There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
I don't know if you remember, posting a comment on my talk page regarding Thermodynamic feasibility of converting creatine to phosphocreatine, a doubt which I posted in the science reference desk. Well, it still remains unanswered :( . Of course, that was in good will that you recommended. Any way, that's not why I am messaging you. It's about this new article that I created, which I'd be glad if you review and comment upon.Bye. Regards.
Hello! Actually, I leave a note about the new collaboration only on the talk pages of the voters. But I always leave a note on the Wikiproject medicine talk page as well. But if you want to, I can set up a list for the regular contibutors so I can let them know about the new articles. What do you think? NCursework06:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for visiting and reviewing the page on polyclonal response. The following was your feedback: "Review
Here's a brief review that i've conducted after no sleep in 48 hours, so forgive me if it's a little vague or beyond comprehension.
WP:MEDMOS needs to be applied to the article.
An infobox would be a good idea, i'll get down to that at some point for you.
Significance needs to be expanded upon and written in continuous prose rather than bullet pointed.
Polyclonal response needs to be added to the immune system template at the bottom of the page.
Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)"
Well, by applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style, I suppose, you mean simplifying the article to make it understandable for the general public as other issues--mainly--caring for patients' sensibilities or not addressing the medical persons or the patients, I suppose does not apply in the case of this article.
I didn't really understand what matter could be included in the infobox for this article as it's mostly a phenomenon that requires to be explained, and not a disease or a molecule that would have a lot of objective data as its attribute. But, of course, your ideas are most welcome in this issue.
I'll try expanding the section on significance, but I had refrained from doing that because the first point in particular about maximizing the probability of recognizing an antigen would have sounded quite repetitive. Also, subconsciously, I felt that the points under the category would require citations that I didn't have.
I have already included polyclonal response in the
Hello, Cyclonenim. You have new messages at Stepshep's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I merged the other article and started a bit of cleanup to get the two to flow a bit better and propsed a merge of Basidiobolus ranarum as it's the human variant of the previous merge. Sorry I haven't been able to give this focus OATs and other things kept me busy. §hep • ¡Talk to me!22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually best to mention errors on the main page (that do not occur in their respective articles) in WP:MP/E as this is more closely monitored by admins and so you're likely to received a faster response. I've already moved your report on Cyclone Nargis Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know, in case it's not on your watchlist, that there's a good informal peer review at Talk:Ventricular hypertrophy. I know you've done some work on that article in the past, and thought you might like to know about the potential for improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, sorry - this is a bit spammy. You recently commented at my talk page regarding my proposal for a mentoring process that takes us away from "admin coaching" and moves towards a process to provide a support system to help editors who wish it become effective, high quality administrators, and not an administrator for the sake of it. I've created a header at User:Pedro/Mentoring and if you have any time to provide some feedback, or just tinker with it, I'd be grateful. Pedro : Chat 08:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Common types of ischemic stroke include:
Total Anterior Circulation Infarct (TACI)
Partial Anterior Circulation Infarct (PACI)
Lacunar Infarct (LACI)
Posterior Circulation Infarct (POCI)
Each of these gives a stereotypical clinical picture. Before the location of the infarction has been confirmed by diagnostic imaging (e.g. CT Scan), they may be referred to as Total Anterior Circulatory Syndrome, and so on (TACS, PACS, LACS, POCS).
I'm afraid I don't have a reference for it - it was something that I was taught at medical school though, so I'm sure it'll be documented somewhere. Ged3000 (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a new friend. Cheers, and happy editing! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks a lot for the barnstar. Never thought will get one. Well, I had a doubt: how does one cite the same source again in an article to support different facts. For instance, how can I add The "Immunolgy Fifth Edition by Goldsby" at different places? Also please provide me with a wikilink to the relevant page with instructions.
