To keep GA, it has to be fundamentally different than FA. The initial purpose was to provide an appraisal by an editor who did not contribute to the writing of an article. The appraisal was to be simple. The equation was contributing-editor≠review-editor. By introducing a new equation of nominator-editor≠reviewer-editor, we have made a new GA policy of contributing-editor≠nominator-editor. If that is true, as I suspect so, then we have entered the era of the two person GA review. If so, then we are heading towards a duplicate FA process and thus the extinction of GA. Remember, GA has no purpose in the path of an FA article. There is no reason for any article to stop here. And if we make it as onerous as the FA process, why bother? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WestCoast, I think that's overstating it a bit. In nearly every case, the nominator is a contributor. In nearly every case, the person who nominates is not the person who reviews. If we adopt a policy/guideline that states that the nominator should not conduct the review, we will not be making a big change to the status quo. We will just be making the "rules" reflect what, I believe, people generally think the reality is.

And, not to suggest any disrespect for "their" project, but who cares what FA thinks of GA? We should focus on making GA as successful as possible. It's plenty different from FA, and it has a lot going for it. "They" are welcome to consider "us" pointless; "they" are also welcome to jump in this discussion and help make this less pointless. As long as editors are nominating articles GA status, I have no doubt of the importance of the project. -Pete (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request- Economic development in India- GA review.

can anybody here volunteer and please come forward to review this article please. its been more than a month now. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your article has been up there since December 31, meaning that it's been less than half of a month thus far. Please see our report for a rough estimate of how long some of the articles have been listed. We are currently experiencing a greater than average backlog, but have been working diligently to reduce it. There are many nominations that have been there for 50+ days. Your article will be gotten to in due course. Cheers, CP 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Query for nomination

For an article's GA nomination, is it mandatory for it to be a B-class article? Thanks and regards, Mspraveen (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it can meet the GA criteria at the moment it is listed, it doesn't matter what the assessment class is. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The criteria are here: Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Some projects do have assessment reviews for start and B-class (for example the films project) but there is no equivalent all Wikipedia process like GA for any class below GA. Thus, almost every thing coming to GA effectively has no class. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, a B-class rating is not required, but I would think if a project had been recently asked to look over an article and it didn't get a B-rating, it's unlikely to pass GA. The key word is "recently". Quite a few article pass FA with project ratings no higher than "start". Gimmetrow 06:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much Wassupwestcoast and Gimmetrow! Regards, Mspraveen (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Query re holds and GA requests

At the holiday season, I failed an article rather than placing it on hold, as I thought the improvements couldn't be done as there were quite a few, but they were all attended to very well. Can it now be passed, or should the article undergo a re-nomination procedure? ( article was Force )Thank you.SriMesh | talk 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is preferable to go through the formalities of renomination, but there is no reason why you cannot be the reviewer again, and pass the article quite quickly if it now meets the criteria. Geometry guy 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as long as no one is trying to "pull a fast one", requesting a specific reviewer is perfectly OK, as long as the reviewer clearly applies the WP:WIAGA criteria fairly and honestly. If they don't, it will get caught anyway... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No TOC on this page?

What happened to the table of contents on this discussion page? With so much discussion on a variety of topics, I find the lack of the ability to quickly scan the topics and jump to the conversation I'm interested in very unhelpful. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone transcluded a page containing a notoc magic word onto this page by mistake. I've replaced it by a link. Geometry guy 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article History Template

Is there a reason we don't make this the norm for GA review? It seems to me that it would be simpler to have this template from its first review rather than having to change it later. Corvus coronoides _talk 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people, like me, are far too lazy to use it from the start :D Plus a lot of articles just stay a GA...they don't go through PR/FAC/DYK/AFD/FTC/DRV/XYZ/ABC etc., and the articlehistory just makes it a bit more confusing for everyone in those cases. Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I admit the {{ArticleHistory}} template is quite a bit confusing... however what's possibly more annoying is searching for the oldid, talk page comments, and dates of GA reviews after the fact when constructing the article history template. If we made AH the standard, I believe in the long run it would do more good than harm. At the very least, it removes some of the options and streamlines the GA nomination instructions. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the template should be mandatory at the beginning, but maybe it shouldn't be so confusing? It can get a little complicated sometimes. Especially if you're reviewing an article that is a former, GA, FA, has a peer review, and a DYK, and you have to add all of those at once. FamicomJL (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The oldids are a pain for an editor but a breeze for a script. When I do GA reviews I typically add the following:

{{ArticleHistory
| action1=GAN
| action1date=~~~~~
| action1result=listed
| currentstatus=GA
}}

or the equivalent if it's not listed. If the dates and times are there (the 5-tilde line works nicely), then a bot can easily get the oldid later. You can add the talk page links if you want, but they'll change if the page is archived. Gimmetrow 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of making ArticleHistory mandatory. In fact, ideally, it should never be edited manually, but should be updated only by a bot. When we fallible humans attempt to do complicated, tedious and repetetive tasks, we often make mistakes, which someone then has to fix. The key point is to provide a date for the listing of the GA. Unfortunately, this was not done in the past: we somehow thought it was better to supply an oldid. {{GA|~~~~~}} or {{GA|2008-01-13}} will do nicely, and take considerably less time to type. A bot can fold this into the article history later. Geometry guy 13:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a bot that could "fold" this into T:AH currently? Corvus coronoides _talk 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, but GimmeBot already does some article history work for GAs, and could be extended to do this routinely. Work in progress, as I understand... Geometry guy 07:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Er, please don't use ISO dates in the template. G-bot doesn't handle them as well as the "hh:mm, dd Month yyyy" form. Gimmetrow 07:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify this comment? Are you saying that the format advertised on the GAN page is not bot-friendly? Geometry guy 08:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He's saying (I think) that you shouldn't use ~~~~~ on {{GA}}. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's saying the opposite, and has clarified this here. Geometry guy 13:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on better ISO support in the code. It's nice to have the time of day to grab the version reviewed, but that's rarely given with an ISO date. Gimmetrow 03:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

On another note, based on what Gimmetrow noted above (articlehistory simplicity), I've created User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Easy GA ArticleHistory (User:DHMO/GAAH redirects there). Subst this, with a parameter for the GA topic, and it inserts a fully formed articlehistory with all the information necessary. Hopefully will make things a little easier for everyone. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 03:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea! I've created a similar template {{GAR/AH}} for adding a GAR to an existing article history. In fact I've been developing a suite of templates at {{GAR/}} to help make administration of the GAR process less time consuming. They are not yet fully documented, and are partly still under development.

I would suggest we revisit the suite of GAN templates, and perhaps organise them in a similar way, as subpages of {{GAN}}. Comments? Geometry guy 13:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Can we make it "official?" Corvus coronoides _talk 02:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 19/1/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Ealdgyth as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 19th January 2008. Ealdgyth is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Ealdgyth
2. Canadian Paul
3. Derek.cashman
4. VanTucky
5. Johnfos.
Epbr123 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yay, I'm back on the list! VanTucky 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yay, I'm back off! Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gah! I'm embarrassed! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for backlog

