Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Nomination by unregistered user allowed or not?

I nominated an article (Straight razor in this case) as an IP, since I just stumbled on it and found it exceptionally well written and well documented. The nomination was thrown out with "please renominate as a registered user". What's the policy on this? And if nomination is only allowed by registered users, shouldn't the text of this page be changed to reflect this? Currently it says (not verbatim) nomination by anyone, review by registered users. Thanks for your consideration. -- 92.229.250.178 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered users such as yourself are able to nominate GANs, hence the bolded "nominated by anyone" in the instructions. I can't seem to find the set of edits where you nominated the article and another editor removed it, could you provide the diffs? In any case, the editor who removed your nomination was incorrect, and so please feel free to renominate the article at GAN. However, it would be beneficial if you had some background in the article, so that you could address any issues that the reviewer brought up. (I'm not saying you don't, it's just that many IPs who nominate don't and so their nominations often end up failing). I hope this answers your question, Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I would also recommend addressing the "citation needed" tag in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It was probably I who removed that nomination. The refereeing process is usually long and is not like accept/decline - a review often requires communication, often at the talk page of the nominator, often requesting certain changes/fixes. A registered editor with a certain wikipedia tenure has a relatively predictable behavior. We don't known whether an anonymous editor will be long enough around to address the issues, whether their IP is fixed or floating, etc., etc. (shared IP might be blocked, etc - many possibilities which may or may not apply to a certain case) Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Still, a policy should be established and adhered to in this matter, IMHO. I wasn't planning on doing much editing on the article other than possibly typos and such, since it's not my area of expertise. Didn't know you had to be involved in creating it to nominate. Thanks all! -- 92.229.250.178 (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The nominator doesn't have to be involved in creation of the article, but they should be prepared to requests to add/rewrite text and references (and sometimes even images, that can't be done from an IP) - typo correction can be done by the reviewer. I don't know whether this topic is/should be in the guidelines, and expect others saying. Materialscientist (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The policy on the GAN page is pretty clear that anyone can nominate. I would think the best thing to do would be to proceed with a review normally, and worry about potential problems like uploads if they come up. Torchiest talk/contribs 04:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

IPs can nominate. But, if I were reviewing, I wouldn't start with a thorough review. I'd try and find a problem that's easy to spot, and will require a small amount of dedication on the nominator's part to fix, to make sure they'd actually respond to my comments. If they did, then I'd work with them and find a way to get it done. Otherwise, I'd fail it. I imagine most IP noms wouldn't be by people who actually know how to sheppard an article through he process. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, re-nominating Straight razor now. It's true I don't have a fixed IP. It's also true I'm doing this for the first time (I've fixed A LOT of typos on Wikipedia over the years and done all kinds of small edits anonymously, but never for example contributed a long article all by myself). Let's just see what comes of it. -- 85.179.171.217 (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Materialscientist is unlikely to apologize for his blunder, I'll apologize to you on his behalf. OhanaUnitedTalk page 11:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A softer gentler touch please. My apologies Materialscientist. Lambanog (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: I gave you my arguments and yours boil down to "this is right because its written in an orange book". I was hoping to learn from such an experienced wikipedian like yourself, but so far I appreciate more the calm and critical attitude of user:85.179.171.217. Materialscientist (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Too many references/citations

In a recent GAN, Joseph Smith, Jr., which is a summary article, I wonder if there isn't a surfeit of references/note/citations. For one thing, it's over whelming to the reader, especially combined with all the wikilinks. And, isn't there a danger of OR or SYN when there are several citations per sentence? Just wondering. Xtzou (Talk) 20:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a danger of OR or SYN, but there's no way a reader can read the text that way. That article has 425 citations in the prose. This is massive overcitation. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm more concerned that the citations are mid-sentence so much. That I think affects the readability more than anything, no? Hekerui (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything under the GA criteria that addresses this? It seems like "Well written (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct" is somewhat of a stretch. Xtzou (Talk) 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Response to Hekerui. I agree, as some sentences have three separate citations. But even if there were just one per sentence, that still is distracting to read. Added to this, some are accompanied by quite long explanatory footnotes. And I stress again, this is a summary article. Each section has its own daughter article. Xtzou (Talk) 21:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagee that it is over cited. The primary consideration is WP:verifiablity. The article is correctly cited, either at the end of the sentence or at punctuation within the sentence. That level of citation is needed at FAC-level. Just because the article is a GA, it does not have to be "dumbed down". Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I do agree about the excessive number of links. I had another read to see if I could spot WP:Overlinking. I did not, but there are too may of them. Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Citations are needed for material which is challenged or likely to be challenged. There's no way that nearly every single sentence in that article is likely to be challenged. The primary consideration is the reader. The reader cannot read that article without being distracted by constant footnotes in nearly every single sentence... And despite the overuse of citation in most of the article, there's a completely uncited paragraph! (The paragraph beginning "Smith also claimed...") There are citations for Joseph Smith attending church classes, but no citation at the end of the article for the claim that "Emma never denied Joseph's prophetic gift or her belief in the Book of Mormon." BTW, I've participated at FAC for years, and have never seen an article with 425 citations. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I see no problem with an editor being diligent with references. I read through some of the article, and I found that I was able to read around the footnotes. As far as references go, the big question is whether or not it meets WP:V, and I believe it does. People might have something to say about the number or placement of references at FAC, but I don't think it's an issue here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I see no problem with an editor being diligent with references, either. However, diligence is not the same thing as overcitation. Overcitation has been brought up before, usually (but not always) during peer review, assessments, and FACs. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Missy Higgins/archive1, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/45th Infantry Division (United States)/archive 1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parks and Recreation (season 1)/archive2, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/archive1, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Harriet Tubman, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Excel Saga/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of British Airways/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bog turtle/archive1 for a few examples (in 2010) where editors voiced concerns over overcitation. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues that I might bring up at FAC, but I don't think it should hold up a GAN . If one ref will suffice, you might ask them to use just one in those cases. If one won't suffice, you might want to spot check a few for synthesis. Otherwise, lots of references should be commended. Someday they're will be a setting to hide inline refs for people who find they break up the reading experience. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised no-one has raised the issue of "defensive citations" - e.g. the editor has the cited book now may challenged in 6 months, when the library has lent the book to someone else. --Philcha (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please consider these 2 TDRs

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_4#Template:Harvcol and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_4#Template:Harvcolnb have been put for deletion. I have no intention of influencing your decision, but urge to you express your opinion at the TDR. --Philcha (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Urgent GA notice

I am wondering if there is a way to request an expedited review of Park Grill. The Millennium Park WP:FT will be demoted if this is not a GA by June 13.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Frequently Asked Questions infobox

Do we simply removed the last question/answer about the missing GA symbol or do we need consensus? The arguments are still good. Hekerui (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, there is a symbol for GAs, so that question is no longer needed. Secondly, your comment implies that you consider that the answer is still relevant, in which case what question is it answering? I'm presuming that you wish to rephrase the question. Perhaps this is the place to consider what you think that question might be. Pyrotec (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the FAQ. Further improvements are welcome, of course. Geometry guy 22:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Community GAR reminder

I haven't left a reminder here for a long time of the importance of community reassessment. Community reassessment is a fall-back when the single review model fails to reach consensus. Consequently, it really benefits from contributions by experienced or uninvolved reviewers, so that we can reach consensus on whether an article should be listed as GA or not.

There are not many articles listed at GAR at the moment, but the oldest, WP:Good article reassessment/Santa Claus Lane/1 has been sitting there for quite a while and would really benefit from independent review comments, and two of the other articles are also now in the backlog. Commenting at community GAR is not time-consuming, because it no individual needs to undertake a full review. The goal is to reach consensus within 2 weeks, but that cannot happen without input from regulars here.

Many thanks for your help. Geometry guy 22:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

New symbol proposal

See the proposal here for a new GA symbol. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How much of an summary is called for by WP:Lead?

I don't know. Is a very concise lead compliant with WP:Lead? Xtzou (Talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There's really no hard-and-fast rule for exactly how long a summary/intro section should be. It should be enough to give the reader an introduction to the core topics of what the article will discuss in later sections. 3-4 paragraphs would probably suffice for most articles. Another thing to consider is whether there are any citations in the lead. While citations in the lead aren't necessarily forbidden, the presence of two many of them is indicative of the fact that new material is being introduced there, instead of being discussed in later sections as it should be. So citing material in the lead should be done very sparingly. WTF? (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't really disagree, but small articles can have 2 para leads, and a really small article might have 1 para. Also, sometimes people cite in the body and in the lead, so there's no number of cites that indicates problems. You have to see if everything in the lead is backed up by a cite in the body. It it's cited in the lead, but doesn't appear in the body, then it should be moved to the body. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992/GA1

Could someone finish this review? The reviewer was blocked. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou was blocked? Where does it say that? I don't see anything on their talk page, and their block log doesn't give a reason. :/ María (habla conmigo) 12:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
... Well, Risker (talk · contribs) (a checkuser) says in the block log that the block is for block-evasion, so presumably has good reason for this block. BencherliteTalk 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Risker said on their talk page that User:Xtzou was a sock of User:Mattisse.--Nascar1996 12:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to replace "On this day" with recent GA's

See the thread here for the proposal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Industrial music good article review

ThaddeusB was working on this GA review, but after making some progress, he's disappeared. Since it has been three weeks since he's done any editing, I removed the On hold tag from the listing. If someone else wants to pick up and continue the review, or start a new one (not sure which is appropriate in this situation), it would be greatly appreciated. Torchiest talk/contribs 17:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Will a "dead link" brimming with good faith hold back a nom from reaching GA?

Resolved
 – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

When I'm through with Stone Temple Pilots (album), I fully intend on nominating it for GA. But I have one problem: one reference's link became dead after only two weeks. Just now, I managed to whittle the 18 citations to this reference down to 8, but these 8 I cannot replace, nor can I lose them (or the information). According to WP:Linkrot, the reference should not be removed and the information stemming from this reference should not be removed, but everything in the power of the editor must be done to try to replace the reference, and this I did. The 8 remaining citations were simply never "cited" elsewhere (except for sources that cited Wikipedia); however, if one were to google a quote or a passage from this reference, Google will turn up results proving the quotes are pulled in good faith from the reference. Unfortunately, while Google's search results show matching information, its cache does not exist. Finally, I contacted the author of the article in question and the editor-in-chief of the website about one to two weeks ago, and the only email response I received was a "I'll get back to you." I responded, but received no reply. So: is all my hard work for naught? I think all I have left to do is to write a lede and give the entire article a good copyedit. Note that I have explained my dilemma on several talk pages, including Linkrot, Peer review, Identifying reliable sources, and the help desk, so I apologize if you've seen my message before. But every attempt has been made to mitigate and/or resolve this dead link, and I'm as far as I can go... can I still get a GA or not? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest: I'm probably not the best person to answer this. Articles from the world of entertainment baffle me since the citation requirements are significantly stricter on scientific articles. Looking at the references used in the article, I really don't see how some of them could be considered reliable... things like target.com, amazon.com, platekompaniet.no, etc. You might take a look at GAs in your category, in Music → Recordings, compositions and performances, for examples. I do empathize, since most of my references don't run the risk of disappearing overnight. However, if the material cannot be supported by a citation, simply remove it... or if you think the article may some day return per your plea, comment it out with notes on the situation and the source. Hopefully this answers your question. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, and I agree with you completely, even though it's not what I wanted to read. Citations like target.com are because I can't find articles that specifically say "Target's version of the album has such-and-such differences". So I had to resort to Target.com. I mean, I could remove that information, but I was hoping to make the article pretty thorough. If target.com has a description of the product, then it better be reliable, otherwise there'd be a lot of angry shoppers. I guess I don't know what to say. Platekompaniet was to get the Norwegian release date. No American site has that information. I have no doubt I could get onto Google.no (and similar search engines respective of languages) and try to locate actual articles in foreign languages that state the release dates. Anyway... yes, I may have to resort to the commenting out, that's a good idea. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You can also try written sources, like music magazines. As for the question, yes, red links do not prevent an article from getting GA status: if it is allowed in policies, then reviews can't be more strict than that (unless policies are changed). However, as said, the quality of sources will take precedence over other details. By the way, you should ask a same question at multiple pages. Ask it only at one place, you may try another place if nobod noticed it at te first one, but only by then. MBelgrano (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Music magazines would be great, except that in this instance, the one reference was Internet-only and I can't find the information anywhere else. I think you were saying I shouldn't ask the same question at multiple pages. In one case, I was chided for referencing one source too many times and for not archiving the source at the time. In another case, I was told to move the conversation elsewhere. In a third case, no one answered. This is the first time I've actually received useful feedback, so I thank you for your response! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
See User:Philcha#Tools. You should run the Link Checker and DAB checker before nominating the article for GA reviewer. If a link has died, try the Internet Archive. If you're really unlucky, a link dies during the review - it's happen to me while one of "my" articles was being reviewed - tell the reviewer, try the Internet Archive, if that doesn't help then you need new sources. --Philcha (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You're kinda screwed. You can ask for (and possibly receive) a pass in this particular instance from your GA reviewer, but there isn't any general way to fix it if it hasn't been archived or something. Sometimes you can archive in advance, but after the fact, the info is basically lost forever. A while back I requested a bot to fix this, and User:WebCiteBOT was created (it was supposed to archive all sources used on WP), but it's operator doesn't run it anymore, and I'm too lazy to put in a new request. Until we have a bot like that that does it's job, there's no good answer. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm blundering in here, but one of my citations (#14) died on Chocolatier awhile after it was promoted to GA, but it was in the internet archive and Webcite backed up the archive, just without the images and visual formatting. So if the source is in the archive it may be possible.. Someoneanother 08:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Philcha, nice list of tools, I bookmarked a bunch of them. I ran Link Checker and everything checks out fine, except for the dead link. Peregrine Fisher and Someone, I may just do that: put the article up for nom and talk to the reviewer about the situation. But I think I've managed to talk myself into archiving the section on the article's talk page and waiting six months to see if the WayBack Machine managed to capture the website. I'd read about the WebCite bot, but I didn't realize it was no longer operating. Someone told me that the website wouldn't be able to handle the amount of links coming into Wikipedia anyway. Because of this ordeal, I've learned about WebCite and I now use it very frequently; I'm not sure exactly how frequently, though (also, WebCite, I noticed, does not work with Flash-based sites, like a lot of Billboard.com's pages). Thanks to all the suggestions here; sounds like I still have some work to do. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 14:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Resolving this discussion; I can work this to my advantage. Thanks again to everyone's input. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

USS De Soto

Could somebody else take a look at this submission please? Ian Rose was reviewing it, but he's gone overseas and it appears he won't be able to complete the review. It was on the verge of approval and I responded to the last minor issues he raised. Gatoclass (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

User box for WP:GAN?

I don't intend to clutter my page with user boxes, but I designed and use with pride one for WP:GAN - you can see mine at the top right. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also this one for users who use normal userboxes. Gary King (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

GAR for September 11 attacks

September 11 attacks has been at community GAR for a while with no response. This is a long article, but one advantage of community GAR is that each review comment does not need to be comprehensive, but can concentrate on a part of the article and/or a particular GA criterion. Please add your views. Geometry guy 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permanently blocked

Not sure if this has occurred before but User:Xtzou has been permanently blocked as a sock puppet and he is in the middle of reviewing 3 articles Roger Miller, Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992, and Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Is there a procedure for handling a situation like this? J04n(talk page) 03:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably our best reviewer, too. Aaroncrick TALK 03:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Finish V-22 review?

User:MWOAP started the review for Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, here, but is unable to complete it at this time. I've addressed all the issues brought up and don't think it is fair to fail this article like this. Can someone else finish/restart this review? Also it might be a better fit under "War and military" topic area. Thanks! -Fnlayson (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess this falls under asking for a second opinion. It's no big deal on the topic group change. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Does the 'On Hold' part need to be removed from the list at WP:GAN#TRANS? I was not sure if I was supposed to do that when I added the 2nd opinion request or if somebody of the GA team would. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Technically its still On Hold: its not a Fail as the reviewer does not appear to have made that decision (well if he did, it was not documented and implemented). With the original reviewer missing, the 2nd reviewer will need to make a decision to Pass, Fail, or continue to Hold. I may do it, but I have one review that I promised to finish before Glastonbury and I'm also reviewing an every bigger article, so I'm not promising to do anything much before this weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, that's what I needed to know. I thought I might be missing something I needed to do. User:MWOAP (now DeltaQuad) stated he could not finish the review on my talk page‎‎ a few days ago. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reviewer" userright

The "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

The Flagged Protection trial is going to be starting very soon, and non-admins who have had access to edit semi-protected articles since roughly Day 4 of their editorship will now have their edits going into a vetting queue unless they are granted autoreviewer and/or edit reviewer permissions by an administrator. This will have a significant impact on editors who have, for years, been working on quality content. More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you have not already done so, please request this "right" at WP:PERM/RW or ask any administrator. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible for others to withdraw a nomination?