Thanks, when I saw your question I went 'ooh, I think that's partially a trick' and remembered Israel. Wish I could find the ANI discussion for full details but I'm glad I answered it to your satisfaction. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee15:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I told Keeper somewhere in the discussion process that I don't mind answering questions that are relevant, or even somewhat irrelevant like the username spelling question. I don't have anything to hide, Wiki-wise, so I figure it can't hurt to answer and at worst, you learn something if it's not answered the way the questioner thought. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee16:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm not too worried about Kurt, it's his POV which he's entitled to. I also !voted in the AfD you linked. I agree with you that it's not spam and appears notable. It's well beyond my scope of understanding and much of it is behind pay gates so I personally couldn't clean it up but I think it could be done. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Experience is always a good thing. Looked as if people supported the idea of your RfA but with more experience, so that's a good start. I found that 'working' with Keeper, Jayron, DGG and other admins was a good learning tool and observing some of their actions taught me more than just reading policies and what not. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee19:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm afraid I don't have any sources, but it is something that was mentioned regularly by the guys in the psychiatry department when I was on placement there. A quick google search revealed this. I'm sure pubmed could find something better. Maybe Lipowski ZJ. Delirium: acute confusional states. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.?
"Lilliputian hallucinations are hallucinations of miniature people or animals" - Cameron AD, Crash Course Psychiatry 2nd Ed, p23, ISBN0-7234-3340-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged3000 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly disagree with that edit. Delirium Tremens is not a symptom - it is a diagnosis. (IDC-10 F10.4) As such, "Delirium tremens is also a known symptom of AIWS" just doesn't make sense. Also, the article you refer to with this statement does not mention delirium tremens or lilliputian hallucinations. Ged3000 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I completely agree that information in any encyclopaedia should be properly referenced. Sadly I don't have any reference in front of me, and don't have the time to look for one. However, I have been taught that lilliputian hallucinations are a characteristic feature of DTs, which is why I thought I should make a comment that this was not fully described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged3000 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: reference. Sorry - I didn't look at the title of the article as mentioned on the wikipedia page. The link supplied with the reference leads me to an unrelated paper - The Evolution of Surgery for the Treatment and Prevention of Stroke [1]Ged3000 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I ever properly thanked you for the nice barnstar. Hereby: thanks for the nice barnstar! I haven't quite got around to looking at zygomycosis yet - had my hands full with familial hypercholesterolemia (now GA). JFW | T@lk20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you noticed that someone moved the IP's "vote" back to general comments. The IP was absolutely correct to put it under general, as IPs are not allowed to cast an official "vote" according to the (perhaps outdated) general RFA guidelines. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) At least you didn't use the new rollback tool I gave you to revert J Milburns updates. That wouldn't have been good. :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer20:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, was that what you were looking for on Talk:Zygomycosis? I didn't see anything resembling an NPOV issue, but I'm not sure if you were intending to suggest there was one. I do see what you mean about all the merges making it confusing though. Anyways, gimme a heads up if you were looking for something more specific (I'm crap at watching talk pages though, so you better hit my talk page). Peace, delldottalk01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, wasn't sure if you saw my reply on my talk page since I'm just so popular tonight. ;)
In other news, I was excited to see from your userpage that you got pneumonia to FA, are you interested in chest medicine? I wondered if you'd be interested in giving me a review for either pulmonary contusion or subcutaneous emphysema; I'm not an expert and it's possible I've introduced errors. Any lung insight you could bring to either would be much appreciated. Awesome work on the medical articles by the way, I'm surprised we haven't run into each other before this! I guess I tend to hang out in pretty isolated corners of WP:MED. :P Peace, delldot on a public computertalk07:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your participation at my recent Request for adminship. I’ll keep your concerns in mind as I continue to work within the project. I hope you find I live up to your expectations of administrators. Best, Risker (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclonenim/Archive May08, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks!Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, you really think it's ready for FAC? I'm such a wuss about these things. Are you allowed to just list an article as a GA, or does it have to go through GAN? Either way, it's very exciting, I look forward to seeing what happens.