I've nominated many articles for GA status and am worried by the backlog problem. In order to counter the insane amount of backlog (which I believe is caused by the amount of sections- when there were fewer sections, editors were less inclined to nominate- but that's another story), what would happen if we limited each section to five nominations? Raul limited the Today's featured article requests to five (previously unlimited, see here), and it really helped. It created a steady flow of nominations. Limiting sections here would cut down the backlog tremendously. While editors would have to wait until a section decreased in noms in order to nominate new articles, at least our GANs would not keep piling up, and it would feel more controlled. The backlog here almost devalues GA status in my opinion since we currently can just nominate an unlimited amount of articles- why not all of Wikipedia? Would limiting sections help? -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about do away with all the categories. Have a max of say 10 or 20 articles waiting for review. You can only add an article if there is a blank spot, and if there isn't a blank spot, you can make one by reviewing an article. Gimmetrow 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A thought I had was to time limit the GAN to say 7 days. If no one chooses an article to review, then the article is automatically removed from the page by a bot - like the community bulletin board at the community portal - and a nominator would have to actively re-nom. Thus, no article would go stale from waiting, but the GAN list would be scalable depending on the over all participaion of active and interested reviewers. Lots of reviewers would allow lots of articles to be reviewed in a week. No one home and all the GAN nominations would be returned. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it really be solving anything? Or would we just be fooling ourselves by hiding a backlog that was actually just as real as before? Wrad (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Any of the proposals - queue threshold or time threshold - effectively assigns a 'cost' to nomination and - effectively - puts the back log regulation into the hands of the nominators. The cost, of course, is the nominator's time: time trying to get their nomination in play. Right now, there is no cost to the nominator, so the backlog is entirely regulated by the reviewers. I say, make the nominators pay. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad here. The ideas proposed above are a form of sticking our heads in the sand. VanTucky 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's incredibly dismissive. Gimmetrow 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I sort of see where they're pointing at. Removing cats and keeping a threshold of time or queue is just moving the backlog to a waiting list. Of course, the quickest way to run through the backlog would be for us to inject adrenaline and go review crazy, but that wouldn't be very healthy, would it? bibliomaniac15 04:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's say there were 20 spots for articles, and I want to nominate a new one. If the reviewer of the week has just gone through, great, there are three open spots today and I take one. If not, then I pick any one of the 20 articles, review it, and take its place. But if we have no interest in favouring nominators who also do reviews, fine. Gimmetrow 05:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not dismissive to say that the solution being proposed is ineffective. What the subject of this thread is ostensibly supposed to be about is clearing the backlog. Simply removing nominations now present or restricting new ones is not an effective solution, it's just keeping nominations off this page and in the sidelines, making it seem as if the number of candidates is manageable. That's sticking your head in the sand. What you're proposing might be a good idea after the blacklog is cleared, but not during. VanTucky 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this proposal would comprise the quality of the process, as it would create incentive for a nominator to “half ass” a review to quickly open a slot for their article. If people not involved in the project really wanted to be doing reviews, they would already be doing so. We can’t let our desire to eliminate the backlog impact the quality of the reviews. Placing restrictions only hides the problem (per Wrad and VT) or encourages shoddy work.

So far the backlog suggestions have been fairly passive. Why not actively ask people who have already expressed interest to do some reviews? There are 171 people listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles. Why not ask each one to do 2 reviews in the next week; that would be 342 reviews. Obviously, some might not do any and some might do only one; there are, however, some that may do more than two and, as of this writing, we only have 224 nominations. Seems feasible to me. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with elcobbola. The only reasonable solution I see is to do outreach for more reviewers; nominators should be the easiest target, as there's an obvious karmic exchange with reviewing others' articles. But, we needn't limit ourselves to that. I'm just about done with the revamp of the templates and process; while I understand some of you don't think that will make an enormous difference, it still might be a good opportunity to grab a little attention for the project. What do you guys think of doing a little article for the Signpost, (re-)introducing the project, and touting the improved review process? Or, is there another medium besides the Signpost that would be good for this? We could put some individual announcement on various WP talk pages, too. -Pete (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I had thought of the potential for abuse through "shoddy" reviews, and there are solutions to this. But VT's uncivil response discouraged that. Gimmetrow 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop throwing stones at me because I dislike a proposal to change the process. I haven't been discourteous to anyone. You're confusing opposition to an idea with an attack on a person, and there's a huge difference. VanTucky 04:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to provide constructive criticism, but dismissed it out of hand. That's offensive. Or should I say, that's a form of sticking your head in the sand? Gimmetrow 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you guys please take whatever personal beef you have with each other to your talk pages? I don't think it's helping. -Pete (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think that because Peer Review is not functioning well (many articles get almost no feedback), that affects GAN more than we realize. I believe some editors now use GAN as a sort of peer review, or test run before going to FAC (which is also somewhat overwhlemed lately). I can imagine someone thinking "not much from PR, but at GAN they have to read my article and comment on it." So I think if we could fix or improve PR, that would help GAN (and FAC too - with decent peer reviews, many (most?) articles might go straight from PR to FAC, instead of using GAN as a sort of stepping stone along the way).

It also seems to me that too many review requests and too few reviewers are two sides of the same coin - we have a pool of users who want reviews, and the more we can encourage them to contribute reviews to other articles, the more everyone benefits. I once suggested a sort of Wiki-tax, where requests for PR, GAN and FAC/FLC would be put into a holding area until the nominator(s) came back and added the other reviews they had done (2 or 3 for PR or FAC, 1 for GAN). Only after they had added these could their request leave the holding area and be reviewed (sort of like certifying an RfC, where you need two to agree). Since this is "a form of unfree labor" and we are writing the free encyclopedia, I now agree this was not the best idea. But I do agree that the more we can simplify processes, the more we can encourage others to participate, and the more we can work to fix not just the backlog here, but also the PR and FAC backlogs, the more everyone will benefit. I can see the appeal of a limit on the number of nominations, but I do not think it would be practical. Hope this helps the discussion, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many interacting issues here. Maybe it is time for another backlog elimination drive. In my view, the last one was very successful in eliminating the backlog: it reduced the GAN backlog to 40 articles, which is essentially the current GAN reviewing resource, and we can't ask for better than that. However, it was a temporary fix which didn't solve the problem medium term, as the backlog soon grew again to over 200. We desperately need more reviewers. Whenever you pass an article, please encourage the nominator to review: this has been added to the guidelines. Please also reconsider my repeated pleas to simplify process. Are there any other suggestions? Geometry guy 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think, to create competition, there should be a list kept of users by number of GAN reviews performed. I'm sure a bot would be able to maintain such a list. It has the disadvantage of encouraging quantity over quality, but so do the backlog elimination drives. Epbr123 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If we were to try to create an incentive to clear backlog, I think the backlog drives would work better than a list of reviewers, because I think barnstars motivate people more than having their names at the top of some list. Just my thoughts. I do agree though, that a backlog drive is only able to temporarily reduce backlog. Also, backlog elimination drives seem to create the problem of having many lesser-quality articles passed. Corvus coronoides _talk 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We could have both. The backlog elimination drive would be a short term fix, and the list would be an on-going incentive. Anyway, in my opinion, people would rather be top of a list then get a barnstar. Epbr123 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Epbr123; lists do motivate people. Barnstars reward past behaviour; but lists provide targets that can spark productive competition. You want someone who is reviewing to say to themselves "Oh, look, if I focus on this task I can get to the top five reviewers list". I'd also suggest doing monthly or yearly lists so that the slate is wiped clean every year and everyone can compete afresh. Mike Christie (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikiproject GA newsletter already sort of does a GAN Reviewer of the Month. We haven't had enough issues yet to get to a GAN Reviewer of the Year, but I like the idea for 2008,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Plan of action

So, just to clarify, from what I've been hearing, if we want to tackle this we need to do the following:

• Make one simple GA criteria checklist
• Simplify the instructions/process as much as possible (funneling into the above)
• think about sweeps, lists

I'd get on the template if I could, but since I'm not the best template code guy and I don't ever use the thing, someone else more qualified should probably do. I'll continue to review, but we need to get the ball rolling on this, I would think. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

David, I've been working on {{GAchecklist}}, and I think it's about ready for prime-time. Since one of the main points is to reduce the complexity, it's actually a pretty straightforward template, without much fancy coding. Could you take a look, make any adjustments you're able to, or comment on any that you don't know how to do? Also look at the proposed replacement instructions, which are on that template's talk page. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A usage view needs to be given like the original checklists and templates, so people can see it in wiki syntax, especially for copying and pasting. To have to see the whole template, rather than filling in a field, would be extremely cumbersome. VanTucky 00:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole point! The usage is, "Paste {{subst:GAchecklist}} into the article's talk page. Then use the outline it generates as a place to make your comments."

