Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012/Totals

Roy Lichtenstein painting articles

Roy Lichtenstein painting articles are all about the same in regards to lengthy quotes in the references (i.e Golf Ball and Girl with Ball). Golf Ball was tagged for improper use of copyrighted material, and I have reason to believe that a majority of other Lichtenstein articles improperly use copyrighted material as well. By extension, I can assume that if the reviewer didn't note copyright concerns in the GA review it won't count? Albacore (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no--or maybe I don't get the grammar of the last sentence. I don't understand why Status didn't notice that, or didn't notice that those quotes were unnecessary in the first place, even besides being copyvios. The opinions of two experts (User:Moonriddengirl and User:Uncle G strike me as authoritative, and I have started cleaning up these articles (Torpedo...Los!, Girl with Ball, Look Mickey). Now, these are kind of boilerplate articles with boilerplate reviews, but that's beside the point; one relevant point is that the quotes can be removed from the citation templates and that longer quotes in the articles can be trimmed or removed. I encourage you to look at my edits to those three articles.
But just to make the point obvious: those long quotes fall foul of the proper use of non-free content and must be removed. See User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_46#length_of_quotes, for instance, and two sections on my talk page, "Keanesburg, New Jersey" and "are you going to clean up all the Lichtenstein up of copyvios?" I will notify user:Status and User:TonyTheTiger of this thread in hopes that they will help resolve this problematic situation. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has pointed me to any policy on using quotes in citation templates. I am not sure policy is being enforced properly here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have pointed you to a discussion on Moonriddengirl's talk page. That there is no policy specifically for using quotes in citation templates is beside the point: there is a policy on using non-free content--Wikipedia:Non-free content--which stipulates that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." The difficulty is to define "extensive": Moonriddengirl is our resident expert on copyright and she indicated that such use (in quotation templates and elsewhere) is indeed extensive. It's not even a matter of policy: it's law. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it before in articles and assumed it wasn't a problem. I guess I was apparently wrong. Has consensus been reached that they are not allowed? I haven't been pointed to any policy or guideline that states long quotes in the references are not allowed. I think that's what Tony was aiming for. If there isn't anything, then I don't see how it is an issue. Several editors can say that it's an issue, but without any relevant "you cannot have long quotes in the references" policy or whatever, I don't see why anything should really have to be done about it. I had to go for surgery and was gone for a couple of weeks, so I may just be out of the loop on the status of the situation. Statυs (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, do wee leave the reviews removed from the count or enact some sort of sanction over Status on this past drive? I'm thinking about reinstating only half the reviews assuming good faith and leaving the other half removed as a penalty. Please, i need comments over this, as I think that with no proper consensus on wether to remove or leave the reviews has been reached yet. I will contact the other coordinator, Wizardman, for his input on this matter. —Hahc 21 04:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep them removed from the count, since after reading over a few of the articles myself I was surprised just how heavily quoted the article was. As for the policy, it's an issue of paraphrasing. If that many sizable quotes are used in an article, then the article wasn't really written by Tony, but by the guy who said the quotes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. BTW, I'm not here to suggest sanctions against Status, though they reiterate an already faulty line of reasoning: "if it's not in the guideline it's OK". And I'm not happy with the quick and simple GA reviews, but reviewing such reviews is better left to others (than myself). As far as TonyTheTiger's GAs, I suggested that since the actual content of the articles is (mostly) unaffected, the GA status does not necessarily come into it since, for instance, the breadth of coverage is unaffected: the citations are still there. Hahc21, the quotes have to go--from all of those articles and anything else you run into. I'm asking you as an editor involved with the GA process, but even more so as an editor per se. This goes even more so for TonyTheTiger, in those Liechtenstein articles and others. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So, per the comments above and mine, the reviews will be kept removed from the count as a clear issue of paraphrasing. —Hahc 21 15:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--but I wouldn't say "clear issue of paraphrasing"--in this case, I'd say "highly problematic way of editing that probably falls in copyvio territory." Wikipedia:Good article criteria says, item 6, that if "the article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations" this is a good enough reason to quickfail--that probably should be done here. In other words, if the copyvio problems aren't tackled the star should be yanked. This is much bigger than the drive, of course, and I hope that one of you (you're the experts here) will point attention to it in the proper forum. Maybe if the remaining Lichtenstein articles get demoted the editor will start paying attention; he hasn't come back here for further comments. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about really superficial reviews

e.g. Talk:Delaware Route 17/GA1? This article was immediately submitted to GAR. What about other rubber stamps? Should other rubber stamps on Delaware Routes by same reviewer be checked:

MathewTownsend (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not a coordinator, so this is just my opinion. The instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012 clearly state no rubber stamping. I looked at the time stamps for Talk:U.S. Route 40 in Delaware/GA1 and there is a ten minute difference at here, so that article particular could have been reviewed in that time frame; and a 17 minute interval at Talk:Delaware Route 20/GA1. In contrast, I also looked at Talk:Delaware Route 18/GA1 and there was only one edit (pass - no problems seen). I believe that there could be a case against a single edit review "pass - I can't see any problems" and an edit summary "pass with flying colors", such as Talk:Delaware Route 18/GA1. It's not so "black and white" when the time stamp suggests that these types of articles took ten minutes or more to review. However, some articles clearly could not be adequately reviewed in ten minutes (some of my reviews take several days). So the pertinent questions are: how long would it take to adequately review a particular article, and how much time "appears" to have been spent? Pyrotec (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec brings a good point here. Also, we must take into consideration that several users read the article before picking it up for review to know what they will review and how long it would take. I reviewed some of those road articles and generally they took me no less than 30 minutes each after doing several minor edits by myself (i hate to ask the nom to correct minor issues). Notwithstanding, as a coordinator, i'm bound to check and verify if the article is really up to standard. If it is the case, indeed, then there's no issue with the review, but otherwise, it will be discounted. I'm developing several new ways to make GA drives so that these situations are avoided. —Hahc 21 13:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm apparently the only one that found problems in any Delaware road articles. The writer of the Deleware road articles must be very good. These Delaware road articles were passed in the drive (besides the above noted) and all but the four noted had no problems:

Talk:Delaware Route 10/GA1 - some fixes made and rationale given
Talk:Delaware Route 58/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 100/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 52/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 286/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 34/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 12/GA1 - passed after many problems addressed
Talk:Delaware Route 11/GA1 - passed after many problems addressed
Talk:Delaware Route 44/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 48/GA1 - passed after many problems addressed
Talk:Delaware Route 7/GA1 - passed after many problems addressed
Talk:U.S. Route 9 in Delaware/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 404/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 30/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 15/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 37/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 273/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 896/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 2/GA1
Talk:Delaware Route 9/GA1

So I guess the comment that very few articles have no problems is not true. As 29 of these articles were passed in the drive, and only 4 had major problems (reviews by me). I must be doing something wrong! I did pass 4 without problems. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

I was just taking a look at the totals page and realized that numerous users articles are no longer listed. There is also large spaces between some user's articles. Just curious why this change happened?--Dom497 (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean? From my PC i see the page with no issues. Could you elaborate please? —Hahc 21 20:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main computer is a PC and uses Windows 7. My older computer (laptop) runs on Vista. I've viewed the page on both computers and still the issue shows up on both. The images below are from my laptop:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/232/44239364.jpg/ - after a users articles, there is a long blank section after it. The blank space extends about 5x the amount shown in the image.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/16990333.jpg/ - Starstriker7's and Status's articles should be below this but I can't seem them. The blank space extends about 5x of the amount shown as well.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/196/54226107.jpg/ - Where are the names of the other user's? The articles 2, 3, and 4th box's aren't Aaron's.

These are the issues that come up multiple times in the totals page.

Wow, So weird. Have you tried using another browser? I'm using Firefox and everything looks okay. Let me try watching the page with Chrome to see. —Hahc 21 01:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have Chrome installed and the same issue is happening. I see the same as you. But this is weird. I tried with both Opera and Firefox and it doesn't happen. —Hahc 21 01:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed —Hahc 21 02:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks better! Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars - lack of

Having just left a note on a user's talk page, I'm aware of one editor who's got a barnstar for participating in this drive. What proportion have been issued and what about those of use who've not had their's yet? Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am issuing the barnstars. I was about to give more today but i dont have power supply. I am giving barnstars only to users whom all reviews are checked. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Axe awarded the A's, Basil, and Calvin. Unless someone else got to it, the rest of the awards have not been sent out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is anyone planning on finishing reviewing the reviews any time soon?--Dom497 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short No, but barnstars are (I'm told) going to be issued to all outstanding recipients. Pyrotec (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]