Special education was nominated by the latest sock of a permanently banned user. Is it possible for me to withdraw the nomination, or do I need to find someone to fail it? (It does not meet the criteria [e.g., contains grammatical errors].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You can; if you can tell it doesn't meet the criteria, just do a review and fail it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I have "made significant contributions to it prior to the review" and thus am not eligible as a reviewer. I'll just remove it from the list and the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I think if you've contributed enough to not be a reviewer, you have thereby earned the right to withdraw it as unsuitable, no? Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking for controversial GAs

Please look for controversial GAs --Philcha (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations in the Lead

I've been seeing "no citations in lead" being thrown about on GAs in the last couple of months and a current example made me decide to post this reminder. According to WP:LEAD, "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited," even in the lead. Because of the generality of the lead, there shouldn't be many citations if any, but I just wanted to remind people that there is no hard-set rule specifically stating no citations in lead. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You can cite the lead if you wish. Aaroncrick TALK 06:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I saw a good comment on this the other day, but I forget where or who said it--may be in WT:V. The gist of it was, "If you need a cite in the lead, your lead is written wrong." which seemed pretty insightful to me. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Yep, correct Jclemens. Aaroncrick TALK 07:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that comment is correct. Some topics are so controversial that they require citations in the lead in order to avoid that every reader feels the urge to change something after having just read a few lines of the lead. Many readers simply read the lead and not the article and sometimes having citations in the lead is the best way to avoid tedious disputes and editwars.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with the previous entry. As the principal editor of a GA on David Carradine, I can tell you his death is so controversial that if I didn't have citations in the lead it would be completely changed, every day, in a very un-encyclopedic way. The citations keeps out a lot of stuff that does not belong. Personally, I think that citations should apply to the lead in every way they apply anywhere else.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what WP:OPINION is for :D I try to refrain from citations in the lead, but in a recent case, I wanted to use a single specific word, which was taken from a quote in the body of the article. So I used the word with quotation marks around it, and slapped a citation on it. Obviously, I could change the word and lose the citation; but I wanted a touch of an impact on the reader. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think our practice is and has been that direct quotations get a citation wherever they appear, so even if we were to rewrite any potentially contentious statements in the lead so they didn't need citations, any direct quote would, so thus any direct quote usage in the lead would necessarily be an exception to a preference for citationless leads. Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The WP:Lead is intended to both introduce the article and summarise the main points. The "summary"-function of the lead does not really need citations, because the citations should be available in the main article. It is possible that the "introduction"-function might need cites, but the Lead should not "tease" by including (controversal) material that does not appear in the body of the article. So, I would tend to agree with the second comment above: if the Lead needs cites, its probably not written correctly. However, there is no harm in adding cites to the lead. I would be worried if some reviewers are automatically failing WP:GAN for lack of cites in Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the lead should be fairly free from citations to improve readability for the many readers who will never actually get beyond the TOC. The only things I would cite are quotations, and potentially contentious facts. As User:Maunus says, if the reader sees something they don't expect or believe, they are likely to try to change it. As an example, I was reading Lizzie Borden the other day and, not knowing much about her, was suprised to see in the lead that her middle name is Andrew. There is a citation next to it, and although I would prefer it to lead to an explanatory note, tit's presence is enough to reassure me that it's not vandalism. I did also look into the history, but I think that having a citation there would stop the average uninformed reader from thinking "that's ridiculous!" and removing the "Andrew". So, really I think it shouldn't be a hard and fast rule, but I would question a nominator if there were lots of citations for no apparent reason in the lead.--BelovedFreak 09:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles under review by Xtzou

Xtzou is indefinitely banned, so someone needs to take over the reviews he has started. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Haylp I'm new to GA review

Hello. As a penance for submitting, on others' recommendations, two articles to GAN, I thought I would take one myself for review. I took Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard, which I know something about, but that is beside the point.

I've now spent about a quarter of an hour in Notepad suggesting ways the lead could be tightened up. No problem there, happy to do it, but my natural instinct would be to take WP:BOLD and just do it. Simple things of grammar slightly askew, i.e. not about the content of the article but just the wording.

So, is it allowed to change the article while reviewing it, since it is is simpler to so it than to say it? The words needed to say "you need to lose the possesive case in para 2" are far longer than to just lose the apostrophe there. (That was a made-up example.)

Any advice there please? Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I often preface my GA reviews with something like "I will make (non-controversial) copyedits to the article as I read through it; feel free to revert or to bring up for discussion here if you disagree." Sasata (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm lazy, and I find the easiest thing to do is just grab quotes and mare short notes.
"lose the possesive case in para 2" - spell out para
That said, you can do copyediting without becoming an involved party. It's the honor system, so don't make so many changes that you feel you've become involved. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please, be bold! Reviewers are editors, too, and the noms don't WP:OWN the articles. If there's a problem that you can easily fix, then I encourage you to fix it. In fact, I've seen a fair bit of grousing from noms about 'reviewers who think themselves too important to fix simple typos' and the like: It's more collegial and friendly to fix little problems than to spam a list of minor corrections to the review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a matter of balance. We'd had discussions from time to time at WT:GAN and concluded that in principle an article should 100% meet the GA requirements. That's not a perfect article - even the FA requirements don't demand perfection.
You might find my GA review procedure useful. My reasoning (?) is that coverage and structure help to avoid duplication and inconsistency; and coverage may also find irrevelant material that should be removed or moved toa related article.
Subject to that, set yourself quota for various types of defect (as the % of the size of the article), e.g. text no good citations, poor writing, etc. If the article exceeds the quota for a type of defect, it's the nominator to check and fix all defects of that type of defect in the article.
If the article has not exceeded the quota for a type of defect, it's reasonable to do small fixes. If I do that, I usually make a comment in the GA review - sometimes I know little of the topic and I want the nominator to chec that I got it right. --Philcha (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice requested for GA article review

I asked for a GA review of Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine which I got. However, I feel the reviewer is being unrealistic and requiring higher standards than the GA criteria require. I have already removed parts of the articles at his request. I would like some advice on how to proceed. He refuses to fail it so that I can move on. He says someone else may improve it according to his suggestions. I disagree with the gist of his suggestions. Is there any way I can get a second opinion? I am trying not to get too discouraged. Thanks! :) MacDaid (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to get involved in this, but one observation I would make is that I think the article is significantly better since the opening of the GA, so it appears that the process so far has been beneficial. In which case it might be worthwhile to continue working with the current reviewer to resolve the remaining issues. Gatoclass (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. Not being able to use Nobel.org as a reference is a significant hindrance, as even FA article Barbara McClintock uses it, although it is a poorly referenced article. MacDaid (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Is Nobel.org the official site? If so, quite honestly I can't see a problem there. One is perfectly entitled to use such sites for noncontroversial statements of fact. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is the official site. I thought it was ok too, especially since most other sources get their information there to begin with. But the reviewer disagrees. MacDaid (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Since the reviewer has resigned, could someone fail this article so I can start afresh with another reviewer? The first review needs to be shelved as not constructive. It's too much for another reviewer to have to wade through, IMO. MacDaid (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You shouldn't fail the article just because the reviewer quit. We can manually remove it, but perhaps you'd consider fixing the article up again (keeping any good changes, and removing any recent bad changes), and seeing if we can find someone else to try again next week? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I skimmed through that review, and it highlights several problems. First, the very first comments are a minor dispute about whether the "right" editor nominated the article, which is a red flag. (Anybody here ever read WP:BURO?)
The reviewer complaints about a few inconsistent citation formats -- even though citation formats are not required to be consistent in GAs. The reviewer demands that article repeat tangential information from 'parent' articles -- a sign of not allowing editors to define the scope of the article -- and unilaterally bans the use of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS sources, apparently over an honest misunderstanding of Wikipedia's basic content policies. Honest misunderstandings happen, but this cost us sourced text and unnecessary frustration for the regular editors.
Several sections are dinged for "needing more references", without saying what facts need to be supported, or as needing "copy editing" without useful explanations. All of these are presented as demands, and when challenged, the reviewer backpedals with "I did not ask you to [remove anything, change that, do whatever he just demanded be done]".
I think I might need to move "Re-write WP:RGA to include 'What the Good Article Criteria are NOT'" up on my task list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I am with MacDaid on this one. Even before the review begins, Esuzu questioned who should be the right person to nominate this article for GA even before any review is done. Then he used reference numbers to point out which reference is wrong but failed to recognize the fact that all it takes is adding/removing 1 reference and the numberings will change. Then there's wishy-washy review comments such as "needs more references" which doesn't really tell us what the problem was. Now Esuzu resigns from reviewing while trying to shift the blame to MacDaid for "stopped assuming good faith".[1] Really, who's the person not AGF here? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, whether Esuzu has been unreasonable or not - and I think I can agree that some of his comments have been questionable - the article is still substantially improved since the opening of the GA, so some benefit appears to have come from his input. But I think the question now is what should be done with the article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Esuzu removed the "On hold" from the GAN page and the article talk page, but the article review is still open. For quite a while I have been working on the article on my own, and restored much of what I had to remove. I have been copy editing and refining the article despite the GA review, so I think the article is in good enough shape for a normal review. How do I close the huge "review Page". I don't care if the article is "failed" as I did not follow the reviewer's advice ultimately, so he or someone could rightfully close it as "failed". Perhaps a Community assessment (GAR) is the answer. MacDaid (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd opinion for The Tale of Timmy Tiptoes

Resolved

I have reviewed The Tale of Timmy Tiptoes, but have run into an issue of what I believe to be too-closely paraphrased material. As I'm not too experienced with this on Wikipedia, I would appreciate any other opinions as to how big a problem this is. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 13:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice to reviewers

When articles meet the quick fail criteria, it might be best to do a full review even though it had already failed. As we know, there are editors that will edit certain pages a lot. It would be a good gesture to that editor, to any other editor on that page and to the entire Wikipedia project if a good review happened. Kingjeff (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I saw one recently that was "quick failed" with no review or explanation on the talk page. That doesn't seem like a helpful approach. MacDaid (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I see no justification for quick failing - and I've had 2 of "my" articles quick failed. In 2 other of "my" articles the reviewers thought there was too much work to do - both were large articles - but saw how I was getting through the work, and both passed. --Philcha (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Was I wrong to "quick-fail" at Talk:Bentworth, Hampshire? GA2 was hot on the heels of GA1, where a full review had been left despite a quick-fail, and where many of the points (including the almost complete lack of references) were simply unaddressed before resubmission? I'm trying to ease myself into GA reviewing to make up for the ones I've added recently to the queue (as yet unreviewed :-( ) so all advice welcome. BencherliteTalk 22:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a balance here of course. I think at a minimum if it is quick failed, the reason for that should be conveyed to the nominator and main contributor (if one is easily identifiable). And it is disheartening if having spent a long time editing an article there is no feedback from the review process of any kind. However, there needs to be some minimum limit so that editors do not request a GA review simply to save themselves work copy editing and so on ("gnoming").
I mention this since articles are reviewed in many other ways than just for GA, FA etc. Typically articles I work on may come under the scope of one or more projects, and so I try to then list them for assessment for those projects that do that. Quality and importance criteria rightly vary, and it is quite right that an article may be judged differently by different projects; at least by doing so I get it on those projects' radar. In the past I have found WP:MILHIST to be excellent at swiftly reviewing the work, inevitably to mark it Stub class (quite a fair assessment; they don't do C class there) whereas some other projects (I'll name no names...) take much longer if they assess at all, even though it would seem that the project has many active participants. Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm saying there needs to be at least a mention on the talk page. A line or two will do to explain that a "quick fail" has occurred and a brief explanation why. No need for anything complex. But it should at least be noted on the talk page. Otherwise, there is no way of knowing that a "quick fail" occurred. MacDaid (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be something reasonably written about the entire article. If a quick fail happens, there could be the interpretation that the tag, which ever one it is, might be the only problem. I have no problem with the quick fail itself. I would just like the actual review done. Kingjeff (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't like the idea of "quick-failing", and think that it should be used very sparingly and only under very specific conditions. The one time I've done this recently is with John Wooden, which was nominated at WP:GAN in May, and then he died June 4, so the influx of edits surrounding his death was a clear fail of criterion #5 (stability). Even so, I tried to provide as much of a review as possible to help editors once the article became stable enough again. WTF? (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Subpage reviews?

Since when do GAN reviews take place in article subpages? Can someone give me a link to the discussion where the consensus took place for this? Thanks, Feedback (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to an instance of this, please? 22:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Feedback's question has already been answered at the Help desk: "article subpages" is a slip for "talk subpages" anyway. BencherliteTalk 23:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

suggestion for new category

It is so frustrating to check in every day to see the article I nominated two week ago not budge. I was thinking that it would be nice if here were a separate category for fictional soap opera and comic characters, so that the film, drama and theater could be about films, plays, and the real people who make them. I cannot believe the number of fictional people that are nominated for GA. It is far more than the real people. Just a suggestion. --Ishtar456 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure having another category would clear the backlog any faster. Also, unless I'm really missing something, there only seem to be three fictional characters nominated at the moment.--BelovedFreak 21:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You could be right that it wouldn't speed things up, but I think it would, because I think reviewers tend to take things that have been there the longest and if there is a long line of fictional characters etc. to weed through, I think they tend to do that before getting to other stuff. It is probably just a matter of personal taste, but I think it is incredible that there is so much effort being put into the fictional characters and individual episodes of tv shows while there are so many biographies of real people that need work. There are a ton of undeveloped bios out there, but all the soap opera characters are GA.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Of Course, another thing that slows down the process is when reviewers do articles that were nominated later. I know it is their choice, but gee.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't be bothered to trawl through the list, there are other articles that have been there longer than two weeks and this appears to be more of a complaint than a serious attempt to get an anomoymous article reviewed: hint stop moaning and name the article in question, so I guess I review something else. PS real people make soaps and movies about fictional characters, SiFi, etc, and act in them (some computer generated characters were "wrapped" around real people acting out the part in front of a blue screen (Gollum in "Lord of the RingsA, Avatar, etc)) so I'm not sure that your division is workable anyway. Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was a serious suggestion. It seems like there are serveral categories sort of lumped in together and I think that it slows down the process. And, a lot of reviewers have gone to the bottom of the list to select articles (maybe because they are interested in specific category of article). I did not mean to keep "my" article anonymous ( Americana), I was not specifically asking for mine to be reviewed, I was making the suggested for the common good, I thought. Besides, my name is signed to it and it is in that category, so if someone wanted to they could find it pretty easily. There are a lot of famous people, like Paul Newman, Clint Eastwood, and George Washington- for crying out loud- whose articles need work, and personally I think that is a higher priority that individual episodes of cartoons (just an opinion I voiced). But if people were to put their energies into working on those articles, you know what category they would have to put them in for review (well, not Washington). BTW, I have found someone that is willing to review the article I wrote, and I am working it out with someone else to get up to speed, myself, to do reviews, so that I can help the process. You probably would not be interested in doing it anyway since you already passed an article I contributed to that was on a related subject (David Carradine). I feeling quite badly that you took it the way you did. --Ishtar456 (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Should an article be passed as a GA if one of the online sources is likely to disappear? The Natural Order is being reviewed, and one of the links has gone dead. At the moment, there is a link to the google cache, but I presume that will not last long. It's not available on the internet archive/wayback machine, and WebCite will not archive it. Should I pass it, based on the fact that I can verify the information now?--BelovedFreak 10:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If the source is really e.g. a book or journal article, the link is just convient can can be dropped. But of the link is the only route to the source, I suggest you find a new source. --Philcha (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Dead links don't automatically disqualify an article from meeting the GA criteria, especially if the editor that added the citation took the time to include the full citation information (author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL retrieved, etc). If the information is there, but the information is no longer accessible, it can still be verified through offline means, if necessary. One example of this is periodical publications, such as newspapers and magazines, where the publisher might put the article online for a limited time, then remove it, but the paper-based version still exists. A plain URL used as a citation, with no information provided, would not be verifiable in any way, of course, so would not meet the requirements for GA. WTF? (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, both. That's pretty much what I thought. The nominator's not sure if it is available in print, so I guess it's gong to have to go. BelovedFreak 19:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You will find more information at WP:Linkrot and WP:Citing sources#Preventing_and_repairing_dead_links, but as a general rule, the fact that a link has gone dead is not a sufficient justification for removing sourced information. WP:V does not exclude out of print sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for those links. As you can see above, I was under the impression that we'd have to remove dead links to online-only information, if no archive could be found. I have readded the material to the article in question. Thanks again, --BelovedFreak 10:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources in languages other than English

I am in the midst of my first review. The article has several sources that are in Russian. Although the nominator states he/she speaks fluent Russian, I do not, so how can I judge if they are reliable?--Ishtar456 (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You pretty much have to take them on good faith. Check out the English language sources if you can, and see if those are reliable. If they are, you most likely have nothing to worry about with the Russian sources. If something still feels off to you, or if the English sources don't check out, you could always post a note at the Russian WP talk page, asking for another Russian-speaking editor to check the sources. Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Google Translate can help to translate some of the text on the Russian-language pages. Though it's not perfect, it might help give you a better feel for what's there. One can also look at the URL and the type of citation being used -- is it a Russian language blog or something like Pravda? Overall, a few foreign language citations are acceptable in English language articles, but it's still an English language encyclopedia, and readers are expected to understand English. Foreign language citations won't be of much use to most readers over here. WTF? (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's possible to check the reliability of a source without speaking the language. However, depending on the topic of the article, sometimes non-English sources are the only reliable/quality ones available. Per WP:NONENG, "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." Something to keep in mind while reviewing articles outside the English-speaking world "over here". :) María (habla conmigo) 02:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

New Category

I want to become a reviewer which (judging by the backlog) seems like a welcome statement. However, for now, i would only like to review movies and food articles. There are rarely any food articles and, unfortunately, movies do not have their own category. This seems ridiculous. Movie articles are very different from the category they are in and additionally, the reviewers need a different type of expertise. --Iankap99 (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You're implying that something should be done, but you're not making a proposal. If you're proposing something, write it down. Feedback ☎ 03:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
You're Right. I propose that a new category be added. To split Film out of Theatre, film, and drama --Iankap99 (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Na, if what you said is true, then we have to split other bigger categories first before finally reaching to films. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
If you'd only like to review the film articles in that category, then that's fine. Reviewers aren't forced to review articles that they aren't comfortable reviewing. While we generally prefer articles in each category to be reviewed in the order they were nominated, that's not always possible. WTF? (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The criteria for good articles are the same for all, so particular subject areas do not necessarily need specific expertise. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Then why separate them in the first place?--Iankap99 (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Three reasons: first, because that's the way good articles are categorized; second, so reviewers can more easily locate articles that may interest them; and finally, because some subject areas do in fact have slightly different criteria - for example, science-based articles should follow the WP:Scientific citation guidelines, and articles about fiction should comply with WP:WAF. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok now lets look at the negative reasons for splitting films apart from its category, I can't think of any.--Iankap99 (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
More cats=more clutter=more to navigate=negative reason, I'm afraid. Getting too specific might not be a good idea. Skimming through here and here should be easy enough. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 05:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There are more TV GANs than film, I think. In any case, Music etc. is really big. So is sports. We usually split the next biggest. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:TeacherA

The above user does not appear to understand the GA process and routinely fails without puttiung on hold. [2], [3], [4] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

