Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good Article Collaboration Center

This page was nominated for deletion on 7 July 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep and tag as {{defunct}}.

aesthetics

Oi, that dark-text-on-green-bachground is awfully hard on the eyes. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my comments and comment on them if you want

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Good_Article_Collaboration Center/Jackie Robinson#Notes. Is this the kind of thing we want to do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations

I notice there is currently a list of nominations for next month. But can I suggest we either change the procedure or at least make sure the final five nominations form a cross-section over the different GA topics, and that all the nominations don't end up being US or English-centric. Peanut4 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's fine. I plan to have everyone vote on it at the nomination page, but I haven't gotten around to doing it myself. As for articles around the world, that has to be my fault. I put in four USA related. I remembered the mix after four, so I added the Tower of London. I'll be adding some more noms. --LAA Fan^sign _review 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is not to have a list of five which includes all articles from sport or all from music, or all five dominated by a couple of sections. Most GAs are from either music, television and sport, and I don't think the list of five (while it is likely to contain a few from these sections) to be too dominated by those three "popular culture" sections.

I suppose the final choices, will depend on what the goals of the collaboration are? Is this to simply promote any articles to GA, to promote vital articles, to promote poorly-maintained articles, etc? Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point is hasn't really taken a direction yet. I tried to make a variety in terms of quality (Jackie Robinson, which might only need copyediting vs. The Eagles, which needs some work. All I would say would be to nominate any articles you feel need attention, and the group will attempt to help. --LAA Fan^sign _review 02:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its kinda funny that we are doing this considering the WikiProject GA articles is going crazy over their huge backlog. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine. --Efe (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting articles

This has the potential to be a really, really good process at getting some broader articles up to GA. For newbies, big subjects like the Eagles may be a bit hefty. A band with a shorter history, with maybe 3-4 albums and 5 years max may be better, I don't know. Articles with lots of easily accessible material would be good - can't think of what this may be as yet. Am sort of free-thought writing at the moment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we actually gang up, I think it would be fine. I wonder if starting with 5 articles is the way to go, though. Maybe we should do one to build our confidence. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're right about the difference in difficulty of making something like the eagles a GA and a smaller subject. If we really work together, we could choose a small subject and turn it into a GA in one day. Say, the latest episode of Lost or Madonna's latest single or whatever. Again, I think we need to build our confidence. There used to be a wikiwide collaboration that took on subjects like Science and whatnot, and it failed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is a very good idea to start small - pick a significant album or film with worldwide appeal would be my plan. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the Eagles article is a big one. Don't know what to do with it. I started cleaning up there but its so huge. --Efe (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A film would be of medium difficulty, but easy to research. I'm not a fan of rap, but I created Why Me? (Ice Cube song) specifically because it would an easy way to get a Did You Know and a GA. The google news hits are plentiful. It's special because the video features the family of murder victims. I don't think rap songs are the best things to write articles about, but I bet six of us putting in one hour each would equal a GA. A song GA is about 7 paragraphs and 20-30 refs. Just one idea. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants a really quick GA, see WP:DOH ( or see my GA list) Episode article there only take about 9 references.--LAA Fan^sign _review 03:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made a decision as founder. Per this discussion, I shortened the article list from 5 to 2, removing The Eagles, New England, and Automobile. The two still standing at the moment are Jackie Robinson and Tower of London. Comments on my moves? Feel free to correct me.--LAA Fan^sign _review 04:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, I live in New England, not that I would have had anytime to edit however. Pick as you please. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say ":::::::I don't think a Simpsons episode is the best way to start. Although I love the Simpsons episode GAs, they require watching the DVDs and those 9 references are frequently the only ones that exist. I think we should choose something that has many references, so we can choose among them. Pilot (Fringe) might be easy. Probably three person-hours of work left, if that." but there was an edit conflict.

How about one hard one, and two easy ones? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose that we intentionally select articles that are more encyclopedic than they are popular: Historic people and places, academicians, broad topics (like Firefighting) that have suffered from too many enthusiastic newbies. Obviously, there has to be a balance between things that are "fun" and things that are "meaty" but I'd like to see us have an articulated goal to shoot for a better proportion of the latter than is currently represented at GAN. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, other than I'd like to pick an easy one to start with. Any ideas on something that is generally considered cyclopedic yet easy? Firefighting would require around 100 refs to be a GA, I'd guess. Let's pick something that's around 30 refs. I just worry about us getting bogged down to start with. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be downgraded from 2 to 1?--LAA Fan^sign _review 13:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and removed Tower of London. User:RyanCross started working on Jackie Robinson. As he was the only user actually improving an article, and he chose Jackie Robinson, I figure that's the one to go with. I joined in and added about 7 references and removed a trivia section. Since we're not doing that many articles at once, maybe we should do the discussion here. I think it's probably the only page that people have on their watchlist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the Eagles on my watch list because I am a music-related article writer. But its fine. =) --Efe (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing Tower of London. With only one at a time, our time won't be divided.--LAA Fan^sign _review 21:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(redent)I'm not sure how we should be selecting these. RyanCross started on Jackie Robinson but it looks like he's a baseball editor. I've checked on a number of the volunteers GAs, and they're usually in one specific category. TV Shows, storms, songs, etc. Should we have an article of each type? It's easy to get people to sign up, but it's hard to get them to work on articles outside of their interests. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting

I'm currently mass notifying users about this project. Anyone care to help?--LAA Fan^sign _review 23:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point them where to copy the template? Also, it needs some minor work like fixing the lowercase p to uppercase and the weird {{{1}}}. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a more formal invite. Here it is:

Hi there WikiProject Good Article Collaboration Center!
	Please accept this invite to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving articles to GA status while working with other users. We hope to see you there!