There's no parameters for the template. Zero. Zilch. Cut and paste, and then start readin'! -Pete (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If all you can do is c/p the subst template name, then how the heck can you add content before hitting the save button? Having to save it and then go back and fill in a review is just as cumbersome and more primitive a process than filling in parameters. I liked the idea of consolidating the templates, but not stripping them of their usefullness as a template. Potentially having a blank template sit on the article before you make your review is going to be confusing to other editors. I might as well just not use a template at all if that's the process. Maybe I'm missing something vital about how it works? VanTucky 01:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I just tried it out in my sandbox. The only possible way to create a presentable review before saving (preview doesn't work) is to use userspace or an external text editor to write the review, then make another copy and paste on to the nomination's talk. I don't really like that. It works well to have a completed review to save, rather than hacking through it and revising on the talk page. Doing that makes reviews look less reliable, and will be confusing besides (when will they know your review is ready to read and respond to?). The fact that there's no way to do so on regular talkspace is, in my opinion, an unnecessary complication to the process of writing reviews. VanTucky 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Pete's idea is that you would subst the template onto the talk page before carrying out your review (i.e., at the same time as adding {{GAReview}} to GAN). Then you fill it in as you complete your review, perhaps in one step for an easy pass or fail, or perhaps in stages as the review proceeds. Geometry guy 10:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, that's my idea, and that's how I'd prefer to conduct a review. But, if someone experienced like VanTucky doesn't like it, that gives me pause. It seems like we have a situation where we should really accommodate two very different approaches to reviewing an article. Not sure offhand what the best way to do that is…whether it's possible to build a template that can accommodate both approaches, or whether this means there's a legitimate need for two different template. I'll give it some thought, and check back for more comments. Thanks, by the way, VanTucky and Dihydrogen Monoxide, for actually putting the new version through the paces, and giving some informed feedback today. -Pete (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think experience has as much to do with it as does the general approach to reviewing. You, and I'm sure others, don't mind building up a review in several steps in article talk. I prefer to have a finished review to place on the page. Neither one is objectively better, to be perfectly honest. I think the simple truth is that a template that allows you to do it my way also allows you to do it in yours (the current larger templates allow you to save a review with parameters unfilled), while the opposite isn't true. VanTucky 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you all know, I haven't forgotten all this, just been a little too busy to rework based on the feedback. I'll be back soon... -Pete (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if another checklist template is the best idea here. We already have 2 or 3 templates that reviewers can use to help format their reviews, and I don't think we want to get bogged down with too many of this (wikicruft, anyone?). Though if we could combined the best elements of all existing templates into one, and promote that one, I'd think that's a good idea. I think it would help some of the new reviewers that may not be as familiar with the GA criteria. Me, personally, I prefer to structure my reviews without templates, and try and write all the issues down in a more plain, out-of-the-box format, referring to the criteria as necessary. So I wouldn't want to be forced to use a template. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Article or list

Well i just rewrote this article and was wondering if there is enough content for it to be considered an article? M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's closer to an article than a list. Epbr123 (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. I can't believe you stole the article I was working on. On my birthday. That's the end of Wikipedia for me. Cheers, CP 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

GAR reviewers needed

Participation by regular reviewers at Good article reassessment has dropped significantly in recent months. There are several possible reasons: it may be seasonal, it may be because the backlog is quite small at the moment, it may be because several key GAR regulars have recently become admins, and so have many other things to do.

So, this is a call for editors with GAN reviewing experience to contribute to GAR discussions. GAR is important because it determines consensus on good article quality issues in borderline or disputed cases. As such, it interprets the good article criteria in the same way that courts interpret the law. Sometimes this also results in changes or clarifications to the criteria. It is therefore important that editors with frontline reviewing experience join in.

The GA Tasks template, which appears in many places (such as WP:WGA and the GA Newsletter) lists the current backlog at GAR. Whereas in the past, this was not updated reliably, it now automatically lists any GAR discussions which are more than 2 weeks old. Further reviews for these articles are particularly helpful.

Note that you can now watchlist an individual GAR discussion that interests you. If you wish to watch for the addition of new GAR requests, you should watchlist User:VeblenBot/C/GAR instead, as the GAR page itself is automatically generated from this data. Geometry guy 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll se what I can do. But I'm really busy. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to poke in too. (adds one more thing to the list of things to do) Ealdgyth | Talk 01:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. There isn't any imminent crisis or backlog at GAR, just a shortage of regular contributors: any help, however small or infrequent, would be much appreciated. If a few more regulars stopped by just once every week or two, it would make all the difference. Geometry guy 14:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 26/1/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Ealdgyth as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 26th January 2008. Ealdgyth is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Ealdgyth
2. Dihydrogen Monoxide
3. Canadian Paul
4. Jackyd101
5. Drewcifer3000.
Epbr123 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

2 in a row - nice. And guess who's back on the ladder! Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to the nomination and listing structure

Hi there. In a recent discussion I was involved in it was suggested that the nomination and listing procedure for GAC was in need of an overhaul. Based on my work at The League of Copyeditors I volunteered to examine the system and possibly propose some improvements to it. The reaction to the new system at LOCE has taught me that finding out the interests and priorities of those who actually have to use the finished system is imperative in ensuring a smooth transition and the best possible final result. So, I would be very interested to hear any suggestions that users of the GAC system have for its improvement, or features that should be prioritised in a new system. To avoid allowing the discussion to get bogged down and drowning in its own ink, could I request that suggestions be kept as concise as possible, with discussion proceeding in a separate section? Many thanks in advance for any comments and suggestions offered. Happy‑melon 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Please try and keep suggestions concise and avoid lengthy discussion here.

Discussion

More substantial discussions to proceed below.

• I don't find nominating articles difficult. I don't even find signing up to review them that difficult. I find passing them as good articles to be a royal pain in the posterior.Ealdgyth | Talk 14:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to post the {{GAReview}} banner below entry before reviewing

Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but it doesn't appear that some GA reviewers sometimes skip step 2 for article review. It says:

• Paste #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry; this avoids multiple reviews of the same article.

Please use this step even if you decide to quick-fail an article. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Backlog theory

I have noticed that many reviewers are section-specific. I, for example, like to review Literature articles. I have therefore developed a theory that sections which have huge backlogs have those backlogs because the number of writers of that subject exceeds the number of reviewers. I have further guessed that dropping notes asking for reviewers from relevant wikiprojects could help with this backlog. For example, the sports section is huge, so we could drop notes at sports wikiprojects. Wrad (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head here. I snatch up a lot of the Biology reviews, but never do sports or TV episodes. I was just thinking that we need to recruit a sports reviewer. Good work Wrad, VanTucky 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've recently started in the last few months mentioning in the WP:FILMS monthly newsletter that there is a backlog in the film-related articles section, asking members to consider reviewing some of the articles (if they haven't significantly edited the article of course). Additionally, after every GA review I complete, I always ask the nominator of the article or those that are potentially reading the review to consider reviewing an article or two. Usually those that nominate an article in a particular topic area will be more likely to review a related-topic article. We just need to continue to convince people to start reviewing articles and hope that they either offset the number of articles they nominate or hopefully stick around for the long run to review an article a week or a few a month. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco Municipal Railway