When an article is so far from passing, the better thing is to re-write it and then re-submit it. The submitter of the Romney article knows better because he wrote the Browner article (also submitted for GAN). The Browner article is much better and I told him so. I suspect that he was trying to get a not so good article passed. TeacherA (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Arthur Eve GA review (link #1, above), that review is far too short and really doesn't address why the article failed, other than putting a few minus next to criteria 1, 3, and 6. This isn't really helpful to editors, as it says absolutely nothing about WHY the article failed those criteria items. The one comment about "Get a photo, too" isn't really appropriate, since an infobox photo is not a requirement of GA (it's a good idea, but not a requirement). The other two images seem to be tagged and captioned, per the requirements, although one of the captions is a bit long, so I may have made a comment about that if I were the reviewer.
The first Ann Romney review appears to have been failed because, "The person is primarily a wife of a politician and her political life during the governorship is very short, just a short section." Which appears to not have been failed due to any of the six GA criteria, but more because the reviewer felt that the person did not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Unfortunately, this is WP:GAN and not WP:AFD. For the most part, we should all be operating out of the assumption that articles that make it as far as WP:GAN have passed the notability test. Granted, if a very short, stubby article slipped through, I guess that could happen, but I would think it would be failed rather quickly. But the version of the article that was reviewed certainly was no stub, and should not have been failed like that.
The second Ann Romney review is a bit better, but still starts out going into the notability thing again. There do appear to be some valid issues raised, but the version of the article reviewed (which is also the current version) seems to be reasonably good, and I think putting it on hold for about 1-2 weeks or so would be the right course of action, especially when you have a nominator that seems dedicated enough to the article that s/he is willing to nominate it a third time rather quickly. WTF? (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I see this problem with students. They insist on being given an "A". This article had no improvements at all, not even a (pardon my language) half-assed effort. So two weeks of not a single edit and no edits between the 2nd nomination and the 3rd and that is a fail. TeacherA (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we're not exactly handing out grades now, are we. Plus, there's two higher review processes for articles on top of GA -- A-class, and WP:FAC. The reviewing process isn't exactly about "grading" a finished paper, but it's a bit more similar to the peer review process used in higher education (research). In that process, work is typically reviewed and a list of all of the issues is made, with the author given the opportunity to address those. Then, the article is either accepted or rejected. So, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges here. WTF? (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reopened the nomination of Ann Romney without prejudice. See WP:Good article reassessment/Ann Romney/1. Geometry guy 01:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I made substantial changes to Ann Romney after TeacherA's first review. That review was cursory and shouldn't have been a 'fail', but it did point out one legitimate shortcoming of the article, which was insufficient information about Romney's time as Massachusetts First Lady. After adding a good deal of material about that time period, I then nominated the article again. When TeacherA failed it again, apparently without rereading it and with rambling, somewhat incoherent criticisms and yet again without understanding the different between 'hold' and 'fail', I didn't bother with further edits, but rather took this to WP:GAR. TeacherA has now tried to fail the article for the third time. All I ask for is a decent reviewer who knows what they are doing (which I've always had for the other 25 articles I've gotten to GA, this is my first bad experience with the GAN process other than the long waits that we all experience). TeacherA is either well-meaning but clueless and inept, or, more likely, some kind of sock-troll operation. I mean, this person's entire editing history is doing GA reviews. What kind of legitimate newcomer to WP does that? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Pyrotec has signed to review this article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I just commented at Talk:Ann Romney/GA1 an then came here. Looks like this is mostly sorted out. Airplaneman ✈ Review? 04:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether Template R should be supported or opposed

I've spend over 3 hours discussion template R ({{R}}}, and will not spend any more. I hope a few of you will comment at Template talk:R, expressing your own opinions as no anyone wants WP:CANVASS. --Philcha (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I remember someone, possibly MF, saying that most editors who retired have found that maintenance and other chores have taken most of their time. --Philcha (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dedicated page sorted by date

I'm just throwing this idea out there, and I'm not sure if it has been suggested once before, but if the backlog is due to people targeting their efforts toward a certain category, then why not create a dedicated page for nominations sorted by their nomination date? I don't know if this would be able to be sorted by a bot, but if so, I think this could give users an easier time emptying the backlog. Thoughts? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I must be blind... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How to nominate an article

The instructions (3 steps) are extremely vague and assume the reader is automatically familiar with the terminology. The instructions 'Copy this for the edit summary' and 'Copy this for the listing' under the #2 bullet, need to be as clear as the #3 bullet. What summary and where is it? Is listing a synonym for article or the blurb on the Good article nomination page. Very vague. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree the terminology is familiar to anyone who would have worked on an article to the extent that deserves GAN. If transcribing were needed, then a more descriptive explanation would be needed. edit summary is below the box where you are editing the code of the page, when you respond to this, look down the page right below the disclaimer.--Iankap99 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Article or list

Hi all, recently an editor nominated A Ghost Story for Christmas to featured list candidates. There was some uncertainty over whether this page is an article or list; what do you all think? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

list mabdul 14:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I already weighed in at the FL nomination, but would like to restate that it is an article. A Ghost Story for Christmas is primarily a page about the series, not merely a list of episodes with a couple paragraphs of contextualizing lead. --erachima talk 16:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Serious concerns over referencing which should be addressed.

I am not happy with the way that articles are being passed for nomination currently. My main concern is how few of the article already passed actuall for WP:MOS. I can give an example of several articles which I've subsequently gone through and left comments on how to resolve issues with MOS in the referencing. To me (and please correct me if I'm wrong...) the MOS also applies to the Referencing. Commons issues I'm seeing are things like automatically italicizing all 'work' fields in the referecing when MOS:ITALICS is clear that only works of art, publications etc. should be in italic. For example to me swisscharts.com or sonymusic.com is a breach of that policy. Other common issues include passing articles where the referencing doesn't include the date and/or other fields like author even though upon clicking the link this information is provide. Another issue is the use of links which when clicked upon lead to the download/opening of a pdf file. Users should be warned of this using the 'format =pdf' field. The biggest issue in referencing is overlinking. Common examples of article's being passed without meeting this criteria are: Tik Tok (song), Blah Blah Blah (song) and Massive Attack (song). I have since provided a list of changes for all of those articles so that they can meet the MoS in a true sense. I've had a brief scan of other recent GAs and probably between 40-60% are also failing on these issues too... Is it not time they were addressed and something be done about this? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless things have changed, we don't require that stuff for GA. We may require the author part now, although I don't think so. That's FA stuff. We go easy on the MOS. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair play I wasn't sure to be honest whether it was one of the defining lines between GA and FA. It would still be good practise though as some GA reviewers seem to think its a requirement but others don't. Is it in the guidelines for GA? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
At a minimum, I expect all GA articles to have full citation information included (preferably using citation templates, but not required). Articles should have more than just a URL as the citation. Other than that, I'm not too picky. I never worry about 'format=PDF', since wikipedia puts the little adobe acrobat icon after the link if it's a PDF anyways. WTF? (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The GAC are quite clear on this matter: A Good Article "complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." Not every minor complaint in the book. (Honestly, I doubt any editor on Wikipedia has actually read the entire Manual of Style.) --erachima talk 08:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Replying to original comment) As far as MoS in references goes - incorrect use of italics etc, I often go through and change those myself. Complying with the MoS there is desirable, but it's not really fair to demand those changes if it's not specified in the GA criteria. You also mentioned missing information such as dates and authors that are clearly available. That's not a MoS issue, that relates to WP:V, so surely they should be provided (and expected) regardless of the GA criteria.--BelovedFreak 16:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Parthenon Frieze

Would someone mind taking over the review for Parthenon Frieze? I'm having internet issues, and it is taking much longer that I originally estimated to resolve. Thanks! Nikki♥311 03:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal about article rating systems and vetting processes at the Village Pump

I have started a new, more general discussion about article assessment and the vetting process at the Village Pump: Proposal: Article rating systems as an informative tool about vetting

Please join the discussion and share you opinion. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

FAQ for blocked reviewer/nominator?

Should we add an entry to the FAQ regarding blocked nominators or reviewers, or add such a note to the GAN page? Obviously if the block is only of a short duration (less than a week?) this may not be an issue, but there have been a number of nominations where either the nominator or the reviewer has been blocked for a year or indefinitely while the nomination is active. Here's what I would propose (open to tweaking/opposition by other editors) for situations where a quick unblock is unlikely:

  • Blocked nominators: if a review has not been started, nominations by blocked editors may be removed. If a review has been started, the reviewer should complete the review as normal; if the review results in an "on-hold", the reviewer should post a note to a relevant WikiProject, to the talk pages of major contributors, or here asking for someone to take over the nomination. If no one volunteers, the article is failed after the week-long hold period.
  • Blocked reviewers: depending on the status of the review, the nominator may: remove the "review" tag from the article in the queue to allow another reviewer to claim the review; put a "second opinion" tag up and explain the situation; ask here for a new reviewer; or begin a new nomination (after having addressed any actionable and good-faith points raised by the blocked reviewer).

Tweaks? Objections? Questions? Comments? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Could be helpful, but IMO it seems like a bit of common sense what should be done if people get blocked during the GA process. bibliomaniac15 21:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it's mostly common sense. I'd keep it out of the FAQ per WP:CREEP. WTF? (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
On its face, it does seem like common sense. However, there have been quite a few threads on this page before about the issue, so either it's not as obvious as it appears, or...;). No big deal if we choose not to include, just thought it might be helpful for some. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It would still be useful for anyone who's new to reviewing articles or has reviewed only a couple, and suddenly the nominator is gone. I'd support putting this in the FAQ. warrior4321 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Story of a Fierce Bad Rabbit

Hi. The Story of a Fierce Bad Rabbit uses a cover (File:The Story of a Fierce Bad Rabbit cover.jpg) that while public domain in the US, is not in its origin country, the UK. So does File:The Story of a Fierce Bad Rabbit cover.jpg need a fair-use rationale or is it fine as is? Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fine as is. US law (more specifically, Florida law) is the law that applies to WP. --erachima talk 14:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Citation needed there, erachima. Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick, [5] - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
An interesting case, but more importantly, a diversion from the original question. I recommend you contact the foundation if you'd like to confirm their legal opinion on that matter.
Anyway, in response to Cavell's concern, I've double-checked my facts, going beyond the relevant PD-US image tag (which does not specify the requirement of a fair use rationale, and on which I based my statement that the image was fine as is) and realized that I gave bad advice above. Background info here is at Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Non-free content.
To explain: Images public domain in the United States but not public domain in the country of origin are considered free content for the purpose of hosting on en.wikipedia and general use, but not exempt from the requirement of a fair-use rationale when used in articles, in the interest of maximizing the potential for downstream users of our article content who do not happen to be American. We go beyond the requirements of the law in that respect.
Images public domain outside of the United States, including images public domain the country of original creation, but which are not public domain in the United States (whether due to meta:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term or some other issue) must be fully treated as non-free content. --erachima talk 06:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of Proposal: Increase support of quickfail checking

I have made a proposal concerning the WP:GAN process here, and would value the input of my fellow GAN reviewers. --erachima talk 22:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Chances

I've been improving an article which has as its reliable sources only a series of articles by one newspaper, and one reporter. I would like to get the article GA status, but I'm not sure if it has a chance if it's that obscure? This article BE——Critical__Talk 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles under wrong section headers?

What's our policy on articles that have been placed under the wrong section headers? I've noticed this a few times recently and wasn't sure what to do. Dominion War was placed under 'Physics and astronomy' rather than 'Theatre, film, and drama' a while ago and there are currently two film articles (Twilight (2008 film) and The Twilight Saga: New Moon) under 'Miscellaneous' along with Malvern Water which seems like it would be better under 'Geography' and City of Washington–Washington & Jefferson College relations which should probably be under 'Education'. Cavie78 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy, as GAC nom locations aren't set in stone. For something obvious (like a film), be bold: move them, with detailed edit summary, and then recat the GA template on the article's talk page. Or else contact the nominator and suggest they move/recat. María (habla conmigo) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Rp0211

User:Rp0211 has recently reviewed a number of article, including Talk:Woohoo/GA1, Talk:L.A.P.D. (band)/GA1, Talk:Oops!... I Did It Again World Tour/GA2, Talk:Mina (singer)/GA2. All of these reviews are flawed and the editor appears to have little understanding of the GA criteria, Manual of Style, English grammar or the use of edit summaries.

The editor has been asked to desist but carries on regardless. Latest review is Talk:L.A.P.D. (band)/GA1. What can be done? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The review was done prior to the editor being warned. Do you have any reviews, where the editor has reviewed articles after being warned? warrior4321 20:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect, the editor was first warned in this edit at 00:24 27 July 2010. Since then they have reviewed Talk:Mina (singer)/GA2 (05:00, 27 July 2010), Talk:Woohoo/GA1 (03:08, 28 July 2010) and Talk:L.A.P.D. (band)/GA1(01:08, 28 July 2010). –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yet, the editor has stated that he will stop reviewing articles until he properly understands the criteria. What else do you want done? warrior4321 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, i have currently de-listed WooHoo as a GA and removed it from all pages associated. I have informed Candyo32 (original writer and nominator of the article) of this and i am conducting a proper review of the article. Thank You. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

User:MacDaid

MacDaid has five nominations under Natural science. MacDaid is also excluded from participation because of sock-puppetry. --Ettrig (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't see anything about sock puppetry from his user or user talk pages, but his contributions page shows that he was blocked on July 15 for "Disruptive editing".
Either way, the nominations can still be reviewed, with reviews completed and archived. If the articles are placed on hold and no one else responds, then the articles can simply be failed. WTF? (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
According to the blocklog, sockpuppety was the issue. As for the GA noms in question, I say they should be removed from the queue if a review has not already started. There are several that are currently underway and obviously need help; there's no reason to suck more reviewer resources. María (habla conmigo) 17:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Reviewing articles that have no one to answer questions and make improvements would be a waste of time. Remove them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That's an opinion that I don't share. There may well be many other editors at the nominated articles -- and not every reviewer finds it necessary to ask questions and find another editor to make improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem with review

So I asked for a review for Into the Wild (Warriors). A day or two later I got one. Then, the reviewer created the review page here. I expected the reviewer to fix a few small problems then start posting up the bigger problems on the review page. But instead, he/she fixed all problems they thought should be fixed and changed the layout completely and then passed the article without telling me any problems. I'm thankful for the review, but I really think that another review should be made on the original article, ie. the one before this review. I was considering taking this to reassessment, but I realized that its not that don't agree with the review but that the review was done correctly. Derild4921☼ 14:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

For the differences visit this link Derild4921☼ 14:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, we have resolved the issue on my talk page. Derild4921☼ 15:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
There's still no review, though. There is no entry in the article history that such a review took place, and the GA1 page is empty aside from the reviewer's name. How does this article fulfill the criteria? María (habla conmigo) 15:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, there is no review, so it didn't pass, no matter what was "resolved" on some talk page. As it is now someone not involved won't know what happened, and we can't expect people to check on this page or some other page while the review page stays empty. Hekerui (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have resolved this by reinserting the nomination into the GAN queue, marked as under review. I have asked the reviewer to complete the review. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me! I did a quick copy edit on the article and passed it without returning to the review page! I am so embarrassed! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for community GAR of Warcraft II

I'd be grateful if a few members particated in a GAR of Warcraft II, so that it is not swamped by those who swamped Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1. I don't want to influence those who partipicated in a GAR, and would prefer honest comment as more help for myself. IMO Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 was a poor review because:

  • The opening of was so poorly structured that I restructured it so I could understanding. None of the reviewers object to the result.
  • IMO "This article is structure in a rather funky way that is, in a word, bad" has no information content and is just the opposite of WP:PEACOCK, whatever that is.
  • "lots of irrelevant details and bad structuring that does not proceed logically" also tells me nothing.
  • The complain that "Warcraft II is a real time strategy game (RTS),[1] in other words the contenders play at the same time and continuously, so that players have to move quickly" was, in the first reviewer opinion, "Bad, almost game-guide tone, how about just explaining what an RTS is instead of beating around the bush and giving us a really bad explanation before actually cutting to the chase". However, the article gives 2 citations for the explanation of RTS, IMO this is relevant, and hence trying to removed it would be WP:POV]].
  • IMO the Publication details have 2 functions. While most in most game articles Publication is about events before release, in Warcraft II it's most complex because it was additional platforms, the console versions added UI functions, but then Blizzard removed these when it released the Battle.net version.
  • I'm interested in readers, and as an reader myself I want to know whether the game is good and whether it's one I'd like.
  • The story, when present, is generally subordinate to the gameplay, for example:
    • Total_Annihilation's story is a concise summary of the gameplay: "What began as a conflict over the transfer of consciousness from flesh to machines escalated into a war which has decimated a million worlds. The Core and the Arm have all but exhausted the resources of a galaxy in their struggle for domination. Both sides now crippled beyond repair, the remnants of their armies continue to battle on ravaged planets, their hatred fueled by over four thousand years of total war. This is a fight to the death. For each side, the only acceptable outcome is the complete elimination of the other.
    • The in-game stories of the Red Alert series simply explain which the western powers are fighting Stalin rather than Hitler.
    • Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares has no story within the game and 1 page in the manual.
  • I responded to the 5th reviewer's comments, usually with changes, but the 5th reviewer gave no reply. IMO this was effectively a quick-fail, and IMO a quick-fail is only justified if the article is unstable - in other situations it does nothing help improve the article. My responses included, which were ignored:
    • re prose, although I'd suggested alternative phrasing.
    • re refs generally, there are at least 1 per para.
    • no explain of the complain of WP:OR.
    • As requested I added a direct quote "Then again, Blizzard itself was in a kind of turmoil of its own at the time ...", and got no reply. --Philcha (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're asking for, Philcha. If you want to open a Good Article Reassessment (which is what I believe you mean by GAR), then these detailed issues about the previous GA review should be located at the WP:GAR discussion. Or do you mean to renominate the article for GAC, and you're asking for new reviewers? Either way, it would be helpful to include a link to whichever discussion you're asking people to comment on. María (habla conmigo) 15:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Maria. You're quite right, I'll copy my reasons for a community GAR to the WP:GAR discussion. Re "helpful to include a link to whichever discussion", I thought "Talk:Warcraft_II/GA1 was a poor review" explained clearly. Please tell me if you have else in mind. --Philcha (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I meant you should include a link to the new discussion; seeing as how the initial GA review has been closed for more than two weeks, simply linking to it and listing your concerns here, with no mention of a reassessment/new review, doesn't help much. María (habla conmigo) 20:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You meant Good_article_reassessment#Reasons_for_request_GAR_for_GA_review_of_Warcraft_II? --Philcha (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Letting potential reviewers know a nominator will be away

What is the best way to let potential reviewers know that the nominator of an article is going to be away? I nominated Chard, Somerset back in June and didn't envisage that a holiday in August might cause a problem. I will be out of the country and have no internet access from 7-20th August so don't want any potential reviewers thinking that I am ignoring any comments or questions they may have.— Rod talk 20:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Just leave a note under the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Theleftorium (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Approval from GA Director

Currently in the FA nomination process, an article must be approved by the director or his delegates even if other editors support the article. I would like to suggest this criteria for Good Articles. I won't say which, but I've lately noticed that GA's generally involve very superficial reviews that end up passing poor quality articles, which would never be passed by someone who is skilled at copyediting. If the article is sent to a queue after it is passed, and must also be approved by the director, then I think it would greatly improve and maintain the quality of Good Articles. Ωphois 10:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is potentially a good idea. I've also noticed that a fair proportion of the GA reviews are cursory at best, and adding a layer of scrutiny to make sure they're reviewed properly strikes me as very helpful. Rebecca (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
One comment, but there are two sets of two delegates for FAC and FARC, plus the overall director. On average the FAC queue is up to 40–50 article nominations at a time, with nominations that can run almost a month. How many supervisors would GAN need to manage 380 nominationsthis revision on the GAN page? In theory all of them would need to go through some supervisor for verification. GAN was designed to be a light-weight process, so any supervision of the reviews shouldn't be burdensome, and ideally should probably be completed within 24 hours or so of the final GA review. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's not as simple as you propose either. Imzadi 1979 → 10:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, there are far too many nominations for this to work. It would a full time job. The best way of policing is for active GA reviewers to check other reviews, especially those of new reviewers. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes the only way i see this working its if we get a chief per categorie and tahs dificult. --Pedro J. the rookie 12:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the key point is Jezhotwells's "especially those of new reviewers" - we can't check all reviews. --Philcha (talk)

Perhaps an alternative to this proposal would be to look at revising the guidelines for GA review, since I really don't think it's just new reviewers that are the problem here. The present checklist really doesn't help things; it insists that people check for things that are relatively unimportant, and doesn't focus enough on the actual content; an article can nominally meet all of the present criteria and still be a crap treatment of the topic. Rebecca (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I attempted one GA review about a year ago. I was frequently confused about procedure. I made mistakes. I was attacked by a regular reviewer who took the appeal, and disagreed with my review (I rejected it as a good article). So, based on that, the best place to start in improving the GA process is with user-friendliness. Noloop (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the director/delegate has to perform an in-depth review of the article before approving it. Maybe just a quick read-through to check for blatant issues. Ωphois 15:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
One the one hand, GA is supposed to be a relatively lightweight process, and there would be a lot of extra work involved to check every review. On the other hand, I agree that some quality control is needed. Not so long ago, Maggie Horton was passed by a sockpuppet of the nominator (way below the standard). Fairly unusual, but I only noticed it by chance. Macintosh was listed just yesterday with dead links and a {{citation needed}} tag in place. Reviewers are also extremely variable with how strictly they apply the GA criteria as well as basic WP policies such as WP:V. I do think it would be a good idea for someone to be checking the first few reviews done by a new reviewer, with perhaps spot checks on others. I realise that this might put some reviewers off, but articles are definitely slipping under the radar, and now that we have the green stamp of approval visible to all readers, it's even more of a problem.--BelovedFreak 15:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a friendly and collegiate spirit among reviewers is something that should be fostered, so that best practice is spread.