Hey again, I feel like all the concerns being brought up at the FAC are valid, maybe we should withdraw the nom and work on them. I really don't feel like we'll be able to address the concerns within the allotted time frame, and I'm concerned about wasting the time of people who participate in FAC, they already do so much. How about we take it down, find some of those reliable sources like the textbook Colin mentioned, and come back after the concerns have been addressed? I'm not having luck finding any good sources online, and it'll be a while before I can get to a medical library or anything. I assume it's possible to withdraw them, right? delldottalk19:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again, thanks for handling the relisting. Was it OK how I handled that? I thought I'd do it since with the FAC closed we might not get the feedback on that question. Didn't mean to be a jerk about it or anything. Peace, delldot on a public computertalk02:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore·Talk/Cont06:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern, but I think the most positive course of action would be to leave the RfA open until the proscribed end date. There are always more comments that people can make, and I would like to give as many people the opportunity to express their opinion as possible. After all, what harm could possibly come from leaving it open a bit longer? – PeeJay19:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point there, and of course there is always the danger of that, but we'll never know if we don't try. What I would really appreciate is a couple more questions to answer. – PeeJay19:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cyclonenim/Archive May08! I'd like to leave a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully today (and to my surprise) with 83 supports, 4 opposes, and 2 neutral.
What I have taken back from my RFA is that I've perhaps been too robust in debate and I will endevour to improve upon that aspect of my usership. I would like to thank you again and state here that I will not let any of my fellow Wikipedian's down. Thanks again! --Jza84 | Talk 11:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:D We're GA! I'm psyched that he gave such a thorough review, good pointers. I'm going to get to work on them hopefully tomorrow. Yippie! :) delldottalk05:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
for not making your questions on my RFA toooo hard and for your vote of confidence. I will do my best to live up to it! --Slp1 (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like help on learning how to make contributing articles on Wiki. I would someday like to contribute to the articles on chemistry and specific animal species. I saw that you liked science, which is why I chose you. Warning: I find it tough to word what I'm thinking of, questions about wiki. let me know if you can help me or adopt me. Pozilla (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! I didn't realize how active people were on Wikipedia. I did ask a few other people; isn't there a place where I can see whose page I edited? Pozilla (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyclonenim, you tagged this userpage as a spam speedy. I'd previously given the user a welcome and tried to explain a few things. I've now been a little more WP:BOLD and blanked the user page for them, so your CSD tag is gone now too. I'm just trying to give them a little better introduction to the wiki than waking up to find their work (such as it is) permanently gone. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed 69/10/3 yesterday. I will put the tools to good use and hopefully justify the confidence you had in me. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Per your message, all of the "Neurology" cats have been deleted, and all of the "neurology" cats have been retained, untagged, and - in one case - undeleted (whoops). You should be all set. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cyclonenim. I just wanted to tell you that the link in your signature that leads a/your guestbook/autograph book is not allowed be WP:SIG. It is not allowed because signing others guestbook/autograph book does not help the encyclopedia. I hope you understand. Please reply on my talk page if you feel the urge to do so. Thanks. --RyRy5 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can start this off now. Do you want me to auto-assess the articles based on the other assessment(s) the articles may have? A basic description of the process is here. RichardΩ612Ɣɸ 08:27, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
Doing... as requested. 1100+ pages to do. RichardΩ612Ɣɸ 10:19, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
YDone A little bit of a FUBAR due to old articles still being on the bot's list, but all is well now (i.e. I have rolled back the bot's mistaggings). All articles tagged successfully. RichardΩ612Ɣɸ 10:50, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
Hi - a stub template, category, or redirect which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha?02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - you're right, of course, about neurology and neuroscience, but the latter term is broad enough that it's probable that most neurology stubs could be marked with it without causing too much controversy or loss of ability for editors to locate them (then again, what do I know - my specialist area was perception and psychophysics rather than the CNS itself :). In any case, you'll probably find the talk-page banner far more useful for your project than a stub type anyway. Grutness...wha?01:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into the SteveBot problem. It is appreciated when these bots work and improve the consistency of Wikipedia, and a few glitches are well worth paying. Eubulides (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you just reverted a vandalism revert at Easter ([3]). I've reverted you, but I just want to make sure that was a mistake. If not, feel free to revert me. --Rory09623:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the policy (WP:SIG) it says "Do not place any disruptive internal links, such as <super>[SIGN HERE!!!</super>, which refers to an autograph page." I don't think my link is disruptive. Look at my signature and please tell me if it's OK. Thank you. Mm40 (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