If one of the admin-type editors could take a look at the San Francisco Municipal Railway nomination. It appears to be on the list as an active nomination, but on the article's talk page, it's listed as a failed candidate (the talk page actually has two "failed" banners that maybe could use some clean-up). So, I'm confused ... is this article in fact currently a nominee? NorCalHistory (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I only saw one failed banner, but I moved the information to an article history template. Now just the {{GAnominee}} banner is there. The article is indeed listed at WP:GAN, so it is a current nominee. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk

oops - you're right, my bad. thx NorCalHistory (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I've just been looking at the main GAC page and I think we could work things better. The way the process works at the minute is generally by one user deciding whether or not an article meets the criteria. Whilst I trust many GA reviewers, I do see quite a few decisions made where there's either collusion with the nominator, or promotion without respect for the criteria. What I propose is changing the process to something between AfD and FAC. An article could be nominated for a one week discussion, where users revew the article and decide if it meets the criteria - it allows consensus to be reached to decide if an article is the correct standard to be promoted, and will probably allow articles to be improved through discussion, rather than decisions being made by one person. This would also clear the backlog - an article would be here for one week usually (unless further discussion is required), rather than weeks and weeks on end. If people want this, I'm more than happy to create a firm proposal. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No way. That would take far too long and the backlog is huge already. Where exactly are you seeing problems? If you see them, you can put those articles up at GAR, where the process is pretty much exactly what you propose. Wrad (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be too long - if it's organised like AfD and FAC, it would be over within a week. At the minute, it's hit and miss where you get a review. The process would also allow more input into promotions, rather than just one unilateral decision. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The process sucks. Although we respect the capacity of reviewers here to review, two heads are better than one. I've seen before when one reviewer posted the "I am reviewing" thing and then in less than an hour, s(he) passed it. Is that how we review articles? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And what happens in the very likely event that no one reviews the article in that week? I really don't see this working. And yes, Brit, sometimes that is how articles are reviewed, if they meet the criteria. I would love it if I could do that with every article. I would love it if every article submitted clearly met the criteria. Wrad (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Depending on the article, I think that a hour is probably long enough to evaluate an article, at least for GA standards. As for the proposal, I feel as though if BritandBeyonce feels it is bad now, this process would only make it worse. It would encourage even less stringent reviews and quick glances. It would also increase the backlog, which obviously is already huge. Additionally, I think it might make the process a little too close to FAC, which I believe was one of things to avoid when GAs were first proposed. SorryGuy  Talk  04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If no-one reviews it, it gets relisted, just as AfD would - likewise if only 1/2 weigh in. It keeps the process moving and allows more people to weigh into discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The process is fine. An hour is more than enough time to review an article for the average wikipedian. Period. End of story. Oh, by the way, get a combine and we'll go race the Amish. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah, calm down sir - I was only offering a suggestion :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the main thing is that I'm not seeing what you're seeing. What articles have been promoted recently in which there was "either collusion with the nominator, or promotion without respect for the criteria"? Wrad (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember off hand who, or what articles they were - but I've seen a number of articles "passed" on IRC recently just because someone asked - this is my main reason for wanting to change process. An email can easily win over a promotion. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I never asked for the article to be passed. Nor was it recent. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But if you see a problem you can always challenge the promotion. I don't really see how what you're asking would help. It seems like it would just make things more complicated. Wrad (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually see it making the procedure more efficient - it's not hit and miss, it co-ordinates efforts in one direction. The way I see this process at the minute is quite chaotic, one person can wait an hour to get reviewed, others can wait weeks and weeks - this would keep it in order, and give a more transparent process. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I think GA is only important because it fill an evaluative function for articles in a way that no other process does. If we make every review collaborative (which would waaaay slow things down), then this would just be the poor man's FA. And it's important to remember that this is completely voluntary for nominators. If the community wasn't comfortable with a review by one person then this would be completely defunct. Instead, the opposite has happened. We are so overwhelmed with candidates for our system that we have a serious backlog. VanTucky 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not care about the backlog nor the quantity of GAs we'll have in the future. How could a certain article merit the GA status if this was just reviewed in less than an hour. How do they review it against sources? Do not tell me they have their own libraries to hastily check the accuracy of the content? And, by the way, GAs that were passed before even missed to comply the guidelines of a Wikiproject an article is under. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't care about things like the backlog and the future of GA, then why are you here discussing the page? Those are integral parts of any discussion about the big picture of GA nominations. As to your vitriol about the quality issue: nothing is perfect, get over it. There are FAs that pass while still in violation of basic tenents of MOS. There are some poor reviewers and bad reviews. But the vast majority of GA reviewers are extremely knowledgeable people and most of the reviews are good, if you look at the ratio of reviews to reassessments. As for changing away from single reviewers to improve quality: as I have already said, this would make GA redundant. To be honest, those who seem to have a big problem with the idea of GA as it exists at all seem to be ignoring the fact that we have hundreds of nominations that contradict their basic beef with the way the system operates currently. If GA was so awful, why do so many still use it happily? VanTucky 06:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats why some articles get FA status with MoS flaws because even on the elementary stages of reviewing articles, we overlooked them. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So the flaws in FA is because of GA? Now that's a lovely little leap of logic. VanTucky 07:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If we're just a bit strict, FAs would be as perfect as you could imagine Van. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First, if the proposal went through, I do think the backlog would decrease, and not in a good way. I’ll bet a large number of articles would sit without comments (I believe a common problem at FA) and not get promoted, thus just re-listed. As a frequent nominator and occasional reviewer, I would simply bypass GA and go straight to FA (remember an article does not need to go through GA to get to FA) or simply stop nominating. Second, GA review exists for the stated problem, no need to re-invent the wheel. Third, an hour is often more than enough time to review an article per the criteria. There is not a requirement at GA or FA for reviewers to actually verify the information, and there likely never could be. If there are a total of two copies of one book in the world and only the editor responsible for the article has easy access, it would be nearly impossible to verify the source content. It would be difficult to require a reviewer to request a book through interlibrary loan (or take a flight if not available that way) in order to verify the article is properly attributed. It’s just not practical, and it is not required, so one hour is more than enough time if you know what you are doing. Plus GAs tend to be shorter, only need the breadth of a FA and not the depth, so they can be faster to read through. Lastly, WikiProject guidelines!? No where in the GA or FA criteria is there anything about following WikiProject guidelines. MOS yes, but not WikiProjects. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Very good articles. That's why we want to implement multiple reviewers so that if one user dont have the book, might the other have. Actually, there's no need to change everything in GA. Only to add something in the process of reviewing. Also, if we will just tolerate this things because of the inability to chech the accuracy of the content, kindly totally delete ths bullshit Wikipedia:Good article criteria, as in irretrievable? Pertaining to guidelines, like WP:SONGS, a single pipe linking of Columbia Records to Columbia is ignored. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No FA reviewers ever check book sources. It's just not possible. Epbr123 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahahaha. That's why Wiki cannot establish accuracy and reliability. Another proposal, kindly delete all criteria which requires accuracy. Duh! --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! It's a big slap to those who formulated such ignored criteria. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Brit, first, the proposal was not to add a layer for people to check sources. Second (per the reference to WP:SONGS a WikiProject), again, WikiProjects have no say as projects on policy/guidelines (they could organize and all go to a policy and gain consensus that way as done here, but not on their own). That is, they do not make the rules on their own, and more importantly FA and GA say nothing about consulting WikiProject rules. Lastly, how is that a slap towards any of the policies. Remember, it verifiable not verified, so the text of an article remains verifiable. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But that's the same thing. Additional editors to reach concensus. They do not make for their own, I believe. Its for the betterment of related articles. Yes, it can be accurate and verifiable, but the endmost thing their is to be verified. Thats how the criteria is. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want things verified, I'd suggest joining that group. Otherwise we generally trust the contributors, and if they do violate that trust then they are dealt with. But with 2.5 million+ (and last time a checked no budget to pay us to do this/provide for a big research library for everyone) verified is simply a great goal to have, but unlikely at this time. Aboutmovies (talk)