A perceived need for directors or other forms of formal oversight illustrates, in my view, a misunderstanding as to how GA processes work and how they are different from FA processes. A single GAN review of an article may be flawed, but articles can be reassessed and/or renominated at any time, with no minimum time limit between reviews. Consequently the GA status of an article may be a result of multiple reviews and reassessments. In contrast, once an article passes FAC, its status is protected for 3-6 months, so it is essential to get it right the first time.

Any time that a registered user finds a listed GA which does not meet the GA criteria, they can and should either carry out an individual GAR, or nominate the article for community GAR, and thus reassess it. Thus checking of GAN reviews is thus encourgaged, and can be done by any reviewer.

The idea behind GA is that a community process (GAR) requiring input from multiple reviewers is only used when absolutely necessary. This is not purely a matter of philosophy, but of necessity, given the large numbers of articles handled by GA. Geometry guy 15:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all that in theory, but in practice, articles are getting through that are below the GA criteria. Editors may not always feel comfortable with starting another review themselves, especially if they are not familiar with the topic. The instructions at WP:GAR discourage editors from starting a community reassessment unless "disagreement arises"; that then puts the onus onto the editor who spots problems to initiate a full review themselves that they have to "sign off on" as it were. Also, unfortunately, bad practice spreads as easily as good practice. If someone nominates an article and gets a minimal review (not saying that's bad practice, it depends on the article), then they may think that they can review an article themselves just by giving it a quick look over and making sure there are no glaringly obvious problems.
I'm not sure that checking by "directors" is necessarily needed, but perhaps, for new reviewers, checking by at least one other editor would help. Asking for a second opinion is an option, but not one that I see used very often. Perhaps we should be encouraging more collaboration on reviews. Not to the extent that there is at FAC, just a bit more than there is now. Perhaps we should have a page of example articles or something, to help editors understand what are the issues that should be addressed at GA, and what can be ignored. By adding that green cross to articles, we're now telling the world that these are our Good Articles, and sometimes, we should be embarrassed.--BelovedFreak 16:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the answer is to break up GA reviewing and hand responsibility over to the respective projects. For example Wikipedia: WikiProject Songs and Wikipedia: WikiProject Albums might be better equipped to review music articles for songs/albums. The nominations could be listed there and then relevant project members could review them. That would turn WP:GA into a central hub for issues, guidelines etc. Also each respective project be it songs, albums, movies etc. can have a panel of reviewers who are project members and have a history of appropriate experience and knowledge etc. There must be a way of unifying what constitutes a GA because currently the guidelines do allow for flexibility. I speak from experience having both been a reviewer and nominator in the music category of GAs. (as I'm not on wikimuch atm, can people please leave a quick note on my talk page that I have a response, I'm very keen to input to this discussion) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That would be a step towards making GA redundant to WikiProject Stub-Start-C-B-A assessments. GA is intentionally community wide and complementary to WikiProject ratings. It is also often beneficial for an article to have a non-expert GA reviewer. Geometry guy 18:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec, reply to BelovedFreak) This issue with the GAR guidelines has been raised a couple of times recently. They are intended to encourage individual reassessment where possible, but I agree that they could be tweaked so that editors who lack the confidence and/or time to carry out a individual GAR will open a community GAR instead. However, we need more regular reviewers commenting at community GAR otherwise it will be overwhelmed. Please take a look now! :)

I also agree with the idea of encouraging more collaboration on reviews. A GAN review or individual GAR is only a one-reviewer process to the extent that the final decision (whether to list as GA or not) rests with a single reviewer. Any other editor, including other GA reviewers (not just article contributors) can comment on any open GA review. It is more efficient, more educational, and less confrontational to comment on a review while it is still open, than to criticize it post facto and open a new review or reassessment.

I am personally unmoved by arguments involving the green dot, and while we should do what we can to improve the reliability and efficiency of GA processes, this shouldn't be confused with raising the GA standard, which should remain substantially below FA standard to minimize duplication of roles and to cover as wide a range of articles as possible. Geometry guy 17:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that is the issue... it can be difficult to currently distinguish GAs from FAs --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Some reviewers do apply a too high standard for GAs. As a partial antidote to this, WhatamIdoing has started an essay at Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, although it needs some work. Geometry guy 18:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, I agree on the whole. You're absolutely right that more of us should be more active at GAR, it's easy to forget it's there sometimes. I shall certainly make more of an effort there. And don't get me wrong, I don't think that GA standards should be raised, I think it's a good, achievable stepping stone before FA, or a good standard to aim for for certain articles that are unlikely to reach FA for whatever reason. So it's not that I think GA standards should be raised, I just worry that they're not always being met. I also think that if some sort of checking were brought in, it wouldn't need to be as thorough as we would expect a GA review to be. The checker could perhaps just read through the article once and check for the most obvious problems, such as maintenance tags, obviously unreliable sources, large portions of unsourced text, glaringly bad prose etc.--BelovedFreak 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
To be reminded about community GAR regularly, add User:VeblenBot/C/GAR to your watchlist; this page automatically keeps track of the articles at community GAR.
As with the proposed tweak to the GAR guidelines, we could add something to the GAN guidelines to encourage cross checking, but we need to be aware of the problems with instruction creep. Geometry guy 18:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Geometry Guy: It may well be the case, but all too often GAs fall below B-class. An article can be marked GA on the front page and C-class on the talk page, can it not be? It's not a matter of raising or lowering the hurdle, rather that of uneven and apparently unfair treatment. Which does not correlate with the reviewer's experience and/or formal standing (I've seen rather odd promotions from veteran sysops, and some from editors with double-digit editcounts). That's why a second pair of eyes may be helpful (be it a single GA policeman, or a GA cabal). And then there's the case of Klaus Ebner. East of Borschov 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"GA-Class" is an historical mistake (introduced by Wikipedia 1.0, the originator of WikiProject ratings) which confuses WikiProject assessments with the community-wide GA process. We have to deal with that mistake as best we can: I have tried to fix it without success. WikiProjects and GA are measuring different things: the GA process assesses articles against the GA criteria, nothing more, nothing less, and they either meet the criteria, or they do not. Whether they do is determined by a process of nomination and reassessment, involving article improvement along the way, until a consensus is reached. WikiProjects have a very important role in improving article content, but they have a subject-specific emphasis. The idea of a 1-dimensional scale in which all WikiProjects agree on the quality of an article is unhelpful. GA and WikiProjects work together very well in general, but the processes should not be confused or conflated. Geometry guy 20:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Some spread of opinions is inevitable, but if a GA "assessed against the criteria" fails subject-specific B-class criteria that it's either a fault of the reviewer, or a fault in the criteria (on either side). More often the former. If GAC 3A says "it addresses the main aspects of the topic", then the reviewer must know what these main aspects are. The gap between subject-specific knowledge necessary to approach GAN and subject-specific knowledge of the project shouldn't be too great, should it? East of Borschov 20:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There has been considerable convergence, and by and large GA and subject specific criteria work well together. For instance, I agree that WikiProjects have a useful role to play in providing guidance on broadness (3a). However, it is very important that GA retains its independence, and reviewers should not be required to apply anything other than the GA criteria in making their judgment. There is absolutely no presumption that a GA should be at least B-Class for all the WikiProjects that cover it, however desirable this may be. Geometry guy 21:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thing to also consider with the reassessment are the original nominating editors. For example, I found a slew of articles from a certain project that did not meet GA standards. I opposed one of their Good Topic nominations because of this and nominated two of the articles for reassessment. They in turn began personal attacks against me and began making bad faith in an attempt to get at me. It may just be a unique case due to the immaturity of the unnamed project, but I can see editors getting pissed off if suddenly a ton of their articles are nominated for reassessment. Having more layers of the screening process would prevent the poorer articles from getting through in the first place, and would prevent things from becoming personal. Ωphois 20:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A first step in assuming good faith is not to take any negative comment as a personal attack. Editors who are annoyed that "their" good articles are being reassessed should be reminded that this is intended to be a helpful process to encourage article improvement.
More generally, note that the huge and impressive GA sweeps effort only checked GAs listed prior to September 2007. Articles listed shortly thereafter (e.g. in late 2007 and early 2008) may be particularly prone to poor reviews. The current talk subpage review system encourages greater accountability, but was not introduced until summer 2008. Geometry guy 21:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on the original proposal, which is to have a person (or several people) review all of the passed articles.

IMO this is impractical, because we simply don't have enough editors even to do the first review in a timely fashion. When we're drowning in unreviewed articles, the best solution is not to add to our workload or to divert resources from the basic task. The proposal is really something much closer to "Please magic up another hundred hours of editor time each month, to be spent looking over GA reviews."

We can't do that. There are no extra editors standing in the wings, and declaring that we want someone to review the review doesn't make this person appear. If you want this kind of review done, you need to be the change that you want to see/take your own medicine/be bold/do it yourself/so fix it already.

You are all authorized and invited to look over reviews being done by other editors, to help with the reviews, to resolve disputes, to correct sloppy work, and to help editors understand how high -- and how low -- the actual criteria are. If you want this done, then please get busy and do it. When/if you have taken your own medicine for a month or two, and still think that this is what the community needs, then you can come back here and volunteer yourself. In between now and then -- don't we have almost 400 nominations waiting for our attention? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Some editors see a problem with the current system and are just trying to come up with a solution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that some of us here are not already helping out in any way and are just sitting around waiting for others to solve the perceived problem. While I agree that having someone give a second full review to all of the nominations is impractical, there is still room for improvement. It's all very well us acting as individuals to do what we can to make sure that reviews are up to scratch, but isn't GA supposed to be about a standard? That it doesn't matter who does the review, an article either meets the criteria or it does not? At the moment, GA reviews are extremely variable. I think that's a problem, but then maybe I'm just worrying about the wrong things.--BelovedFreak 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It's discouraging to think that the people in this discussion are the only GA reviewers on Wikipedia, so let's assume that there are more reviewers out there, and that everyone is doing his/her best to help out.
I believe that the number of reviewer-hours that we currently have (=too few for the existing workload) is all we're likely to have for the foreseeable future. Consequently, we need to be looking at this (real) problem from the perspective of using our existing finite resources sensibly, rather than magically having more resources (even though we could put them to good use). To put it more bluntly, "Let's invest another hundred reviewer-hours every month in promoting consistency" is (unfortunately) a fantasy, not a realistic solution.
I would be very happy to be proven wrong, and I invite anyone who likes this idea to find the necessary 100 editor-hours a month that will prove me wrong. But if you also believe that these hours are unlikely to appear, then perhaps we should focus on practical solutions, like some of the less time-consuming ideas named below. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Right ok people we have a lot of good ideas but we need a way of actually turning them into action. So to begin the proces I'm suggesting that we add a shortcut to Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not such as WP:GAAN or WP:GAE and ask editors to check GAs against that. This would be an immediate form of action that we can implement to help the situation. Then lets look at other ways forward (y)? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've given the essay a make-over, and made WP:GACN as a shortcut, but please do not forget WP:RGA, which contains lots of helpful reviewing advice.
Other small ideas to implement are:
Any comments or specific reformulations? (Or be bold.) Geometry guy 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that this essay - and these criteria - are the problem to begin with. It encourages a cursory review - by equating issues such as stability and properly illustrated with the most crucial criterion - "broad". As I said above, it's entirely possible (and happens too often) that someone follows those exact criteria and passes an article that is a crap treatment of the topic. Rebecca (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Rebecca, I sympathise as content is what turns me on. Unfortunately the "broad" criterion has been discussed a few times without a conclusion. For example what's obvious depends on an editor's or reviewer's existing knowledge of a topic. --Philcha (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Geometry Guy: it appears that WP:RGA goes way farther than WP:WIAGA. Consider this critical passage:
WP:RGA - "Factually accurate according to information in reliable sources"
WP:WIAGA - "it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution ..."
See? WP:WIAGA does not assume any knowledge of RS on the subject. WP:RGA assumes knowledge of "information in reliable sources" and does not say which sources. That is, the article must be judged based on all RS known to the reviewer. This leads to conflicts: reviewer says "You completely missed the angle discussed by Harpo and Beppo, go do your homework" while the nominator, who only used Groucho's book, protests against bending WP:WIAGA. All these essays should be examined for inconsistencies. East of Borschov 11:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There aren't actually any conflicts here: RGA does not require the reviewer to magically know about sources not used in the article, and WIAGA does not prohibit the reviewer from suggesting any specific new sources that are known to the reviewer.
If an article has completely missed a main aspect of the subject, then the reviewer should point that out -- but under the "broad" criterion, not the "list of citations" criterion.` WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
It may also help if I say how I (and I hope others) view the relative status of WP:WIAGA, WP:RGA and the recent WP:GACN. The good article criteria (WP:WIAGA or WP:GACR) are tantamount to GA policy, and govern everything we do here, subject to improving the encyclopedia (WP:IAR). They are not official Wikipedia policy, because GA is a volunteer project like FA (the FA criteria are not policy either) and the encyclopedia could exist without it (although it would be nowhere near as good!). WP:RGA has a lesser status as a guideline, subject to common sense and the occasional exception. WP:GACN is an essay (not even a guideline) intended to counter a tendency towards reviews which demand personal preferences that go beyond the GA criteria. I hope it will be found useful and be improved as a consequence. There is also scope to write an essay on criteria which are often overlooked (e.g. checking the reliability of sources, and that the sources support the claims made in the article). Geometry guy 20:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I can definitely see the potential usefulness of such an essay. Another thing that I think would be helpful for new reviewers (including myself, as a relatively new reviewer) would be some more "real world" examples of how a GA should be. Perhaps some permanent links to current GAs, or even "before" and "after" links that show a successful nomination that wasn't quite ready at the time of nomination and showing what needed to be done to get there. Different points could be highlighted that help to explain the criteria. For example, regarding inline citations, we could have an example of an article with only a few inline citations with comments explaining that the sources included at the bottom support the rest of the information. Or we could contrast two articles using non-free images, one with appropriate use, and one with inappropriate use. These are the sorts of things you can pick up reading the policy pages, or observing several review, but I think having a lot of examples on one page could be helpful.--BelovedFreak 21:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what normal procedure is here...

...but RIPGC (talk · contribs) has just been indef-blocked for sockpuppetry, while he was in the middle of a couple of reviews. Steve Smith (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviews are Talk:John Lymburn/GA1 and Talk:Mary Jo Kilroy/GA3. Any takers to pick these up? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog drive

Getting one planned and ready for September might be a good idea; that's when the last round of the WikiCup starts, and I suspect the remaining competitors will have plenty of GANs lined up and ready to drop on here (at the least, you'll be seeing a plethora of warships from Sturmvogel 66 and a myriad of fungi from Sasata!) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, especially the sweeps is finally done. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Why in September? Why not do it now? - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Because I'm assuming (a) planning for it must be done and (b) it would be fruitless when 40+ noms get dropped into the queue right after the Cup's last round begins. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
My problem with doing that is that I could see it being quite intimidating for us all to do mounds of reviews and have them continually being restocked, which will undoubtedly happen. It might be better to wait until October since I'm still burnt out from the last drive, as are others based on the lack of reviewers. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
October could work as well, as that's the last month of the final round of the cup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is another target that could be motivational: 10000 GAs.

We are only 500 away, and the last drive had an impact of about that size in a month. With such a target, it is a clear benefit that there are top class content contributors producing nominations for the Wikicup over the next two months. Also FA is only 36 articles away from 3000, which is at most 1.5 months at FAC, perhaps less. It would be cool to reach (and celebrate) these milestones at around the same time, with good/featured content in total (including featured lists) approaching 15000 articles. Geometry guy 20:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Shooting for the triple crown of 15,000 reviewed articles sounds cool! Might even generate some press coverage? I would say October would be the best time for another GAN drive. If we started now, it's kind of during that summer lull in the academic cycle where fewer students are online and classes are starting up at the end of the month. Best to wait a bit and let the students come back and get settled into their fall routines, then hit 'em up for reviews! ;-) WTF? (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Suspect GA-class

How do I find out if Korean Traditional Festivals has ever been through WP:GAN, whatever the outcome? Its talk page has |class=GA but there's no {{Good article}} on the article page. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's unlikely. It's not listed at WP:GA, and the person who added the GA class to the talkpage did the same to a few other articles without actually nominating or reviewing them. I think it's just a case of an inexperienced editor not realising how the GA process works.--BelovedFreak 20:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Two editors at least seem to have been doing this; curious thing is that the same editors added Category:South Korea stubs to the article pages (without using {{SouthKorea-stub}}, the proper method), so they also misunderstand the term "stub". Having checked that these pages are absent from WP:GA, I've been reassessing them: and believe that all are actually Start-class. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Length of GA Reviews

Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles states:

Section Process; 2.2.1: Holds should be applied if the changes needed are minor, and can be reasonably expected to be completed within a week or so.