Userbox

For those interested, I've created a userbox for members of this WikiProject. To use, type {{Template:User Good Article Collaboration Center}}

Thanks, ISD (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a member of the Good Article Collaboration Center.

How about mulitple sections with one article each

Since we have a variety of editors here, why don't we do a variety of types of articles. Doing just one hasn't really quickened out pace. Why don't we create sections for Sports, Music, TV/Film, History, Storms/Roads, maybe a few more. A user who is planning on bringing a television episode or tropical storm article up to GA anyway can put the article there with there signature. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to oppose that idea unless we get more users (about 45) who are dedicated to it. So far, the most dedicated are only you, I, and RyanCross. If we can get more, I would support. But, if we lack dedicated users, we'll have to set up something like the FA Team, where we just copyedit, instead of actually renovating articles.--LAA Fan^sign _review 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I will have to endorse it. I'm not going to do a single thing on Jackie Robinson, ever. It's either a sports article or an history article, depending on how you look at it, and I don't do either. It's a great subject to have as a good article and I encourage those who know and care about it to go kick butt and make it the best Jackie Robinson article Wikipedia could ever hope for. But I stick to what I know and care about, and just being a part of a Wikiproject won't change that. I've expanded the areas I've helped with greatly since I started in Wikipedia, but there's no way every editor can meaningfully contribute to every topic. Overall, I like the idea of a rotating pool of about five articles in diverse topics, with replacements chosen once GA is reached. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I know when I'm outnumbered. I'll continue notifying as much as possible. How many articles should there be, though, and which ones?--LAA Fan^sign _review 01:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I think to start, anyone who's following this discussion and is about to work on making an article GA should create a category for it on the page and put the article under it. If we get too many or too few, we can discuss it here. Each article put up should have someone who cares about it enough that it might make GA without us, and can make GA that much faster with us. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I haven't joined the project since I have my own concerns, and there was nothing that grabbed my interest (I doubt I'll ever work on a sports article, or a road, cyclone, music, for example). But work groups in various areas might prove successful. Or a noticeboard of current activity, inviting others to join. As Peregrine Fisher said above, if there is a lead editor, who is personally motivated, then it is more likely to happen. If there's only a few people saying "that's kinda a good idea", then it's not going to happen. Likewise, if potential members (like me) or early signees watch the topics and go away thinking "that project's no good because they never do anything interesting", then they'll not come back. Run a topic based noticeboard, with rolling work, then people will keep dropping in to see what's going on. You could provide the main headings offered at WP:GAN, or similar, and have no more than one on the go from each. When that's done, someone else can offer another. If you want five groups, then how about: popular culture (music, TV, sport, film etc); history; literature, arts & architecture; science & maths; social sciences (geography, politics and so forth). You'll soon see what works by who signs up for each group. Gwinva (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I see why this seems like a good idea, but if we have too many going simultaneously then I think interest will wane. Best that it's only a couple at a time, I think. Then again I can pretty much write about whatever if I try hard enough. (Granted, if there's strong support for this idea then that's fine, though I'm not a big fan of it personally) `Wizardman 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it like this: At the very least, it will be a bulletin board of "other editors wanted to help me get this article to GA" which itself is collaboration-encouraging. I agree that focused output can be achieved by limiting current work to one at a time, but I see this as an ideal candidate for parallelism: I'd rather see plenty of articles getting attention, because GA is just a milestone, progress and improvement will be happening across a broader spectrum of articles, even if we don't get a faster throughput. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of treating it like a noticeboard. Originally I thought we should limit the number, but I think we'll get the most collaboration with the most articles being listed. We just have to make sure to remove ones that are inactive. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken some of our ideas and added them to the page. This is the time to get ivolved, and list your own GA article project. Also, Jackie Robinson is a GAN! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! I'll help out when it gets reviewed. I'll continue to invite. What should the group work on now, though?--LAA Fan^sign _review 00:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A different direction?

I saw a member added a GA nominee to work on. I agree with that. I'll add some GANs to help with (in line with the subjects--LAA Fan^sign _review 00:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should only add ones that we are planning on working on ourselves. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea if one of our focuses was to address issues of the GANs that are on hold. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added GANs on hold for all the sections. We officially have a direction.--LAA Fan^sign _review 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations

I thought we had a new direction? Why are we still adding articles to the suggestions list to improve if we aren't doing that anymore? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achievement section

I suggest we make a new "Achievement" section on the main page. This way, we can keep track of our contributions and articles we have helped attain GA status. This would also encourage other users to sign up... I guess signs of success is attractive. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 09:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, something needs to be done to encourage further activity and more members. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thing is totally dead. The only GA was one I did pretty much by myself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get why there is a requests/suggestions section since we decided awhile ago that we would help with articles under review, not pick our own to improve. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk page banner

Perhaps we can create a banner to place on an article talk page, to show the article is being edited by the center, or has been edited by the center. If we do this, we can add a category, which will automatically create an archive. Any thoughts? --Music26/11 15:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea

Hello there. Can the article North Sea be entered for collaboration. It has had a lot of attention on it a couple of times. It is currently in GA review. I am trying so hard, but I am not clicking this time on what is needed, but am trying again by adding quotations in all the reference citation templates to show verifiablity which seems to be the weak spot. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be entered for collaboration. It's close to a GA standard, but I can see why it has failed the nomination, there are several little niggling issues to resolve. Further spotllight should remedy this. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add Abraham Lincoln and remove the rest

I think I'm the only one who has ever taken one of these noms to GA (Jackie Robinson). I'm currently taking Abraham Lincoln there, and although I doubt the GACC actually gets any articles any play (besides when I did JR), I'd like to try with one I know will be active (since I'm working on it). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]