It does not mean we have to fact check all of this simultaneously. Every review, there should be a fact checking. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to this proposal, mainly per VanTucky. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that, whilst this proposal has its merits, similar mechanisms are already in place. Reviewers can request a second opinion during their review; the 'under review' tag specifically welcomes comment by other editors, and the GAR page provides for reassessment if a review is challenged. It would be a mistake, in my view, to over-complicate the system by formalising this and requiring multiple inputs before an article is passed - essentially we would be imposing an artificial 'hold' on every article, whether it is merited or not. I don't see that this would reduce the backlog, merely shift it to other pages. EyeSerene^TALK 10:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What if we'll just impose two reviewers per article? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think the process is fine. And if the reviewing process needs fixing, then why are we standing here when we should fix the bump! Instead of tagging it, here's an idea you might want to think about, why don't we fix it ourselves. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but I'm a do'er not a think'er. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think imposing this would be the wrong way to go. The disadvantages of our single-reviewer system (and to be honest I don't think there are as many, or that the ones that exist are as serious, as some editors think) are far outweighed by the advantages. As I see it, the main draws of the GA process are that it is accessible, simple, and relatively unbureaucratic. True, there have been problems, and probably always will be, but my concern is that adding more layers will kill the very things that make GA attractive in the first place. Your earlier point about fact-checking is a valid one though, and one that can get easily overlooked during reviews ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I agree with many above. I don't think that a quick vote will help to reduce the backlog. Certain issues such as grammar, prose flow, punctuation errors, exist while evaluating a GA, which IMHO, some readers will not catch or just blindly vote without looking at the article. Also, approving an article on IRC is wrong, mainly because certain articles aren't up to par, yet get approved because of the "my friend is a GA reviewer and he/she owes me a favor" concept. My suggestion to Ryan is to first assess one Good Article Candidate on the page to see how the process works. Second, come back to the discussion and ratify his proposal. Best. miranda 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why I insist this kind of process is to verify the accuracy of the articles. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FA doesn't even try to verify accuracy. We are just to few here on wikipedia to do that. We assume good faith and trust the editor who wrote it isn't pulling our leg. It's a problem, yes, but it will be awhile before wikipedia can address it. Right now, we just trust the collaborative nature of wikipedia to keep everyone honest. That's just how it is. It's like drinking from a firehose here. Wrad (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

At least, here in GAN, we take step-by-step to resolve accuracuy issues. When do have to do this? When the Wiki contains 3,000,000 articles? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ca existe. Misunderstandings of the GA concept

Unfortunately I sleep when you guys are most lively, otherwise I would have stepped into the discussion sooner. I've just read through it now.

The proposal misses the idea behind the GA "one reviewer" concept, and the response fails to emphasise the following point: any uninvolved editor can, at any time, delist a GA, by following the delisting guidelines. If an article is passed inappropriately, delist it! The whole idea behind the GA mechanism is that it should be easy to list and easy to delist (within 1-2 weeks), so that consensus emerges over time. Okay, so most GA reviewers try damn hard to get it right the first time, but if that doesn't happen, then a GA can be delisted, relisted and so on, until consensus emerges.

In cases of disagreement, or borderline cases, there is a well established process, Good article reassessment, which operates in a similar way to AfD, FAC and FAR/C. Ca existe! The whole point of the GA concept is to use such a process only as a last resort, when reviewing, listing, and delisting by individual uninvolved editors breaks down.

At the moment I think the benefits of this concept are underexploited at GA (for instance, there is too much reluctance among individual reviewers to delist articles with the same care as they would review them for GAN). But taking away the potential benefits of the GA concept is simply a step in the wrong direction. Geometry guy 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

at any time, delist a GA Whats the use of the review? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He just explained that. Brit, have you ever reviewed an article? You really don't seem to understand what it is you're criticizing. You can easily do a review in one hour. Try it. I'd suggest you take a review on yourself and see what it's like. Don't knock it till you've tried it. Please. Wrad (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yah. I've reviewed several articles but left the decision to others because I can't fact check them for some reasons. If a good review was done, delisting wont exist. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)rep

True, but we're all human ;) It's there for a good reason, although like Gguy says maybe not used enough. However, there's always WP:GAR if you're nervous about making a unilateral delist. EyeSerene^TALK 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To delist, you need to read the review, the delisting guidelines and the criteria, and then justify your delistment in the light of this information. If you ignore these, someone's likely to take your delisting to GAR. Geometry guy 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We aren't here to review articles against anything other than the GA criteria. We aren't expected to do anything else. If you want to fact check something, then feel free to devote yourself to it and fix the article up. The GA criteria is simple and never takes more than an hour to check something against. That's the way the system was designed. Wrad (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Not all GAs take one hour to review. For some long articles such as the University of Florida takes one or two full days due to grammar, punctuation, and MOS. miranda 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 2/2/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 2nd February 2008. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Derek.cashman
2. Ealdgyth
3. Wrad
4. Jackturner3
5. VanTucky.
Epbr123 (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I made the list. Wrad (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I only did like, three finished reviews. I'm gnoming my way through the backlog :) Just for statistical purposes (read: my personal amusement), can we include a count of reviews for the list Epbr? VanTucky 03:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I'm back on top! Yay! I thought I was supposed to be odd-numbered months?!?! ;-) Congrats to the other reviewers! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LONG

Can someone please say what the word "long" means before an entry? There's no key on the main page and I can't work it out just from looking at the articles and their talk pages in question. Technohead1980 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've wondered this myself for some time. I'm assuming it means that the article is longer than 32KB, based on WP:SIZE. VanTucky 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed this as well and been bothered by it. Its use is always inconsistent, if we are indeed going based off of 32KB, a majority of those listed here are indeed LONG. So, if this is the case, should they be added to all nominations? And if so, to what end? SorryGuy  Talk  05:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The LONG designation indicates that the article's text is over 32kb, according to this revision under "How to nominate a page" (I just went far back into the history, not sure when this was initially added/changed to the current instructions that include no information about the LONG inclusion). Additionally, some reviewers will include the exact length of the article right after LONG. If you see LONG before an article now, it is probably from people who have nominated articles in the past and through force of habit continue to add it (I still do), or are copying other reviewers. The designation may indicate to reviewers that the article's text is beyond a certain length and may take longer to review, or for people with slower connections who may want to avoid loading larger pages. I'm not sure why the instructions for including LONG has been removed, perhaps it was either forgotten in the transition for the new instructions or it was just ignored. I'm sure many of the current nominations would probably fall under the LONG requirements, but I believe some nominators don't include it either unintentionally or are fearful that a reviewer won't take a look at their article because it is long. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

but I believe some nominators don't include it either unintentionally or are fearful that a reviewer won't take a look at their article because it is long that's probably one of the reasons why theres a backlog. =) --BritandBeyonce (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people (reviewers and nominators) add the word "LONG" to nominations to indicate that the article is longer than about 32KB. This is partly a throwback to the days when it actually mattered to browsers whether an article was more than 32KB or not. Now that the edit history records the length and is just a click away from every nomination, adding the word "LONG" to denote some arbitrary boundary between a short article and a long one is a waste of time, and no longer required. As it is evidently also confusing, I suggest "LONG"'s should be removed from nominations. Geometry guy 09:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been a LONG time since that was relevant. Agree with G-guy (as always). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with both of you on this issue. I feel that some articles just cannot be outlined within a short box and need to be ellaborated on. I also feel that it is the job of each editor to make a point using the least amount of verbiage to reach that goal. I think that the reason the rule was imposed to start with was to keep editors from rambling within the article. So, as to not make it see like I am rambling here, I am in full agreement that the word "Long" should be removed from the rules here. Canyouhearmenow 13:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on general consensus here, it appears that LONG should be removed, and fortunately for us, it already has been removed from the instructions. So we just need to remove the ones from the current nominations. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not before time. It seems to regularly cause confusion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#GA article length) and has no real purpose IMO. EyeSerene^TALK 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I've removed the long tags from the current nominations. Geometry guy 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gguy, that's one process down and counting... ;) EyeSerene^TALK 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The KISS principle strikes a victory for reviewers everywhere! :P David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what I am doing wrong here...