Do we need to enforce this more rigorously, by failing holds or reviews over two weeks long? I feel that this would be fairer to those who actually prepare articles to ensure compliance with the criteria before nominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's up to the reviewer, I think. The rules give them plenty of room to fail what they want, and if they want to take a long time, then whatev. Or maybe I'm missing something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
A couple of qualifications:
  • Nominators don't know when reviewers arrive to start reviews, and e.g. have RL reoccupations or be reviewing other articles.
  • Some articles are much bigger than others - e.g. geographical areas include history, economy, politics, ecosystems, geology, etc. --Philcha (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I find it much easier to fix issues like middling prose myself, rather than posting long lists that need to be addressed. This might mean I take longer to complete the review, but it saves a lot of back-and-forth as well. It all depends on reviewing styles, and I don't think we should legislate one way or another. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick fail Folding@home nomination?

Would it be OK to quick fail Folding@home (listed here) because the nominator, User:Rohedin, has been blocked as a sock? I took a cursory glance at the article and many things (especially the referencing) need to be fixed. Airplaneman ✈ 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Indef-block + problems with article = quick fail. Sounds right. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good case for a quick-fail. Nominator indef-blocked ought to be an automatic quick-fail, actually. Courcelles 01:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Not always. I have nommed an article which I have been working on with someone else. And when we go for FA we are probably going to be a 4-way co-nom with two other major contributors. If I got blocked, it would be unfair on the other editor involved in the latest improvement drive on the article if it were auto-failed. It needs a cursory look at the talk page to see whether an editor was involved. When I assessed Anarchism, it had been drive-by nominated by someone who was not a major contributor. I went to the anarchism task force and found that there were a couple of people willing to get involved if I placed it on hold and so I assessed it even though the nominator did none of the work to fix my issues before I passed the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I would quickfail only if the article is unstable or is caught in an edit war. --Philcha (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 232

Could someone take over Pennsylvania Route 232's review. I have other things to do now, and I won't have time to review it. The nomination page is at Talk:Pennsylvania_Route_232/GA1. Thanks! Techman224Talk 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mariah Carey (album)

I originally failed this article 2 days ago. It was renominated the same day, then passed in a couple hours. I dont think it should have been passed as there are still some outstanding issues with the article (mainly referencing inconsistency's and incorrect italicizing, publishers, work, and accessdates) I dont feel like doing a reassessment as im currently busy in real life. It needs a demotion or fixes to truly pass GA. The user who passed it could probably be informed of his mistakes and his other reivews should be looked at. Thank you :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you find it so bad, why don't you look for specific problems. You probably don't because there aren't any large outstanding problems in the article. And if you were so busy, you wouldn't spend so much time campaigning for Justin Bieber articles which are far from GA level. The article is near perfect, which is why is a GA and not FA.--PeterGriffin • Talk 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The book citations don't use page numbers - that's a pretty big omission. Hekerui (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You'll find specific problems at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mariah Carey (album)/1. Peter stop being defensive about this album. I'm sorry but its not a good article. It has potential but there is a LOT missing. As much as I like Carey, CLK was correct to fail the album. Its mile's away from being a good article. (on a side note not all the books use ISBN numbers). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe Hekerui was referring to the article's lack of page numbers for its book references, not ISBNs. I agree that not including the former is a big, honking omission. (PS, 99% of books published after 1970 have ISBNs, so obviously all books about Carey would have them.) María (habla conmigo) 21:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Maria. I'd never have passed the article with the referencing in the current state. (NB: I didn't bother reading the prose at this stage.) Courcelles 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Maria, what I meant was not all the refs using the books have ISBNs listed. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 21:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
My fault, I completely misunderstood you. ISBNs good. Lackluster referencing bad. Maria agree. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems the issue here is Page numbers. Thats fine, I can reformat the refs now and place all the page numbers, its not a problem.--PeterGriffin • Talk 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter this is your last warning. your are being WP:UNCIVIL. Making any comments like " [your] Justin Bieber articles are far from GA level" is unacceptable. My articles, as you can see here, are well written for the most part. Ive written 4 GA's with experienced reviewers (User:Legolas2186) guiding me. So for the most part, i think i know what im doing. You are simply attacking my editing because you are mad that the article you've written is not at GA status yet. As you can see here you still have alot to learn. So stop attacking me and go do something constructive. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Firstly I did not attack you in any way, I did not insult you or use foul language, so warn whoever you like. Secondly I am permitted to give my opinion regarding your articles as you have done with mine, there is nothing wrong with saying "your articles are far from GA." Absolutely nothing wrong at all, so you could keep dreaming about me attacking you, but it isn't and didn't happen.
Secondly, I have reformatted all the book sources to include page numbers. Are there any other concerns?--PeterGriffin • Talk 22:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a warn for both users: No one own an article. You like it or not, you edit them or not, are in the public domain. TbhotchTalk C. 22:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Im not owning the article. I say "my"/"your" meaning "articles i edit", "your" meaning "articles you edit" as its easier to say my/your then typing "articles you/me edit" :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Look L-l-CLK-l-l, I really am not interested in arguing over stupid things, honestly just tell me issues with the article and they will be fixed, its as simple as that :).--PeterGriffin • Talk 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I listed some issues but you're turning a blind eye to them. So what's the point Peter. We tell you what's wrong and you don't want to know. I've cleary pointed out where there are issues but you're being defensive again. If you can't accept criticsm about Mariah Carey articles or criticism about the quality of editing when it comes to GA then perhaps a topic ban is in order because its not the first time you've encountered differences of opinion towards you're portrayl of Carey. Please leave any further comments here and not on the community reassessment page as that it is already quite long. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Im not getting defensive. The problems you listed for me on that page have been fixed. The page numbers have been placed, the grammar errors and sourcing, along with other issues have been fixed. I cannot be banned from anything unless Im causing allot of trouble. I haven't done anything wrong Unique, if you think Im such a big deal, well then frankly, don't deal with me. I made one curt comment to one user, thats all I see, the rest is you exaggerating everything beyond proportions. Also, I don't attack people for not agreeing with me, your taking this too far Unique, there is no problem here, were having a discussion. Take a look at what Ive corrected and you'll understand a bit.--PeterGriffin • Talk 23:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter this is the second time me and you have had a disagreement over Mariah Carey. The album is not GA-worthy. I've worked with CLK several times on GA reviews (both prepping for his articles and having him review my articles) I was surprised when you both diagreed on the Mariah Carey (album) that's why I chose to take a second look and to mediate on behalf of both of you as I worked with you both in past. You're a very passionate Carey editor, no1 denies that. However you appear to have glossed over my comments on the reassessment page. The issues are more than skin deep. When I called out the bias in the article you said This article is not bias, its sourced and true. Sourcing something doesn't mean its not bias. Please stop, take a deep breathe and then read the comments very carefully. What I've done is not even a thorough review, its a 15 minute glance at the article. If you want a proper review I'd dread to think what I'd find. Also I've never said you cause trouble nor have I said that you are attacking people. I'm merely pointing out that your editing towards the subject is not objective. You can see the positives but not the negatives of what the critics, for example, said about the article. Also a large proportion of the album is about Vision of Love ... though yes its successful is a disproportionate level of coverage that means that the article is not broad in its coverage. The legacy section is merely a platform of promotion about how wonderful "Vision of Love" is, as is the critical reception section. These are deep set issues that need to be resolved in terms of balancing out the balance of content. Nowhere did I say you were a bad editor. I was merely alluding to the fact that if you cannot edit neutrally or without bias then maybe it would be better for you not to edit Carey articles and a ban might be required. In now way am i suggesting or advocating that to happen. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Well Unique, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position on the matter, it was needed. Secondly, I am not trying to zip my way through this, but it happens to be I corrected most of the things you mentioned. I will however now go and fix these last recent things you just mentioned. And yes, I wouldn't mind you doing a more aggressive view of the article, I'm fine with it. So just give me a little while and it will be straightened out.--PeterGriffin • Talk 23:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I believe you know me well enough to know that I'm a fair editor and hence you'd respect my opinion if I told you the article is lacking. As I'm quite busy in real life, unfortunately I can't complete a full review. But I did a partial deep one to show you the types of issues identified. The community reassessment should hopefully allow lots of editors to get involved. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
That I do know you for. Well Ive fixed the critical reception and have fixed the book pages and any grammar mistakes, so the only thing I see left is too remove some vision of love info and add some other things about the album. That will be done later today. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Lil-unique1 and everyone, thank you for the notice. So here is how I view the issue. Now I view this as being a little too harsh, Ill explain why. I see that your comments were revolving around grammar, Wiki:MOS, and not being "broad enough," so let me explain why I passed the article. Now an FA level article is supposed to be as close to perfect as can be, and exemplify Wikipedia's best work, for an FA I would have failed it for the same reasons you did. Your forgetting however that a GA (Good article, not Perfect article) is not and probably will not be FA level, meaning its not perfect and has some flaws, or else all GA pages would meet FA level criteria. So in my mind, an article has to follow guidelines and be, lets say 85 perfect of perfect to pass, not pointing out things like "well you forgot the comma after Carey."--AlastorMoody (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything on the review page is simple GA stuff. Not FA. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Well Lakeshade I corrected the page numbers, grammar, Wiki:MOS, critical reception to not be "bias" and removed unneeded info about "Vision of Love." So if theres anything else you see wrong with it, tell me, because I believe its complete.--PeterGriffin • Talk 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I left further comments at the GAR, Peter, please stop hastening. Its left to the community now to decide whether it can be a GA or not. Its still not there, but can be. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do people still know about

User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2, the perpetual experiment in automating good article nomination listings? harej 23:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Mount Greylock

I started to review Mount Greylock, but I gave up due to wanting to help the project in other ways a few days ago. I managed to fix everything, except the GAN box says it is being reviewed. Because I blanked the review page when I gave up, it got untranscluded to the talk page and will now have to be created through Search. Us441(talk) (contribs) 11:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I restored the GA1 page adding a note that review was abandoned. I reset the template so that a new review will be GA2. A new reviewer can carry on a review on that page (GA1). Best not to blank pages in a case like this, I think. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers for magazine articles

I could ask this in a few places, but I'd like people's opinions specifically regarding the GA criteria. I'm reviewing an article that has citations to magazine articles, some of which are missing page numbers. I wouldn't pass an article missing page numbers for book sources, but is it acceptable to pass an article with page numbers missing for magazine articles? The citations are otherwise complete; issue numbers, dates and article titles are provided, so is that enough to give the reader a reasonable chance of verifying the information?--BelovedFreak 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask editor to note the pages. If refs were from anons I'd be inclined to let it slide. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 14:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Editor doesn't have access to the source now.--BelovedFreak 14:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't care. Magazine articles are usually of limited length. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 14:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
me too; don't care if the information couldn't give. mabdul 14:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, but I'm asking a slightly different question. To be honest, I wouldn't pass it if the sources were books, without page numbers. What I'm wondering is if it's ok for a magazine article, because an article would be easy to find in a magazine, given the other information.--BelovedFreak 21:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the editor involved, but its just a coincidence that I am also involved in the current discussion on RSN, which is not related. Obviously I want the article I have worked on to pass GA, but I intend to find the page refs either before or after GA in any event and I don't mind putting the GA on hold in the meantime.

On the other hand, because of the other discussion, I happened to notice that WP:Page numbers actually refers to books and not to magazines or periodicals. Possibly a flaw in the wording of the policy rather than a legitimate loophole, but just thought I would mention it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Beloved, you should pass articles without page citations under some circumstances. You can cite whole books for some purposes. See WP:Page numbers for more information.
Additionally, there's nothing in the actual good article criteria that requires correctly formatted or complete citations. AFAICT, anything more detailed than bare URLs actually meets the actual criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Page numbers are not explicitly required by the GA criteria. Instead the criteria require that readers be directed by inline citation to the source for five types of statement. In these cases, and only these cases, the direction needs to be clear enough (via page number, url, or other identification) that the reader can find the source for the specific statement without difficulty. For short articles, or where the part of the article that addresses the issue is obvious, this does not imply that a page number is needed. For inline citations which go beyond the GA requirements, the GA criteria have no implications about page numbers at all. Geometry guy 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. The citations I'm thinking of are those five types of statement. It's not so much page numbers of a multi-page article, but the location of the article within the magazine I'm concerned about. Anyway, I think that pretty much answers my question, so thanks.--BelovedFreak 22:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
:) I guess this goes back to earlier discussions about WP:GACN. I realise a whole book can be used, and I also realise about bare urls being ok. I still feel though that as far as books go, if the relevant info (and let's assume it's a quote or something contentious) is only found on one page, the page number is needed for verifiability. I don't think they are necessary for magazine articles, but I wanted to double check before passing the article.--BelovedFreak 22:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I added a few lines to WP:GACN. Ideas for improvements are of course welcome. Geometry guy 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Request removal of a nomination

I nominated Lula 3D awhile back for GA, it's still listed under the video games category. But I looked over the article recently and I really don't think it's cut out for GA as it's missing a section on its plot. Could someone remove the nomination? I'm not really sure if there's any special procedure I have to do or anything, so I figured I'd bring it up here. Nomader (Talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Elimination Backlog coordinated with WP:CUP

I propose that GAC coordinate another backlog eliimination drive to be coordinated with the finals of the WP:CUP in October. You may have noticed that I am personally beginning to ramp up my GAC production to levels I have not reached in 2 or 3 years. I assume many of the finalists will also begin to really pile up the nominations. It might be good to coordinate an elimination drive with a creation contest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have less free time at the moment. Perhaps others will co-ordinate? Or even those in the Cup, presumably they can earn points by reviewing? Jezhotwells (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
If WP:CUP comptetitors earned points for reviewing, there would be no issue. My point is that they earn points for creating GAs and not for reviewing. We could use a coordination of the elimination drive with the CUP this year and in the future.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
So what you seem to be saying is that WP:CUP competitors are preparing lots of nominations, but if other editors don't review the nominations and award GA-status the affected competitors don't get the points? It seems that the cup rules need to be modified to take into account the efforts of the reviewers, which is presently totally ignored. Pyrotec (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This suggestion is a tad self-serving given you have 29 nominations at present, eh Tony? At any rate, the idea of adding reviewing points for next year's competition has been brought up. Resolute 21:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel like I should just go straight to FA (and I would hate doing that) with anything I wish to have reviewed because of the staggering backlog in Sports and recreation, where you have 26 nominations (as an aside, Tony's reviewed content userpage says that he has done 16 GA reviews. Ever). I do not feel comfortable criticizing another editor like this, but good sir, you've made it very difficult for anyone to get anything reviewed in that section in a timely manner. There are not ~70 people doing reviews on a regular basis. I'd be surprised if there were 7. I always feel that when you nominate something (GA, PR, whatever), you should review something. That just seems like etiquette to me. I reviewed four other articles while waiting for someone to select my one, and I think that others should at least try to pull their weight. Now if I spruce up another Giro article, it'll probably be a quarter of a year before anyone was to review it (and I thought the backlog was long when I listed 2010 Giro d'Italia - ha). I don't care about the WP:CUP - frankly, is the mammoth backlog that's being produced really worth a few points in some little game? I'll go select another article to review now. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I've done over 300 GA reviews, but I have little interest in sport so I've only reviewed one Sports nomination and I probably will not be doing any more sports reviews in 2010. I have little interest in the CUP. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikimakesmart

Wikimakesmart (talk · contribs · count) has been making some "interesting" out-of-process GAN reviews in quick succession. I actually have some suspicions which AGF prevents me from detailing here, but would someone whose GAN's weren't covered in this user's activities (one of mine was) please check that everythign from this project's point of view is fixed.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Calling a 46kb article of prose "too short" makes it go past AGF to me; something's up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup Wizardman. I have now had a run through all of this editors edits and reverted a couple. Another account to monitor... hamiltonstone (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

American airborne landings in Normandy - Anybody else find this nomination a little odd?

I gave it a quick looking over when I noticed it appear in the queue; it is missing at least 30 or so references where there should be referencing to back up statements or facts given. It strikes me as nowhere near ready for a GA nomination, with many paragraphs devoid of any references, some entire sections without any exist as well. The extent is too great to fix within the seven day waiting period, so it should likely be failed when it is reviewed, but the manner of the nomination is unusual to say the least. The nominator, user: LP mAn, has very few edits to his account, and hasn't made a single edit to the article he has nominated. Should I approach the nominator and ask him why he has put this in, (I don't really have grounds to question him on his motivations, I've never heard of such an occurance) and proceed to fail the article normally? The ideal situation I would believe in this case, would be to remove the nomination entirely, as it is not in a fair state to be reviewed or nominated. I'm not trying to make out that it is wrong to nominate articles in such conditions, only that the outcome is all but certain already as the basic preparation for compliance that should have been made pre-nom haven't taken place. Advice? Kyteto (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the nominator's comments on their user page (they've had experience on the German WP) and their edit history (they appear to have constructive contributions to an article in this general field - 389th Infantry Division (Germany)) I would give them some friendly guidance. First, leave a message on their user talk page about the policy on in-line citations etc: I don't know what the prevailing practice is on the German WP, so maybe they're not familiar with this. Second, as part of that message, ask them whether they would like to withdraw American airborne landings in Normandy from the GA queue, since it would definitely fail on this ground. Then see what they do. If after a couple of days it hasn't been pulled, do a quick review that sets out the referencing issue (and others if there are other problems) and fail it yourself. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The general practice at the German Wikipedia is to put any references that only verify a minor detail or two but are not recommended for further reading into edit comments. I.e. the focus is more on the reader's experience than on verifiability. When I translated one of my English articles into German and submitted it for German GA it nearly failed for that reason. I had to reduce the inline citations drastically. Hans Adler 09:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Burnett Center review

At some point between June 20 and now, my nomination for The Burnett Center was removed from the nomination list, but it was never reviewed. I have re-added it in its previous location, with the original time stamp. I'm not sure what happened to it, but it was probably cut by accident. I'm letting people know, in case someone thinks I cut in line.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be a reasonable action. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I picked up the review - a lot of work needed so I failed it for now. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of Battle of Grunwald

Hi, could someone look at Battle of Grunwald and see if the GA review is up to the snuff. My concerns are: the reviewer was late (it took something like 3 weeks), no comments were left, and the proper GA listing procedures were not followed. I just want to make sure all is ok. I was the principal author of the re-write but not the nominator. I am quite confident this should pass GA, just don't want any issues in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  • You first need to sort this out with the reviewer. I, or anyone else who has not made a significant contribution to the article, could provide a second opinion but the first reviewer has the final say. If for example the second reviewer considered it a "pass", the first reviewer could still under the "rules" place it On Hold, or fail it, if that was his/her decision. I suggest that you ask the reviewer to either finish the review or withdraw. I will happily review it, if necessary at a later date; but I'm sorry, as I have three reviews in hand already, I'm not doing to do a second opinion now. Pyrotec (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The review is complete and it was a "pass". I would like someone to take a second look whether the procedure was ok and whether I should relist the article for someone else to review? Renata (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks to be o.k. to me. Congratulations! Good articles may be passed without being set on hold, and the reviewer took his time, being thorough and making a minor edit himself. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Category for coinage

Does anyone have any suggestions for the correct category for coins such as Liberty Head nickel, currently nominated under Miscellaneous. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Economics and business seems to be the best fit Edge3 (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Concur. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will go with that. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ip Man (film)

The review for Ip Man (film) has been ongoing for over one month, on the Talk page it's clear to see both parties have not done anything sunstantial to justify it's place at this point in time, it's just clogging a already lengthy section up. Admins? (I didn't know where else would be appropriate to put this btw...)RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 21:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Commented, since I think the reviewer was waiting for a 2nd opinion and I didn't realize it; it will be gone/failed by the end of the week. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong?