I am attempting to reply to the reviewer at Talk:Wilfrid Kent Hughes, but whatever I write is not showing up in response. For example, I have placed a :* Done under the first recommendation but when I go back to check my comments they do not show up. I'm guessing it may be something at my end but I have checked this on two different computers and cannot get anything I write to show on the page (I hope this makes sense). Could someone look at the page and tell me what I am doing wrong? Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if the reviewer made a mistake on the formatting. I fixed it according to what I thought seemed right, the  Done symbol shows up now. Hope that was helpful. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

GA On Hold

A large amount of the articles in this backlog are On Hold. So when the article is On Hold after a fixed time and the review is valid I think that the article should be delisted from the nomination list. Also if there is improvement, but not alot it should still be delisted because that would (in my opinion) mean that the article shouldn't have been put on hold. Another idea is that we should change the criteria for putting an article on hold. However going back to the backlog I think that there are backlogs within this backlog. Tarret ^talk 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what the line is that reviewers draw between "fail" and "on hold." For me, if an article has relatively significant referencing problems or any breadth problems, I fail it. I only put it on hold if I can count the missing refs on one hand, or it is only missing one topic required for breadth, or if it only has copyediting problems. Otherwise I fail it. What do others do? Wrad (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that the distinction between "on review" and "on hold" is pointless. Reviewers should list all the issues they see on the article talk page, however many, however few, however easy or difficult to fix. Then wait for a week or so to see if there is any sign that these issues are likely to be fixed in the very near future. If not, fail. Some nominators won't fix trivial issues in a week. Some nominators can move mountains in a matter of days. Geometry guy 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some reviewers put the article on hold for three to five objections, reviewing in just an hour. Duh! Even the use of quotation marks were overlooked! --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts!) I wait until I've written the full review before I make any decision (unless it's a quick-fail, obviously). Personally I like to err on the side of holding rather than failing if I can justify it; I've seen articles with committed editors get brought up to scratch well within the hold period, where I privately thought they had no chance of passing within the next six months. IMO it makes little difference to fail an article on review or seven days later, but it can make all the difference to an editor, who has perhaps been waiting a while anyway, to get a fair crack at fixing things. Does anyone keep records for this? Some stats would be interesting here (ie percentages passed, held, failed etc on first review, and after holds). EyeSerene^TALK 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of my longer holds are for articles that got nominated, and then sat. And sat. After over a month of sitting and waiting for a review, I kinda feel that I should be understanding that folks' ideas of how much time they'd have to address issues might be a bit off. Most of them have talked to me and explained and given me a time frame. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Communication is always good. Wrad (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The other issue I've run across with articles like this is that sometimes editors have pretty much given up on getting reviewed, and have either gone on to other things or are on a wikibreak or something. I totally agree with you that it's only fair to be flexible with hold periods in cases like this. EyeSerene^TALK 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; I've had holds (Frank Zappa and Buster Smith come to mind) on hold for well over two weeks. I find that leaving a note under the on hold template stating "extended hold" generally helps everyone. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 15:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some reviewers hold articles for weeks without specifying its an "extended hold". --BritandBeyonce (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Web link checker is slow

The "link checker tool" is impossibly slow. I'm still waiting for the results page to open after a half-hour. You might mention this in the instructions.—RJH (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What kind of connection are you using and how many links are in the article you are checking? I just did one and it only took about 10-15 seconds. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to give me the article you are attempting to check with it, I would be willing to do it for you. SorryGuy  Talk  07:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 9/2/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Ealdgyth as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 9th February 2008. Ealdgyth is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Ealdgyth
2. Blnguyen
3. Dihydrogen Monoxide
4. VanTucky
5. Jackturner3.
Epbr123 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My world is in turmoil again. Comfortable I was, last month, with Dr Cash in his traditional place; now I am just confused! What are the rules here? :-) Congratulations to all, especially Ealdgyth, and also Jack, for a second appearance on the leader board. So Jack, can you knock those other four regular performers off their pedestals? DHMO will be a cinch ;-) — his hols must be over by now (although he has a really cool sig now, even if I say so myself); Ealdgyth is the new superstar, so that will a greater challenge! Have fun everyone! Geometry guy 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, been back at school for 2 weeks :( I did like 5 reviews over the weekend - that must've got me over the line. And yeah, my sig is pretty awesome - yours aint bad either :) Now, Gguy, get back in the top 5! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 11:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Had a funeral to go to last week, so I wasn't around as much,... Anyways, congratulations to the top five for the week! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Closing on land end of this week, so time is going to be short. Will try to get some GA's reviewed, we'll see what happens!Ealdgyth | Talk 19:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually didn't know there was a weekly competition, let alone that I'd been in the top five for two weeks *grin*. I'm a bit under the weather this week, but I'll see if I can do all the articles in Philosophy and Religion some time this week and knock out a few more of the articles in the backlog...anyone know when the next backlog elimination drive is going on? -- jackturner3 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAN header

I propose that we put a note in the reading material at the top of the page asking people to look in WP:GA to compare their articles to existing GAs. I think that a lot of people simply nominate articles without having a practical understanding of what a GA looks like and we end up with quite a lot of bad articles being nominated. This might make things more efficient as I think some people interpret a theoretical definition of "well written" etc in rather different ways. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. --Efe (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, it certainly couldn't hurt! VanTucky 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak support. I want to avoid instruction creep and there's already a lot of text up there. Is this proposal really helpful enough to be included? Is there something else that could be removed from the reading material? --jwanders^Talk 01:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me too, might want to emphasize that you're not supposed to nominate for FA and GA at the same time. We've got one that's up for both at the moment. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the view on obtaining an A or B rating before GA rating? Socrates2008 (Talk) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done; [7]. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I thought you always agreed with me DHMO? :-) Well-meaning proposals such as this are exactly how instruction creep happens. As WP:CREEP explains, they are based on the incorrect assumption that people read instructions. Generally, they don't. Furthermore, adding to the instructions often makes matters worse, because the chance some instructions will be read is inversely proportional to their length.

Unfortunately, those people who don't write well generally don't realise that they don't write well. They are also not particularly likely members of the tiny set of instruction-readers. So, although I appreciate the idea, I don't think it is an efficiency saving — quite the opposite. Geometry guy 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears whenever a different reviewer comes in to review an article for GA within the tropical cyclone subproject, a different aspect comes up each time. There have historically been about six people creating most of those articles, and the variety of different reviews has been fascinating, despite similar content in each article and similar writing styles from article to article. Unless an article on good writing can be created (or has been created) within wikipedia, I don't know how you're going to solve bad writing style. Changing instructions for GA isn't going to improve bad writing. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lal Masjid Siege appears no longer to be a GAN

Lal Masjid Siege appears no longer to be a GAN - according to its Talk page, it is now a FAC. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Close FAC. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove it in here anyway. It was failed before and now, its back in GN but no banner stating its a current nominee. --Efe (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

IP nominations

According to the current page's description of how to nominate, it says, "Before nominating, ensure that you are a registered user...". Last I looked there were a couple IP noms that have not been objected to. Personally, since IPs cannot be reasonably expected to implement requested changes to a candidate, I don't think we should allow it. What is the consensus on this? VanTucky 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; if the reviewer’s time and, thusly, the project’s resources are to be applied to a nomination, the least a nominator can do is have a registered name; it shows a rudimentary commitment to the project and allows us some reasonable assurance that they will be present to act upon and respond to the reviewer’s comments. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tricky one though - editing from an IP address does make user talk page communication difficult, or impossible with dynamic IPs. It won't stop anon editors responding on an article talk page though. Personally I prefer dealing with named editors and would probably come down on the 'no anon noms' side (and not just because I like saying that), but should we be restricting access to the GA process? Isn't that against what WP stands for? (Deja vu, I just wrote something like this above!) EyeSerene^TALK 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your sentiment EyeSerene. Maybe the procedure for dealing with IP noms should be to first automatically contact the IP on their talk page and get a confirmation that they understand that a GA nom entails a commitment of time and effort on their part. If they are okay with that commitment, then it should be fine. We don't get that many IP noms, so I think dealing with it case-by-case is a healthy way to compromise GA's needs with the openness of the project. No? VanTucky 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In some ways it's a moot point, since as you've already pointed out we ask only registered users to nominate (and I noticed that an IP nom was removed from WP:GAN a few minutes ago citing this as the reason). IMO the minimal number of potential GAs we may lose is outweighed by all the advantages of dealing with a registered user, and I'm not proposing that we change GAN policy - just noting that IP contributions are a valuable part of our encyclopedia ;) However, if our policy does change at some point in the future, I think your proposal would be the most workable to handle it. EyeSerene^TALK 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 16/2/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 16th February 2008. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Blnguyen
2. Dihydrogen Monoxide
3. TimVickers
4. Ealdgyth
5. Jackturner3.
Epbr123 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, oh so close :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Blnguyen! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 23/2/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 23rd February 2008. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Blnguyen
2. David Fuchs
3. VanTucky
4. Dihydrogen Monoxide
5. Calbear22.
Epbr123 (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New proposal of guide for nominators

I have been working in (or is it on?) my sandbox for the last few days developing a guide for editors that nominate articles at GAN. It is aimed at nominators similar to how Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles was developed for reviewers. The guide mentions common mistakes, tips for getting their article passed, etiquette with reviewers, and actions to take after an article passes/fails. I wanted to mention this proposal here for editors to determine if it should be moved to the Wikipedia space and mentioned in the intro at GAN (something like: "Before nominating an article, have you read the GAN guide of helpful hints/common errors?"). After reviewing over two hundred articles, and encountering recurring errors in these reviews, I created this page to prevent nominators from making the same mistakes over and over again. The page was quickly made and can be further expanded by knowledgeable reviewers. Based on consensus, it can be left as one page or split up into two: "Helpful tips/common mistakes" and "After your GA passes/fails" (I'm horrible with these titles!). If split, the "After your GA passes/fails" could be included as a link that the reviewer leaves on the article's talk page after s/he passes or fails the article.

One idea that can be incorporated with the guide is for all nominators to include a certain word/symbol (whatever we want it to be) next to their nomination that documents that they have read the guide and have ensured that the article does not have any of the common mistakes mentioned in the guide. Although we are currently focusing on preventing instruction creep, I believe that the addition of the word/symbol will allow reviewers to know which articles have been copyedited and improved to avoid the common mistakes that take time in reviewing the article. Reviewers then can instead focus on larger issues a nomination may have. This may decrease the number of quick-fails, and move some articles that would normally be left on hold by some reviewers straight to passing. I'm not stating that this page will prevent all mistakes that a nominator's article may contain, but it will at least alleviate some of the most common problems that nominations may contain and save time in completing reviews. We are currently facing a large backlog, and if reviewers don't have to worry about focusing on common mistakes, this can speed up the process/make it easier for new reviewers, and thus help in removing the backlog.

This page was put together quickly, and can be rewritten/expanded (the page needs it!) with more tips and common mistakes that other reviewers have experienced in their reviews. I'm open to any suggestions for the guide's improvement, and hope that it assists in preparing new nominators, improve the quality of nominations, and aid in clearing the backlog. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking good, and I look forward to seeing it expanded. I've added one of my pet hates there, will add anything else I can think of. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet is my cheatsheet for myself. Feel free to crib stuff from there. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, coming from a first time nominator (for Salt Satyagraha). These are helpful guides, which I've already used for some tidying (making sure the lead touches on all the sections, wikilinking dates, distance conversion, etc.). The idea of asking editors to acknowledge they've read the guide is a good one. It would have helped me. I think it would also greatly speed up the review process (and reduce the backlog), due to fewer problems to address in each article. ~ priyanath talk 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good in terms of the actual instructions. But reading it, the large(ish) paragraphs made me want to skim rather than read in-depth. Maybe for some areas, using bullets or numbers (especially for a process in which the order is important) for a list would be good. Nice work, VanTucky 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a list of bullet/check points would make it easier to follow. ~ priyanath talk 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that peer review isn't worth a darn (submit an article, get an automated bot answer last I checked), GA pre-review would be really helpful, particularly as an alternative to quick-failing. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The guide definitely can be divided up some more with bullets as suggested by VanTucky, and I'll be tinkering with it the next few days. Anyone who wants to contribute to it is more than welcome since this is for the benefit of everybody and current reviewers know the problems they always run into. Is everyone interested in having nominators mentioning next to their nomination that they have read the guide (using a keyword/symbol)? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet is my new God. Seriously, combine Nehram's knowledge/experience (no offense to Ealdgyth!) with the simple straightforward approach there, and everyone will want to review! Well, almost everyone :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I "borrowed" a good chunk from User:Epbr123 so lets be fair. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the idea of a 'How to...' guide for preparing an article for GA nomination has definite merit, but I'm also fairly strongly opposed to including a symbol next to nominations showing it's been used. My reasons for this are:

• Introducing more bureaucracy (we've just got rid of the LONG tag; don't lets replace it with something else!)
• More seriously, having read the guide is no guarantee that it will be understood or properly applied by an editor... however, the presence of a symbol may be taken as such by a potential reviewer. Many, if not most, reviewers will naturally preferentially review tagged nominations; this will be noted by editors, and the tag will become 'compulsory' if an article is to be reviewed at all (or at least within a reasonable timeframe). This could have two effects:

1. We may, albeit unintentionally, restrict access to GA to those editors that are able to 'self-review'. Rather than the collaborative process of education that goes on at GA at the moment, especially with new editors, we may end up driving people away.

2. To get reviewed a nomination needs a tag... therefore all nominations will be tagged (regardless of whether or not the guide has been used). The presence of a tag thus becomes meaningless.

We could certainly strongly encourage editors to read and apply the guide, (and incidentally new reviewers as well) but I really don't think we should go further than that. EyeSerene^TALK 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, per EyeSerene's reasoning, WP:KISS and WP:CREEP. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I did foresee those possibilities mentioned, I still think the process would benefit more from using the symbols then from the possible negative consequences. I don't believe that the tag would be instruction creep, because right now the process appears to be simple enough if we have so many nominations from different editors. As nominators began using the tag, other nominators would begin to notice them and look to the guide so that they could use the tag for their nomination. I do realize that some editors may just add the tag to advance their review, but I'm assuming good faith on their intent, and figure more people will correctly use the tag then those who won't. Again, if there is consensus for one way or the other, I'll be happy with whatever we decide to do. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a nice essay in my view: I support almost all of it, and see only a few minor problems. The most significant of these are where the essay goes beyond the good article criteria. Compliance with the full, intricate manual of style is not a GA requirement. For example WP:UNITS is not a GA requirement. Also, the section on inline citations does not mention the Harvard referencing alternative.

As for adding symbols at GAN, I am essentially against this, though not as strongly as might be expected: it's an idea that might work, but I'm unconvinced. I basically agree with EyeSerene here. I can also see the essay turning into: an added level of bureaucracy, a "pre-review process", in which editors mark articles which pass the common errors essay; part of the GA guidelines. That's the trouble with instruction creep: it happens one step at a time through quite reasonable suggestions.

The argument that nomination should be made harder is fine, but it misses a key point: we really need more nominators to become new reviewers. I do not believe that the solution to the backlog is to introduce systems which make it easier for experienced reviewers to review more quickly. As EyeSerene points out, such systems are subject to abuse, and I don't believe that any review should be carried out swiftly. So we need more reviewers, and we aren't getting them right now. We won't change this by adding more bureaucracy to the system. Instead, we should try to remove such bureaucracy, and make the system easier to understand. This has been discussed much on talk pages, but on the ground we are still adding instructions rather than removing them. Geometry guy 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We should probably hand it out to new nominators on their talk pages if their first article is a long way short as a sort of pre-screening before doing a full review. I wonder if my doing full reviews of bad articles ever does any good... I should track them down and see if the author ever nominated again....if not, then it wasn't much use...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea, and in fact I'll probably start linking to this essay when failing GANs in future. EyeSerene^TALK 09:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, it looks like we're going to avoid the tag, and just include a link on the GAN page. I think it would be great for any reviewer to alert new nominators of the link when they perform their reviews. I have expanded the guide with some of the suggestions above, so I would appreciate any more contributions/corrections before I move it to Wikipedia namespace. Are there any further comments/ideas/opposition for the guide before it is moved? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a link on the GAN page in the "How to nominate an article" section. Again, if anyone wants to add/correct anything, please do so. Thank you to all that helped to contribute. Hopefully this helps in removing some of the common problems and recruits some new reviewers. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Where would this go?