[6] I know there's been some disagreement about lists vs articles, so I figured it's not good to remove noms like that. I could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not pass a list-class article as a GA. I would instead refer the editor to the Featured List process, which in my experience is a lot less hassle than the Featured Article process. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I know a lot of episode lists have been shunted from FA to Fl and vise verse. Do we have a hard and fast rule about discographies I don't know about? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it should be removed from WP:GAN and the nominator advised to list at WP:FLC. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, I would (and have) remove discographies from GAN, with a note to the nominator suggesting peer review or WP:FL.--BelovedFreak 15:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Faster reviews using comparative criteria

It is daunting to look at the GAN page. At a time like this, I am wondering if there should be a weeding process that removes the weakest nominations. One of the quickest I can think of is to allow a reviewer to invoke comparative criteria. It would work like this: the reviewer if doubtful of the quality of a nominated article can ask the nominator to pick three similar Good Articles that the nominator believes the nominated article compares well against. If a quick comparison to those three Good Articles shows that the nominated article's quality falls well short, the reviewer can quick fail without going through all the other stuff which is more tedious. Lambanog (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, each article should be reviewed on its own merits. The process is not meant to be drive-by. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Note

I nominated a few things recently. I intend to pitch in and subsequently do a bit of GA Reviews, so as to mitigate the impact to the backlog. Hope that sounds alright. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To think no-one jumped in and said how good that sounds! Excellent! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Did one review done so far, will take some time to read through the other articles. -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

MoS:Scroll

Hiya. On Talk:2010 Giro d'Italia/GA1‎ I pointed to MOS:SCROLL as there is a use of collapsible content in the article, which in this case, the MoS is against. Another editors mixes into the GAN and gets rather hostile. Could anyone clarify whether the MoS, and MOS:SCROLL in particular, is part of the GA criteria? Sandman888 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading the GA criteria, the answer is clearly no. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Ahh the bully reiterates his point. Sandman888 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
though this includes the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and therefor MOS:SCROLL. It seems fairly established then. Sandman888 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You are testing an article for GA, so the GA criteria apply, not the FA criteria. The GA criteria are intentionally lower, and in some cases authors of an article opt to deliberately ignore certain FA criteria and are content with only GA. The rules are pretty clear. From the page you just linked: "Prose and layout are clear, and comply with certain aspects of the manual of style" (my italics). An inspection of the precise list shows that MOS:SCROLL is not on that list. Please make sure that you are not overcritical for GA evaluations; if the difference between GA and FA is too small, the process suffers. Hans Adler 16:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
So then Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured should read five and not six aspects of MoS, i.e. excluding Wikipedia:Manual of Style (where Scroll is a subsection). Sandman888 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that "reasonably well written" is the sixth (or first aspect) - a paraphrase of MoS Clarity: "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.". Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
(OD) Seems plausible. Preferably the criteria should be more explicit on what is and what is not included, particularly whether the MoS mainpage is a requirement or not. Sandman888 (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Backlog = cap?

I would like to propose that when any given topic is backlogged, nominators should have a maximum of two/three noms in that given topic (no penalty if the extra noms were before the backlog of course) as to alleviate the current flooding of certain areas. I know I contribute to that flooding myself, but I would happily abide by such a standard as a heavily backlogged queue makes me nominate more articles so I won't have to wait ages and ages for a review. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 23:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

interesting idea, but how would it be enforced? It seems to me that if there is a large backlog, nominators could consider reviewing other articles to decrease the backlog. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
One problem is that putting back in doesn't necessarily correlate with fast service. I can think of a few people who have a very bad reviewer/reviewee ratio but since their topics of writing are somewhat popular, there is never going to be any penalty for them, at least not relatively YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Well if the numbers of noms were down to 2-3 per person, it would not be so off-putting for those new to the process, as everyone would have a 'fair' share of noms in the queue. It'll also create an incentive to review other stuff to eliminate backlog, as it is easy for his 2-3 noms to be lost in the queue. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 00:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
A overall cap on per editor nominations (perhaps something like 5 per editor?) might be easier to enforce. It wouldn't affect that many editors, but it would end situtations like we currently have where one editor who almost never reviews has 29 current nominations with plans to nominate more per his comment above. YellowMonkey is correct that if an editor writes in a popular area, they have to wait less time for a review even if they don't review other articles. Other editors who review all the time wait ages, just because no one wants to review in the area where they nominate. Dana boomer (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) Almost FAC of his I can remember had no significant issues, but the average review time was 25+ days even though he reviews very regularly. Some other guys in the worst 10% for input/output get good service, typically on North American topics where there will be at least 2-3 other folks interested in the same topic YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Gee you're un-PC Dana. I thought I was bad and hadn't named anyone yet :P YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, technically I didn't name any names (well, other than you, and I was agreeing with you!)...But un-PC or not, my point still stands. Dana boomer (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems there is support for the idea. A cap of five articles at any given time, in all topics? I can support that. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 00:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
29.. that would be me. A couple years back when I had over 30 noms at one time a cap was considered and deemed to be counterproductive. There is a need for more reviewer and not less writers. I concede, I am an infrequent reviewer, but I am cranking out quality content as part of the WP:CUP. After the cup ends, I intend to spend some time focussing on reviews.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Your cranking is appreciated, but the sight of a long queue at the theatre might make people opt to stay at home, thus not enjoying the fine experience the theatre can offer them. Instead there's just to guys in the audience who bought all the tickets. A question of a fair share is, I think, appropriate. We should have a system that accommodates the crankers and the infrequent GA nommers. Perhaps splitting the queue in two, one for multiple noms and one for single noms, but something should be put in place. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a perennial topic. Pertinent questions to ask are: "why is a backlog at GAN a Bad Thing?" and "how will the proposed fix improve matters?". From a reviewer perspective, having a wide range of choice of articles to review would seem to be a net positive. Those who nominate a great deal are also often active reviewers. With the exception of T3's current effort to write articles on every Michigan sports season or player, the current GAN report shows that there are only 2 editors with more than 5 nominations (8 and 7 respectively), and even restricting editors to 3 nominations would only reduce the number of articles to choose from by 24 (not including the 26 from T3).

The GAN lists are not a queue in the same way that a theater queue is a queue, and they never have been. Reviewers are not obliged to review older articles first, merely encouraged to give them a higher priority. My suggestion (and I have proposed an edit to the guidelines) is that this higher priority does not apply when the nominator already has nomination(s) under review. Geometry guy 21:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Restricting the number of nominations to 5 would reduce the number of articles by 32 articles, of those 24 or so are in one subtopic. A difference of 32 articles is not "only" it's "significantly", that's pretty many articles to review. When did you last review 24 articles?
Why is backlog a bad thing? Because a huge backlog will put off people from nominating. Why is that bad? 1) Keeping up morale: Getting a nice GA tag, a pat on the back is an important incentive to editors, like getting a star on your essay in school. 2) Diversity: comments from outsiders / a fresh pair of eyes can improve articles greatly, those articles which are wildly different, coming from different editors. 6+ articles from the same editor are not likely to be very diverse, as per the current GAN page. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 11:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a cap will make much difference. Hopefully some form of reviewer points in next years' wikicup will help next year. The GA reduction push was great, and I think combined with the preceding will make a dent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: I must say TonytheTiger, I am in the competition too and I am trying to review articles here and there. I for one would appreciate it if you could tick over a few more reviews over time - I am not necessarily asking for a 1:1 ratio, but a few here and there to keep the backlog down would be nice. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
And you review over at FAC, too... Aaroncrick TALK 11:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Tony, in all your articles are at the moment your doing the bare minimum - and sometimes not even that. Your season-by-season articles do not have any info on tactics or anything about what happened after the season. Basically just tables. Aaroncrick TALK 23:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Cracking down on barrel-scraping GANs would certainly help, ie N American sports, roads and some other things. But mostly N American topics for some reason. Somehow I am pretty sure diet-FA/GAs are inexorably increasing everywhere, cue the usual Cups, and metric-based awards. Maybe they should change these awards to how many kb of prose there are in GA/FAs (which explains why people deliberately write on dead-end topics and rarely or never on big umbrella topics). Plus with all these awards you have to make pit stops on the way to FA (ie A MILHIST and GA) to get all of them which can be pretty questionable YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I contest the statement that I am doing barrel-scraping GANs. Half of my noms are Category:Princeton Tigers men's lacrosse players. Of the current 15 PUlaxer noms, 11 are articles I started from scratch. That alone makes these a lot more than barrel-scraping GANs. The easiest ones are articles where you make a few corrections and have a nom. Secondly, I am single-handedly trying to drag {{Infobox Lacrosse Player}} out of the dark ages. by getting the author to add featurs and improving the usage to be more like my other GAs. Of the expansions, look at the way I have defined incorporated meaningful succession boxes (which are optional to the barrel-scraper) into the articles like Jesse Hubbard. That is basically a DYK level 5x expansion now. By the end of the day today, Ryan Boyle will be also. On a scale of 1 to 10 these are not 1s for the most part. I have also created the PUlaxer category myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course I'm biased, as the articles I like to improve fall into the same category as Tony's, but I wouldn't mind for there to be some procedure in place for there not to be 73 articles ahead of mine in line, 26 of which were nominated by the same person, 16 of which in the last four days (!). Wikipedia is many things, and like it or not, online community is one of them. I don't think this prospect is very inviting for newbies or even longtime editors like me. I've gotten used to waiting 2-4 weeks for a review, but if I nominated something new today, it might be 2011 before it gets to the top of the section. And I don't think that's right. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This never goes anywhere, but I think some sort of blind quid pro quo system is needed. Wikicup people could pad their stats by reviewing people in front of them, for one thing. I don't think any one person can be responsible, even in a small way though. We've had serious backlogs since (early 2008?, not sure), and we need to make reviewing derisable like nominating. Another good thing would be some sort of small green symbol that means you reviewed an article that you can put on your user page. This may preclude adminship for myself, but I took a few articles through GA because I wanted to brag about it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Tony, it may also help if you finish reviewed nominations before you add new ones. I started my review on August 16. It still needs some work to get to GA-level. Since then, you have only fixed the easy-to-fix problems, but the ones that take more time remained untouched. However, you still found the time to nominate sixteen articles since. For your Cup-score, and for the other nominators' interest, it might have been better if you would have fixed the issues in already reviewed articles sooner. (This is not meant as an attack, even though it may be read this way, it is intended as a suggestion that may prevent similar 'problems' in the future. You have the right to nominate even 50 articles more, but I am only saying there are smarter things to do.)--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The 16 noms are under construction at the same time because there are 11 new articles and 5 expansions. Since these are all articles from the same category, Category:Princeton Tigers men's lacrosse players, although I might not be able to qualify the expansions for DYK, I can get them all on the main page by writing hooks about the teammates. This afternoon I am going to put my hooks up, but of the expansions only 1 is 5x, 3 are about 4x and 1 has no chance. This is actually the opposite of me maxing my Cup score. If I was maxing my cup score, I would write articles at a more natural pace. Trying to push 16 up the quality scale at one time is just to try to get all the guys exposure with new content on the main page in spite of how impossible it is too do and regardless of DYK credit is different.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
(OD) It's a bit unclear, so how many would support a cap of 5 nominations? Sandman888 (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
First. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I would support a cap, either a hard cap, or possibly a 2:1 ratio of nominees to reviews. If you don't want to review - fine, but then you can only have one active nomination at a time. If you want to nominate more than one, you need to review at least half as many. I considered proposing a 1:1 ratio, but that is unfair to people who are just getting their feet wet. Canada Hky (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't support any cap. I've reviewed over 300 GAN nominations in the last two years and submitted none; so under thoses rules I have either 150 or 300 nomination "slots" that I can "rent" out, and that is adequate to disrupt any cap that I disagree with. Pyrotec (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't really thinking of rollover or anything like that, basically, if at any given time you want more than one nomination - you have to have reviewed (or be reviewing) at least half as many. I think it is as easy to enforce a hard cap. I don't think the problem is too many GAs (that's a good thing), the problem is not enough reviewers.Canada Hky (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not think a ratio/slot solution would work, so it would have to be a cap which would render your pointy threats moot. Sandman888 (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Support as nominator, cap of five. Sandman888 (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Well in that case it is quite possible to give preferent treatment to anyone at your five nomination cap; thereby enabling them to nominate more articles (which I suspect will make the problem worse). However, I shalln't be reviwing any Sports nominations: you can cap those as much as you like. The real problem is lack of reviewers, I don't see a cap addressing that problem: firstly, it penalises prolific writters of (potentially) good articles; and secondly, it encourages "poor" reviews, especially "you pass my nomination and I'll pass yours" type reviews. I also suspect that of lot of the problems are "sour grapes": nominators waiting for a review see other nominators with multiple nominations and blame the latter for the long wait. Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe any sort of cap would work. Who is going to "police" it? There is a shortage of reviewers for sure, but most of the time pretty much 25% of nominations are under review. If teh backlog causes a problem for initiatives like the Wiki Cup then that is their problem, not ours. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The backlog isn't simply an issue for the Wiki Cup, its an issue for any random user who would like to nominate an article for GA status. There doesn't need to be set people to police it. Have the criteria set out (whatever they may be), and if someone is violating them, anyone can be bold and remove the excess nominations from the list. Canada Hky (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • These proposal are discrimatory. Why should anyone nominating an article for WP:GAN be regarded as a violation of wikipedia. Good Articles are to be welcomed not treated as unwanted acts. Its more a particularly nasty "me"-ism, i.e. "I want my article reviewed and I want it now, sod everyone else", I will remove their articles from the list until mine has been done". The answer unfortunately is rather simpler, submit articles that reviewers are willing to review, if the list is too long review some articles and stop using other nominators as objects of hate. Pyrotec (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Its not discriminatory, and I don't see any hate in discussing ways to make things go more smoothly. There are limits on how many articles one user can have nominated for FA status at one time to make the process go more smoothly - it isn't unreasonable to consider the same guidelines here to make things go more smoothly. Canada Hky (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perennial suggestion that never gets enough support to overturn the decision. I have to agree that putting a cap is detrimental to the GA project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to scrutinise the noms of prolific nominators carefully. There is a very obvious possibility that those who write tons of GAs are producing very bad articles that are incomplete YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate an article at WP:GAN and there is no requirement for, and there never has been a requirement for, scrutinising nominators (prolific or not). Anyway, bad incomplete articles will at best be failed, or placed On Hold for corrective actions and if this is not completed in a reasonable time the nomination is failed. You have done some reviews (six in the last GAN backlog elimination drive, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010#Running total) so you know the system. Pyrotec (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support a cap of five. It might be a good idea to do a "trial run" for a period of time. It the process isn't smoother, then go back to the way it is now. Nikki♥311 02:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Call it whiny "me-ism" if you must, but I don't think it's fair that I've now waited a month for a review on the one article I have listed, have reviewed five other articles in the meantime (all in the same section....boy am I sick of reading about soccer and cricket), and Tony not only has a billion articles listed and never does reviews himself (rhetoric), he's getting reviews on them sooner. I think I can fairly say I'm pulling my weight in this process. A cap is a nice idea, but no one would adhere to it, and no one would enforce it, and even if they did it would be far too easy to game the system, turning the whole damned thing into a big game like most of Wikipedia regrettably seems to be at times. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I'll call it "me-ism" and I'll review it, but I've also reviewed four articles in the last month and I did 54 in one month during the last backlog elimination drive. So four reviews is not all that hard. I hope is a good article after all this whinging. Its probably also the last Sports and recreation article that I'm doing this year. Pyrotec (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Cap, ratio, or whatever, we need to try some things out. Let's do a trial of say 2 weeks, then stop doing it. Unless it's a huge success and there's consensus to continue it, it dies. I think we can all agree that the backlog is a problem, and I'm also pretty sure no one really has a solution. So, let's find a solution with trial and error. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The backlog is only a problem because there's a lack of reviewers. Why would anyone want to cap people writing good content for the pedia? It seems totally counter-intuitive to me. Recruit reviewers rather than quash good writing. Brad78 (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not a cap for writing good content, it's a cap for putting articles into the queue. Sasata (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)We're not going to get reviewers out of no where. The best place to find reviewers is among nominators. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. If nominators aren't willing to help cut down on the backlog via reviewing, then we should cut down on the backlog by making sure more people get a shot at having their article reviewed. Canada Hky (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason we have so many nominations is that there are a lot of incentives to writing a GA, especially bragging rights. For reviewers, however, there are no such incentives. It is common practice for editors to display on their userpages all of the articles they worked on that have reached GA, FA, or FL status. It is not common practice, however, to list GA reviews. Therefore, we need to develop a way to make GA reviewing a bit more "honorable", for lack of a better word. I just don't know how to achieve that, though. Edge3 (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not a proposal that will change the world, but a userbox that gives the number of GA/FA articles reviewed might be a step in this direction.--SabreBD (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You mean like Template:User Good Articles reviewed? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I mean exactly like that. Interesting that I didn't know it existed. Does it just sit inside the list of boxes or is it advertised elsewhere? Wikiproject boxes tend to sit on project pages and get picked up from there, but that is a bit hard to do here. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the procedure for GA review somewhere at the end (unless NiciVampireHeart is about to point out that it is already and I just cant find it).--SabreBD (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's about trying to recruit reviewers from nominators, how about getting a bot to send all nominators an automated message something along the lines of "Thank you for your GA nomination of PAGENAME. Currently there is a backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed so it may take time for your nomination to be given a review. However, why not try help reduce the backlog by conducting a review yourself." Brad78 (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In many sections, there is no real backlog (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Summary). Sports and Recreation, Music, and War and military have traditionally had a long backlog. Most of the "noise" for change comes from the Sports and Recreation nominators, but with a few honourable acceptions they are never seen again after their article has been reviewed. (see for instance Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 13#Nomination restrictions). The "traditional" solution is to do a Backlog elimination drive, and the problem goes away for a few months. Those nominating Sports (and other categories with long backlogs) articles know that there is a backlog, they also appear to have unrealistic expections they appear to demand a review in one or two weeks (typically it is nearer one month); and when that does not happen they want to delete other people's reviews from this list. Let's get one thing straight: anyone can nominate an article but they can't demand that it is reviewed, nor precisely when it is reviewed. However, there have been "deals" where nominators have requested a "mate" to review the nomination, and in some cases these reviews have been seriously flawed and have been overturned at WP:GAR. Editors can if they wish add multiple nominations at the same time, but I would suggest that reviewers are not going to look favourably on it: if I seee one nominator has 10 or 16 nominations in a list why should I review one of these, if I put it On Hold and several other reviewers do the same with other nominations, that nominator is unlikely to be able to address all the problems quickly? A reviewer can review any article they chose, looking at the list (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Everyday life) its quite obvious that nominators are not being reviewed in sequence, so someone complaining (for example) that they are 51st in the list and that the ten articles in front are all from the same editor is irrelevant, particularly as in this case that article is under review and articles 40 to 50 are not. It is suggested that GAN reviewers should have had previous experience of (sucessfully) nominating at GAN, but there never has been a requirement for a nominator to have previously reviewed an GAN, which is being demanded by some Sports nominators; and is complete nonsense. GA and (FA) is intended to promote quality: mutual "back scratching", where nominators passed other nominator's article so that their's is passed turn, is completely against the ethos of quality, but that is what is being pushed here. Pyrotec (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that much of the problem cames back to the "attitude" of the nominators: articles are nominated, "demands" for a review are made on this talk page and eventually the article is reviewed and passed (or sometimes failed). The nominator then adds a (symbol) on their user pages. A few nominator's make some effort to thank the reviewer on their talk page, a few give the reviewer a barnstar (I've got six for 307 completed reviews), a few harass the reviewer, rather more add their thanks onto the review page or the talk's talk page; but a sizeable minority completely ignore that efforts made by the reviewer (so in my case, I just stop reviewing their nominations). Those that take the effort to acknoweledge the efforts of the reviewer, are more likely to get their next nomination reviewed quickly. Pyrotec (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC) I must also add that there are bad reviewers and also well-meaning but misguided reviewers. However, the problem is lack of competant reviewers in some sections. That is not going to be resolved by ignoring reviwers and/or baning nominations. Pyrotec (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so let's try to find solutions for these problems. To fix the "nominator attitude" problem, we can add something like "Don't forget to thank your reviewer when you're done" to the end of the nominating instructions. As for the lack of competent reviewers, we could encourage newer reviewers to ask for a second opinion. Edge3 (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
And will somebody be bold? *g* mabdul 16:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Added. Edge3 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Shinan District GA

I noticed that a few days ago Shinan District was passed as a GA, "as is", by User:Aaron north. The reviewer, User:Aaron north, had only 20 Wikipedia edits prior to reviewing that GA nomination, which is somewhat concerning since it usually takes a while to really get the hang of things here, especially of stuff like MOS. Could an experienced GA reviewer give the article a quick look-over to see if everything looks OK there? Nsk92 (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tourism section has a embedded list, which is discouraged per WP:EMBED (WP:GACR 1b). That's enough to fail on reassessment, in my opinion. Edge3 (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

asking someone uninvolved

I've noticed that due to a large backlog and that it says any registered user can review. I would like to ask, Can a nominator directly ask someone else who they know is uninvolved in a nominated page to review it to see if its good enough to be a GA? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the reviewer is able to remain objective and is not swayed by his or her relationship with the nominator. Edge3 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing nom 2004 British Open (snooker)

I nominated the article 2004 British Open (snooker) but it appears to have gone missing from the page. It appeared on DYK but to my mind there isn't a rule that says you can't do both. Does anyone know what happened to it? Christopher Connor (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't placed a GAN template on the article talk page, pleae read the instructions on how to nominate at WP:GAN. Once you place a template on the talk page, it will automatically be transferred to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I've nominated other articles, but this time forgot. I see things have changed. Nevermind I'll just wait. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I is confused

I recently nominated two articles. The first, 2010 University of Alabama in Huntsville shooting , which I added yesterday, has remained untouched in the law section]]. However, the second, Introduction to the Science of Hadith, which I just added perhaps ten minutes ago, was "passed" by the GA Bot and removed from the list. I can't imagine this means that this article is now a "good article", but what does this mean, and why the difference in handling of the two pages? Supertouch (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Now it has reappeared on the list? I am assuming this is normal and I didn't notice this process with the first article... Supertouch (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, neither of these articles has been passed, they are both sitting in the queue. Reviews are undertaken by volunteers who are free to pick whichever articles take their fancy. We have just changed over to a new system of updating the project pact page, please read the FAQ at the top. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Supertouch (talk)

automated GAN updates

The "test" being carried out on User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2 has been going on for almost a full year. Granted, I became inactive last October and came back only recently, so I might have missed something important, but do we plan to implement the automated nominations system soon? Edge3 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if anything progressed on that either, though we use them for the daily report. I'm going through and making sure both are synchronized, since a lot were on one but not the other, meaning something went wrong or a GA review was never done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Are we ready to implement it? I'll contact Harej right now. Edge3 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
How does it work? what does this bot? mabdul 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Check out the history of User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2. Once automation kicks in, we get to reduce a lot of steps in the nominating and reviewing process. Edge3 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being dense, but that doesn't really explain it. Does it merely copy the actions taken on the current GAN page? Does it trawl article talk pages for GAC templates? …the categories? Does it automatically pick up the reviewer line from the actual review? I'm for anything that removes the tedium from the GA review process, but it's a bit hard to !vote in its favour when I have no clue what it actually does. --Xover (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm....I guess it's time to pull out the archives. I don't recall exactly what the automation would involve. Edge3 (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Found it! Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_13#Automatic_listing_of_nominees_at_WP:GAN Edge3 (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Now a bot that would automatically nominate articles at GAN… :-) --Xover (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, excellent. A summary of that discussion could probably fruitfully be put on the bot account's user page (which was where I instinctively went to look for information). All the obvious issues mentioned in that discussion seem to be addressed (names of nom and reviewer are there, sections and headings can be edited, no apparent technocruft exposed to reviewers anywhere, etc.). What remains to be done before this can be implemented? --Xover (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The bot has been fully functional for a while. I stopped paying attention to it because no more attention needed to be paid. See for yourself -- does anything look wrong with User:RFC bot/Sandbox 2? harej 04:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I hate to pretend to be Steve Jobs, but "no apparent technocruft exposed to reviewers anywhere" actually played a huge factor in designing that bot and others. So I am glad someone has noticed! harej 05:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
lol...I see nothing wrong, but I do note that some nominations are appearing under level 2 section headers, and not level 3. This is probably due to nominators inserting the section name and not the subsection name in the {{GAN}} template on the talk page, right? (Talk:Dirac delta function, for example) Edge3 (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that Dirac delta function has been placed on hold, but that "on hold" status doesn't show up on the sandbox. Does the bot function properly only in the subsections? Edge3 (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

- I checked out the edit history and made a test edit: the bot seems pretty robust now. I believe we are at the point where it would be worth giving the automated page a live trial at WP:GAN, to be reevaluated after a month, say. This needs to be well advertised and explained as it involves some changes to process: as well as making it unnecessary to edit WP:GAN (an enormous time saving), the automated process uses a different system to add comments to a GAN listing (a note parameter on the talk page template). Also the current update rate seems to be every 15 minutes, so nominators and reviewers need to be aware of the potential time lag. Geometry guy 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

People are generally aware of the time lag at RFC and WP:RM, I hope, so this'll just be another thing with a time lag. If you want, I can also make the bot run more frequently. harej 00:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
How's this? Edge3 (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
"Less than an hour" is technically true but still, it gives the impression of "almost an hour, but not quite." I think "in less than 15 minutes" would work. harej 05:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've seen “a bot will be along shortly” used in other contexts and, speaking for myself, that seems sufficiently precise. --Xover (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it to "within 15 minutes" to be precise. At first I wanted to give some leeway (in case something goes wrong with the bot), but I now agree that it's unnecessary. Edge3 (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree on a date to start the live trial? I suggest sometime next week (Wednesday 15?) to give time for editors to raise questions or concerns. I can be available 17:00 - 24:00 UTC, and later if necessary. Geometry guy 19:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should let harej pick the time; after all, he's the one who has to activate the whole thing. How long would this transition take? I imagine that if the transition takes a long time, then we'll have to momentarily shut down GAN.
Furthermore, I recommend that we put a detailed description of the bot's tasks on User:GA bot (as suggested above), to inform those who haven't been following the discussion. Edge3 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
My preliminary timetable is as follows. The initial awareness campaign will begin on September 11. This is my (and our) chance to make everyone aware of the impending change. I plan on coming up with a sort of banner and FAQ page. It'll be tight. The rollout itself will be the following Saturday, September 18. harej 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Good to know that the GAN prozess finally gets easier. My first GAN was really something between a mess and a small nervous boy ^_^ mabdul 04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I am mostly unavailable tomorrow (Saturday 11th), and may not be back online until late Monday 13th. I think Saturday 18th is a good target for the switch. I will be available 10-24 UTC on that day. Geometry guy 21:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The good news is that you don't have to be around on Saturday, as the campaign will last the whole week. As for the switch itself, that will be mostly stuff on my end. harej 22:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. How long will the switch take on Saturday? Edge3 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
A few minutes. harej 09:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand how the new system will work. I would assume that just starting a review subpage would induce the bot to add |status=onreview and transclude the GA review on the talk page, as it already does that, but the transition FAQ appears to suggest that the reviewer should add |status=onreview. Ucucha 03:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    The bot that does that adds it very quickly (he's edit-conflicted me trying to add it) so that ideally won't be an issue. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    The bot will continue to add |status=onreview and transclude the review subpage. harej 04:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I alerted Harej a while ago, but this thing is seriously screwing up somewhere. It keeps removing my nominations for some reason, saying that they've been failed, when in actual fact, no-one has reviewed them. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at it, the troublesome articles of yours seem to be The Ultimate Fighter and Ultimate Fighting Championship. The second will have been rejected by the bot (until now) because it was only partially listed - it was shown on the central list page, but the article itself wasn't marked on the talkpage as a nominee. The former was a template glitch which you seem to have fixed - I'm not quite sure where that came from.
It might be worth knocking off a quick list of all articles from the "old page" which were marked as failed by the bot, to see if there's any more transitional cases like these. Shimgray | talk | 14:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Transition complete

The bot development and testing period which began on 26 September 2009 is now complete. User:GA bot is live! harej 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But nominations are being dumped into Miscellaneous, even when the correct subtopic has been entered. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Under investigation. harej 20:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
A few issues, mostly that the problem exists between chair and keyboard, but it's also a design limitation of the bot itself. The bot decides which categories exist based on the section headers on WP:GAN. This allows for the community to change the categorization scheme with no work on the bot's part, but as a result, it's hard to specify aliases. The two biggest issues is letter capitalization ("music" vs. "Music" with the latter being the recognized name of the category) and the presence of a serial comma (compare "Royalty, nobility, and heraldry" and "Royalty, nobility and heraldry" -- the bot recognizes the latter and not the former). Making the bot understand that there are other ways of capitalizing things shouldn't be too hard, but I'd like to note that on GAN, we are inconsistent with serial comma use. I have decided that GAN categories should not use the serial comma; while I personally prefer to use it, it is a lot easier to just strip it out than identify when it should be inserted ("Politics, and government" would be a bad idea). Thoughts on all this? harej 21:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the serial comma is not applicable to "Politics and government". Not sure if you meant that as hyperbole; just wanted to be sure. You need three or more items in a list to invoke commas. upstateNYer 21:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't debating the merits of the serial comma; instead, I was approaching it from a technical standpoint. The issue involves editors listing the subtopic on a nomination with the serial comma where one does not exist. This is something I would totally do because I use the serial comma out of habit. I decided to go with a technical solution, where the bot would either add the comma or remove it. By removing it, there is not a chance that it could screw up. But by adding the comma, the bot would have to determine whether there should be one or not. Removing the comma is simply the more feasible solution. Again, nothing to do with people's opinions on grammar. harej 21:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. I missed the intention of your comment. upstateNYer 00:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a bug with the bot or not but Ho Chi Minh City was nominated by User:NInTeNdO and then instantly marked as being under review by the same user.— Rod talk 21:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

NInTeNdO created the review page him/herself after nominating the article. harej 21:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that does not sometimes happens, we have to expect that not al nominators will understand the process. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday there were two articles in miscellaneous. Now there's 17, some going back to July. What's going on? Brad78 (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, something is wrong. The bot still isn't reading the categories correctly. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
See the section beneath. Has nothing to do with commas in the nomination but an errant comma on WP:GAN itself. harej 21:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

On Hold

The backlog is a major problem.

I am not a reviewer, and i do not want to review.

Would me working on articles that are on hold save reviewers time letting them review other articles?

--Iankap99 (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the nominators of articles on hold might welcome help. Speaking as a reviewer, I just review, and if necessary put on hold for seven days. If nothing has happened after seven days to address the issues found, then the nom is failed. I am not sure how this would help decrease the backlog, which is partly caused by lots of nominations for the Wiki cup, especially in music and sport; also some reviews which seem to drag on for months. More reviewers are needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess it really depends on both the reviewer and nominator. For some of those reviews "which seem to drag on for months", it may be useful to have Iankap99 addressing some of the issues which are making the article languish on hold. Some reviewers choose to give extra time when nominators show willingness to continue working on issues; in cases like that, having an extra hand in the article (assuming of course that this doesn't cause more problems with the article) would only speed up the process. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Operation Paula

I nominated this article and now it has disappeared without trace -no explanation, nothing. Dapi89 (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles are nominated on the article talk page, and you did not do so. Please check out the instructions and try again. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
So instead of a heads up it just gets deleted. Well thats nice. Dapi89 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You are an experienced editor, and nominating articles on the article talk page has been the norm for several years. Previously nominators also had to update WP:GAN, but this is now done automatically. Please take this as a heads up that you should have read the instructions before, as not nominating on the article talk page created work for other editors. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Codex Boreelianus and Codex Cyprius

Nominations page says these two are being reviewed. Upon inspection of their GA Review subpages, no one is yet reviewing them. Glitch? -- Cirt (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the template was originally pasted in with status set to "on review" - not quite sure why - but of course it didn't show up as odd until the bot began updating. I've set the two talkpages back to "normal" status. Shimgray | talk | 11:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It's amazing the things out there! It looks like we'll have a few of these to work through, but hopefully by the middle of October most of the oddities should be gone. Shimgray | talk | 18:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot glitches

I found multiple articles that are marked as being reviewed, but there's no review page; my fixes get reverted so I don't know why the bot thinks they're being reviewed. The articles are: Singer Model 27 and 127, History of botany, and SMS Tegetthoff. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the problem: the talk page templates were marked as onreview for some reason. The noms have to make sure that when they put up the template that they don't have that on; then no one will review it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New bot and Template:ArticleHistory

I see there's a new bot automating the updating of WP:GAN. Previously when I passed a GA review, I used {{ArticleHistory}} rather than {{GA}} to record the review in history. Is the bot able to detect this and remove the article from the nominations page? I didn't see this commented on anywhere. –Grondemar 12:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question: the bot should recognize the end of the review with the removal of the GA nominee template, hence also remove the listing from GAN. It only needs additional information for the edit summary, and I do not know whether it parses ArticleHistory. Geometry guy 20:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The bot deems the article to be passed as long as either currentstatus=GA or {{GA show up, and {{FailedGA is specifically not present. harej 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
What explains this edit, in that case? The article does have currentstatus=GA. Ucucha 11:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors are still doing things manually

It appears that from [7], some editors are still doing things manually on the nominations list page, despite the changes to the instructions at the top. Perhaps someone familiar with the GA Bot updated process, should leave these editors a friendly reminder about the change to the process? -- Cirt (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the instructions are not clear enough? Aiken (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
You would have to ask those editors that are not doing it properly. -- Cirt (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The instructions are very clear. Some people have a hard time accepting change. Viriditas (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
What about a really bright and annoying editnotice that makes the point when they try to edit the page? Viriditas (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. See Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requested moves/current. harej 15:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
And now, Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Good article nominations. harej 15:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
See that was me sorry --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The edit notice is a good idea, and I've tweaked it a bit (please check). However, edits to the nominations page are harmless, as long as editors make the corresponding edit on the article talk page. Geometry guy 22:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I've noticed Jim Sweeney's edits, and I didn't really care because he's just doing what the bot would do anyway. harej 22:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the template for the individual review pages still tells you to "update the Good article nominations page to indicate that the article is now "On Review" or "On Hold"." So users might not be even paying attention to the new system since they are still told to make some changes.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated, feel free to tweak. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi class battleship

I would like to nominate Mississippi class battleship for good article status, but am a bit confused over the process. Would someone be kind enough to post this for me? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just add the following template to the top of the talk page as you see here: {{subst:GAN|subtopic=War and military}} and the bot will take care of the rest.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent Spooks entry

OK, so I've nominated an article for GA in the Theatre and TV section, but for some reason, the bot keeps moving it to the top of the list. Why does it keeping doing that? -- Matthew RD 16:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this is automated

Could it be split into subpages that are transcluded here? That way people can more easily watchlist what they are interested in. Something like this is done at wp:PR (such as User:VeblenBot/C/Natural sciences and mathematics peer reviews). Nergaal (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Topic_lists. If you have ideas for advertising this feature elsewhere, please do. Note that this link can be used as a template:
Geometry guy 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
GG: yes, just put this template (or a prettier version of it at the top of this talkpage, and possibly even integrate it in the GAN instructions.Nergaal (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I have it deliberately done as a full list and subpages for technical reasons, and so people still get the fabulous edit summaries if they want to keep afoot of the process at large. harej 02:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
That stat is meaningless from now on as the bot is doing the submit. Nergaal (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Intereference of GA Bot with StatisticainBot