I've put Moberly-Jourdain incident on hold. It's in the Miscellaneous section now, any ideas on where on WP:GA it should go when passed? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is an interesting read. Possibly in either "Myths, mythology & miracles", "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures", or "World History-Europe"? You could probably create a new section if you see fit. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I added it to "Myths, mythology & miracles". dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Inviting active projects to help with backlog

I keep noticing that a lot of our backlog is coming from a few well-organised WikiProjects with a high throughput (notably US Roads and Hurricanes). Does anyone see a problem in explicitly inviting these wikiprojects to review their own nominations? I don't mean the nominators themselves, but other people in the project who haven't worked on the article. It's a bit of a conflict of interest, in that other project members would like to see project articles pass, but I think we ought to assume that the reviewers would also be concerned that the articles are up to standard. Thoughts? --jwanders^Talk 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine with me- after all, they are the ones interested in it, and as long as they are objective, it also helps codify style and consistency. Don't forget about the sports/games people though- that's got a couple dozen in backlog. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

May want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop in regards to U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree and believe consensus supports this, but we need to modify a sentence in our guidelines to really encourage it: see also, my comments here. Geometry guy 23:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as U.S. Roads goes, the project does have its own peer review process as well as A-class review, so articles do get reviewed by other road editors. I'd personnally prefer someone not from the project to review the articles to ensure they make sense to someone not as familiar with roads in general. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well since I wen to WP:AWNB last year drum up support for a GA100 push for WP:AUS, I refrain from reviewing Australian articles, since I feel a bit under pressure to not batter people who work hard, since I encouraged them to write GACs for Australia, so I felt I might be vulnerable to soft passing Australian articles. I still fail the really bad ones though. Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, and Holderca1's comment above. Just because the GAN guidelines permit an editor to review a particular article, it does not mean they should. Often it is a good idea to have input from someone outside the WikiProject, and I'm perfectly happy for WikiProjects to recommend this to their participants. What I think is unhelpful is a prohibition in the GAN guidelines. Geometry guy 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should send out a form message to all of the WikiProjects, asking them to either assist in reviewing articles that fall under their scope or other articles. There are over a large amount of WikiProjects that relate to articles, and I believe that sending out a request for help will hopefully drive some new reviewers here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The universe has exploded!

Are we on a backlog elimination drive that I don't know about? I've seen a marked increase in motion at GAN over the last couple days—I personally was in a little race with VanTucky to see who could nab the most reviews. Has anyone else noticed this, or am I just delusional? Kakofonous (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Erm...I think it's just you, mate ;) I've got heaps of FA drives going on, so I'm not as active as I'd like to be around here. All the more respect to those who are! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I randomly went on a video game reviewing spree, but I don't know about the other categories... I prolly should be helping out with the Sweeps, but I kinda forget about them... :P David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out the backlog graph for the full story. I will update it soon from WP:GAN/R. Geometry guy 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there was just a little flurry of reviews all at once, it happens sometimes. I also just this week started reviewing as much as I used to, I was on hiatus temporarily. But the backlog, unfortunately, is still persistent. VanTucky 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We need somebody with a burning interest in the American road system. That's not me. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there doesn't appear to be many people who have that intrest, other than the members of the USRD itself. I don't know how to resolve this, but I was thinking we could send a notice to the GA wikiproject and see if they could ramp up reviews. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAN#Natural_sciences — subheadings

Environmental sciences is not listed and doesn't fit any of the existing headings because it is a cross-discipline between all five of the existing headings. Would anybody object to its addition in alphabetic order?

1. Biology and medicine
2. Chemistry and materials science
3. Environmental sciences
4. Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy
5. Meteorology and atmospheric sciences
6. Physics and astronomy

- Neparis (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would, sorry. Many articles are cross-disciplinary, and choices have to be made. Proliferating subtopics instead of making these hard choices is not the right way to proceed. If an environmental science article is not suitable for "Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy" or "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences", then I suggest filing it under "Geography" (a subtopic of "Geography and places"). Geometry guy 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. Another option to consider for some articles in this field is "Engineering". Geometry guy 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think filing everything under A (for "Article about...") would be simplest... EyeSerene^TALK 19:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The last thing that GA needs right now is more categories. An 'Environmental sciences' category probably won't be used much, and most of the articles are interdisciplinary and fit fairly easily under one of the other subcategories. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Redrafting instructions block

The instructions on this page have grown to the point where most users probably aren't brave enough to read any of them. I've tried redrafting them, but didn't find much that I could easy pare off (see next section for one idea). If any one else feels like having a go, feel free. --jwanders^Talk 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried doing the same c. 4 months ago, and had some initial success, but then ran against the same wall that you have. The GAN instructions are long because the GAN process is bureaucratic and complicated. For a glimpse of the complexity of the GA process see here. Unfortunately, those who are familiar with the process are comfortable with it, and do not seem to realise how offputting it is for newcomers.

Consequence? The reviewing resource remains static, at about 30-50 articles on hold at a time, while the backlog is growing approximately linearly.

I have offered to automate some GA processes, and Happy-melon has generously offered to help with MelonBot, but his offer was ignored, and I am not willing to take automation forward while so many heads remain in the warm, comfortable sand. Geometry guy 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I proposed an instructions streamline back in 2006. Idea got a lot more support back then, and we were still tagging articles long (which, in hindsight, was pretty silly). Interestingly, the final redraft we agreed on is still in my userspace, User:Jwanders/GAN --jwanders^Talk 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If a person is to review an article, they can take the extra two minutes to review it properly. Also, what makes the GAN process complicated? You either fail, pass, put on hold, or request a second opinion. That, at least to me, is not confusing enough to compromise the ease of reviewing GANs. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The goal is not to compromise the ease, but to make it easier. What is easy about making three edits instead of one? Geometry guy 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First, are people that lazy? Second, if you were to remove on-hold, all articles would either pass or fail, and you would still need 3 edits. Now, the majority of the articles aren't quite ready to pass, yet not bad enough to fail. Therefor, we put it on hold for minor improvments, instead of failing just because of a minor issue. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not suggesting that articles have to pass/fail upon review; hold the decision for a bit is fine, and yes can result in a spur to improve the article. I'm wondering if it has to done so formally? Can't a reviewer simply say in their review "I'll pass this if x, y, & z are dealt with within the next week?" Then the entire block of "on hold" instructions can be shifted into one sentence of the "Reviewing articles" page.--jwanders^Talk 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and apologies for not explaining myself well. I have no wish to remove "on hold": in fact I think it should be the default. What I think is crazy is that putting an article on hold requires three edits: first to tell the nominator what needs to be fixed; second to add the on hold template to the article page; third to add the on hold signal to WP:GAN. I'm sure reviewers are not lazy, but if new reviewers have to read pages of instructions to understand this system, then they are less likely to contribute. Why not just make one edit and forget the rest? Geometry guy 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think a updated version of User:Jwanders/GAN is right on the money of what we want, possibly even shorter if possible. But the situation below needs to be settled first. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, User:Jwanders/GAN is the previous redraft accepted in 2006; User:Jwanders/GARedraft is my proposed redraft of the present instruction block. We're free to use either one, of course. --jwanders^Talk 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Copied over the copy edited blocks for the intro and how to nominate. I took the liberty of removing the "tools" from the bottom of the lead box, as i'm not sure anyone uses them; if someone does, they can easily be put back. I also removed the large caution block from the top of the nominations section: those that read instructions will have already read the same things above; those that don't, won't.--jwanders^Talk 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)