What progress is being made in sorting out the problem that has caused StatisticainBot to cease delivering meaningful content to the reports? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The operator of the other bot says he'll update compatibility as soon as he can. I am thinking that I'll just have my bot take over the process because it thoroughly dissects the nomination data anyway; might as well add some stat features. harej 21:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I was worried as the bot owner hadn't edited for a while, glad that you are in contact. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change the broadness criteria

Featured lists already have such a criteria (although not explicit, 10 items are required), and it was proposed when it became apparent once a large number of super short nominations appeared. It might be me, but there are a ton of super-short GAs out there and that do not fall very well within the spirit of "good articles". Yes, these articles are about notable subjects, but something should be done about promoting articles that may possibly be just above the level of a stub. I propose that having articles below a certain threshold should not be promoted, as they could be easily merged together into a fine overview article. For example if two ships from the same class have only 1k of text, that text can be merged in the parent class article without creating too much of a problem and that class article can be GAed without a problem (instead of having two GAs of 2k which is only 1k of new text which normally would qualify as a start-class). What do other people think? Nergaal (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Being a GA is not a "defense" against a common sense merger, nor against deletion. For these short articles, just propose mergers. If that means that the net amount of GAs decreases, so be it. Imzadi 1979 → 03:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
But if the rules would require a limit (explicit or not) then these cases would not be there in the first place. It is hard to argue against a GA or GAN if there is no limit imposed. And I don't know if voters on mergers would care about short articles if they are notable, and especially if they are GAs already. For example I don't thing anybody was opposed on having separate lists for "Acquisitions by X" until FLCs started frowning upon them.Nergaal (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
If you have concerns about some article you could always put them up for review. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Judgement by the reviewer as to broadness is required, as with many of the GA criteria. I am not sure what needs changing. Do you have a specific wording proposal, Nergaal.  Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, say and a subpoint c) with something like: the article contains at least 5k of readable prose. There are tools to check this well, and it will force users to have a certain threshold to aim. Right now there are articles that might have as little as 2k of prose, and I am sure that that can be merged into a parent article without any balance issues. If indeed the article is to deserve a GA status it should have a certain amount of information, and not just be a stub/start article with references, that is in the same shape as when it was a DYK. Nergaal (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Some topics just have very little written on them, and yet can hardly be merged into a parent article. I'm not sure what your problem is: if articles should be merged, merge them; if GAs should be merged, merge them. I think it is valuable if every article has the potential to reach either GA or FA, so that contributors have something to aim for. I wouldn't bring something like Veratalpa to FAC, but it is comprehensive and I don't see the problem with it being a GA. Ucucha 20:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC) & 20:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with such a criterion. The size of an article very much depends on the subject. I passed an article with "Prose size (text only): 2783 B (454 words) 'readable prose size'" today, .sj. In my opinion it met the criteria well. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Without a threshold users are encouraged to submit articles that have only 300 words of prose. Reviewers have very little to argue against a GAN and try to merge it if the GA? encourage users to get GAstars for start-length articles. If that is ok with people in charge of GA, then I have no problem with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)
I think you should get rid of the idea of "start-length". Assessment is about comprehensiveness and quality, not raw length. Ucucha 20:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I happen to agree that a "a stub/start article with references" is not deserving of a GA; however I strongly disagree with the "tick box" approach, i.e. a stub/start article with references with less than 5K (or whatever) is a failure but a stub/start article with references with more than 5K (or whatever) is a pass. Reviewing WP:GANs involves decision making, if reviewers are not prepared to make decisions, they should not be reviewing nominations. I'm sorry, but I regard putting a (another) tick in a box (the 5k box) is merely a "prop" for those that need such props. Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ucucha on this one. I can come up with two under-5K articles on Michigan highways that are Good Articles that would unbalance their parent articles if forced to merge. In some cases, the "parent article" is the table list of all state highways, which can't take any kind of merger of article content. I thought that the Good Article process was also supposed to recognize articles that for other reasons might not be up to Featured Article standards. One of the more common issues at one time was article length. How do we recognize quality if now suddenly an unmergeable article is too short for FA, and then too short for GA?. Imzadi 1979 → 20:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot recall seeing any GAs with 300 words or less of prose. Can Nergaal cite any? This looks like a solution in search of a problem. I agree with Pyrotec, reviewing GANs is all about decision making, not ticking boxes. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How about adding one saying 'if the article is not short enough to be reasonably-well merged into a parent article without changing the balance there. Nergaal (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to reconsider and reformulate. Firstly, can a suggest that you look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Inserting these words in it gives: "A good article is—" Broad in coverage, 3(c). "if the article is not short enough to be reasonably-well merged into a parent article without changing the balance there". This does not make sense: are we really defining a Good Article as one that can be merged into a parent article (which might not be a GA - I assume that it is the article under consideration, not the parent article, that is the WP:GAN) without changing the balance of the parent? Pyrotec (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
you missed the not' part: one that can't be merged without changing the balance. Nergaal (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the proposed criterion would be better worded as "The article is not so short that it can be merged into a parent article without disrupting that article's balance." But I don't see the need for it; what is the problem this is supposed to solve? As said before, GAs are not immune from merging. Ucucha 22:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article criteria specifies what a Good Article is (well appart from not meeting the criteria of an WP:FAC, and that is rather meaningless in that I've never assessed a WP:GAN for failure to meet the requirements of FA: nor have I seen that test carried out by any other reviewer at WP:GAN). Firstly, I don't consider the addition of a single negative criteria as being relevant. The criteria should state what a good article is, not what it is not. The suggestion appear to be well intended, but it appears to be based on the statement that stub and start class article should not be GAs (I agree with this comment). However, its not that simple, are we saying that it is acceptable for C-class and B-class article to be GAs? Arguably a start class article with references could be a C-class or a B-class articles. Its worse than that: every WP:GAN by definition is not a GA, so it is one of: unassessed or project-rated, stub, start, C or B-class. Secondly, WP:GAN applies to a single candidate, I strongly disagree with accessing a candidate against a so called parent article - who nominates the parent, the nominator, the reviewer, or the GA-bot. Thirdly, what relevance has any perceived change in balance of an article that is not the WP:GAN to do in assessing a stand alone WP:GAN. I have limited experience of WP:FAC, but I've never met a FAC review of article A, where the pass / fail criteria for article A is: "if we merge it with article B, will the balance of B change"? Pyrotec (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just read through this, and the premise and the reasoning illustrate many misunderstandings. One of the reasons GA was introduced was to recognize short articles, and these origins are reflected in the GA ethos that any article which can be written, based on reliable secondary sources, primarily in a prose style (i.e., not as a list, portal, sound, image or dab) is eligible for GA status.

We do not exclude articles from GA status because there isn't much reliably sourced material available. Indeed it is harmful to do so, as it encourages editors to reach for less reliable sources to flesh out articles with trivia and recentism. It is particularly harmful for BLPs, as here we must restrict ourselves only to the most encyclopedic and reliably sourced information. Requiring more information on the personal life of someone whose personal life is not notable is completely unacceptable.

This thread also illustrates the problem of comparing GA with WikiProject ratings. The GA criteria do not refer to any WikiProject criteria, although the latter can be extremely helpful to reviewers in interpreting criteria such as "broadness" (e.g., what is a broad article on a film?). However, an article is not a GA according to how "far away" it is from being a Stub/Start article. It is a GA according to whether it meets the GA criteria or not, period.

There is an essay on what the GA criteria are not at WP:WGN. In particular the GA criteria are not a tool to determine notability issues such as deletion and mergers. If you encounter a GA nomination that should be merged or deleted, do not review it, but propose a merger or deletion instead.

Changes to the GA criteria should be discussed at WT:WIAGA. I would be opposed to a minimum length criterion not only for the reasons above, but because I am opposed to bean counting in general. Reviewing GAs is a substantial process requiring the exercise of human intelligence and judgment, and reviewers should take pride in the contribution they make to improving the encyclopedia. GA is an incredibly popular process because it sets a benchmark and provides great feedback to help articles reach their basic potential. Those content contributors that seek more have FA for complete glorification of their work, but what happens here is, in my view, more important, as it daily lifts numerous articles from the unacceptable to the acceptable.

Short, informative, well written, reliably sourced and thoroughly referenced articles can certainly be acceptable, and should not be excluded from the GA remit. Geometry guy 23:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Add tools to preload

I'd like to add {{Featured article tools}} or a similar template to {{GAN/preload}}, to make it easier to check some technical issues on GA nominees. Ucucha 21:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That could be useful. I use the dabsolver and checklinks in my own custom template. I am not sure that the other tools are that useful for GAN though. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It's easy enough to make a separate template, of course. I think the dashboard is useful in showing how the article developed, though. Ucucha 21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Are IPs allowed to nominate articles?

I've just noticed that an IP has nominated Busta Rhymes. is this allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil-unique1 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 25 September 2010|

Yes it is, and it has always been that way. Pyrotec (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
However, I suspect that its vandalism. The article has ref improve flag and an Blocked user IP ([8]) has changed every occurence of "Smith" to "Busta". Pyrotec (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I was about to quick-fail this. The lead is almost non-existent, and there are sections almost entirely unreferenced, hence the refimpove tag. However, someone has started the review, and another comment added (stating how brilliant and well-referenced) the article is. Brad78 (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding IP noms, see also the FAQ above for advice. Regarding this nom, it is always worthwhile to check the edit history: the comment is from the "reviewer". However, further investigation reveals that this "reviewer" is actually the nominator, except that the nomination was made on the GAN page, and Tbhotch created the IP entry on the article talk page. The editor's attempt to review his own article lead to a block.
Consequently, the article is still nominated with no reviewer. I've clarified the review page and talk page accordingly. Geometry guy 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Matty Johns Show

Hi. This should be one of the 5 oldest nominations, but is not in the box on the project page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes the bot which updates this is (hopefully) temporarily down. I have fixed it and it is now in the top 5. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I have parsed all of the nominations through a spreadsheet and updated the backlog in correct date/time order, TMJS is at #6. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. I will remain patient. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict on GA review page for M.I.A. (artist)

I offered to help out with the GA review of M.I.A. after a second opinion was requested by the original reviewer Atlantictire. Atlantictire and nominator Lifebonzza disagree over the inclusion of more critical voices in the article - I've tried to help but Lifebonzza has now claimed that he/she "[doesn't] think it's appropriate" for Atlantictire to continue with the review. Can some experienced reviewers offer advice please? I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to both editors and assuming good faith but tempers are running high and there have been unhelpful and borderline uncivil comments from both sides. Thanks Cavie78 (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this article was failed today by request of the editor. Aaron north (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Procedure when a reviewer abandons a GA review?

I just noticed that Talk:Dirac delta function has been placed on hold since the end of July. The reviewer (Tb240904) gave some feedback "More inline citations", and has seemingly not returned. It looks like the editors have put more citations into the article over the last couple months, and it looks like a note was left for the reviewer earlier this month, but they have been left hanging. (I have nothing to do with the article, I just noticed this while looking at old GAN's) What is the procedure when this sort of thing happens? At X number of days does some other reviewer come in to pass or fail the article? Aaron north (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In the past I have picked up reviews when the reviewer has apparently abandoned. I would pick it up myself, but I have little knowledge of mathematics and I must confess that it looks impenetrable to me. If someone else wishes to review, I would suggest taking over. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Glitch on the project page

Hi. At present, Kubera from the oldest-unreviewed-nominations box doesn't link anywhere meaningful. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That box is updated by a robot, and figuring that the changes would break that bot, I have alerted its operator. harej 08:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it was because the section heading Religion, mysticism, and spirituality hadn't had the second serial comma inserted. It works now, as I fixed it but I note that StatisticianBot hasn't updated Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
not sure if this is a related issue or not, but the GABot does not seem to be listing articles under the "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" category. It is listing them under Miscellaneous instead.Aaron north (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And today's report has missed all of the nominations. I think the GANbot may need to be shut down if the changes made by it can't be dealt with by Statisticianbot. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The easiest thing may just be for me to take over the task currently handled by StatisticianBot -- would be unnecessarily difficult to have two bots maintained by two different people working on the same page. The religion category is an interesting case. harej 20:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved forever. I get this feeling the commas are out to get me. harej 21:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at an old version of the page from before the automation and the title of the section of concern is "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" with the comma. Harej, your edit may conflict with Jezhotwells' earlier edit. I will study the situation and may revert. Lambanog (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
After looking at it a little, some of the article links on the backlog page Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items expect the comma to be in place. Since it isn't, they redirect nowhere. I would alter harej's change but Jezhotwells says that the backlog page didn't update regardless and I'm not sure what harej's reason for his edit taking out the comma is for so I will leave everything alone until harej can explain. Lambanog (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Did a manual edit to the backlog list so that the links to the current oldest articles work. Problem still needs to be permanently addressed by the respective bot managers though. Lambanog (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
User:Dvandersluis, who maintains User:StatisticianBot, hasn't edited since 7 June, so I think we have a problem. No report and no backlog updates is a serious concern to the project. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree it is a problem, though not one without precedent, in that StatisticianBot also did not edit between March 25 and October 24 2009. I hope the current situation will be resolved more swiftly this time! In the meantime, GA reviewers are renowned for their resilience and adaptability, as the previous incident shows. Geometry guy 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
If Dvandersluis is unavailable then leaning on harej to improve his bot is indicated. One alternative is to simply let articles in the religion category get sorted into the Miscellaneous section if that will allow the backlog update to function. A consensus on what is more important—the maintenance of the "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" category or backlog updates—would indicate the course of action that should be taken if this issue cannot be resolved quickly. Lambanog (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have been emailing Dvandersluis. He says he'll update the parser as soon as he can. harej 03:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys, sorry I wasn't aware of this topic earlier. I've updated StatisticianBot to work with the new format of the GAN page so everything should be working again. If you run into another issue with it, please let me know and I'll get it fixed. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 15:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

StatisticianBot back up and running

Apologies for the lack of StatisticianBot updates (the GAN/R report and the backlog box) over the last week or so. Because WP:GAN is now bot-updated, the format of the page changed, and I needed to update my bot to get it to be able to read the page again. This is done now and StatisticianBot should be working as normal again. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this! Geometry guy 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I've now updated the backlog graph accordingly: File:Good Article nominations graph.svg. It currently stops just before the changeover, on 18 September; we've reduced a little since then. Shimgray | talk | 23:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Great stuff, Daniel Vandersluis. Thank you. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Müller (footballer)

I put the Thomas Müller (footballer) on hold yesterday but the GA bot has still not put a note on the GAN page that it is on hold. Its just says (Discuss Review) and nothing below it. Am I doing something wrong? Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly because the status was entered in the Nomination template as "Onhold", rather than "onhold". I changed it, lets see if that works. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It's working now, I want to thank you and Wizardman for the help. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 18:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Enugu GAN

The reviewer for the Enugu article (Tea with toast (talk)) hasn't made any comments on the Enugu GAN page for almost a month (since 8 September), I have messaged the reviewer twice, but there's still no reply. I don't know what the problem is. What should be done? Ukabia - talk 14:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over the article, found no problems. The reviewer is active but not responding. I have accordingly passed the review and promoted the article. Sorry about your delay. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Ukabia - talk 16:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Good article template

I noticed that the bit in WP:Good article nominations/guidelines#Pass about adding the {{Good article}} template has disappeared. Is the template now added by a bot? I ask because I have noticed a few passes where it has not been added. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Harej removed it when updating the instructions. I don't think the bot currently adds the template, but perhaps this functionality can be added. Ucucha 23:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have asked Harej. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to limit nominations

There are over 350 current nominations on this page, some dating back to early July. While TonyTheTiger's nominations have been brought up recently (along with his at DYK and VP), there are a number of editors with numerous pending reviews. I'm not saying that we should limit people to a single nomination, because it doesn't require as much work as featured articles or lists, but I feel establishing some limitation would be overall beneficial. Grsz11 23:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A perennial proposal, see the archives. How would it be policed? Who would police it? I don't see a serious problem here. More reviewers would be good, perhaps the queue makes some think about becoming a reviewer. That was how I started, a year and a half ago. When I started, the GAs formed one in 450 of all Wikipedia articles. Now it is about one in 350, which is a considerable achievement. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I think a cap would be beneficial from three reasons: 1) a very limited number of users would not be allowed to abuse the page; 2) once an editor reaches a limit he will start considering doing reviews to help alleviate the backlog; 3) if an editor has more than three pages at a time it will probably lead to delays in the review itself. With that being said, I think the cap should not be lower than 5. Looking at the bot update, Tony (23) and Strumvogel (14) are the ones abusing it while Candio (7) is folowed by users with 5 noms. I propose having the limit set to 5, and any further noms will lead to the oldest nom not reviewed yet to be quickfailed. After say 1 or 2 months trial period, it might be worth reconsidering the cap at 5. Nergaal (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
In short this extra bureaucracy would at the moment save no work other than restricting TTT and Strumvogel (and a couple of noms by Candio). Boycotting nominations by Wikicup editors would accomplish the same aim. Changes to the way GA operates are best discussed when there are no artificial stresses (such as the Wikicup) causing harm to the reviewing process. Geometry guy 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've reviewed around 20 noms in the last two months, while having around the same number of reviews, so don't accuse me of overloading the system. At least not yet. And, as Geometry guy mentions, neither TTT nor myself would have so many noms up at one time if it weren't for the WikiCup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I admit that I do fewer reviews than noms, but my reviews are almost all far more extensive than my noms. I.E., I tend to do reviews of articles that have complications that might cause other to fail them, but that I have the patience to review and bring up to standards (E.g., see Talk:Jessica Hardy/GA2‎, which many would have failed), but that I will help bring up to GA standards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could establish a page maximum. I don't know if it's ideal, but it would force more reviews. Or maybe change the manner in which reviews are done. Grsz11 04:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If the wikicup gives points for reviews next year it might change things. The drive earlier this year was good. 04:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
I wouldn't count on the WikiCup awarding points for reviews. As a participant in next year's cup, I've followed the discussions and there doesn't appear to be a consensus on adding them. Some think that it would create a lot of bad GA reviews. ~DC We Can Work It Out 04:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but this goes against everything Wikipedia stands for are you seriously suggesting that editors stop or limit articles they submit for review ? So what if there are 50–100 articles waiting that just means editors are actively trying to improve our content. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine, but when one editor accounts for say 40 of those 100 waiting for review, you can appreciate why the ones who are forced to wait longer might start complaining. For some people, that will be enough to discourage them from participating in the process entirely. Of course, as Jezhotwells points out, it might incite others to start reviewing...Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd note that the process is a pool, not a strict queue - there's no obligation to take the oldest, though it is vaguely encouraged out of a sense of fairness, all other things being equal. Many reviewers are quite happy to cherrypick the ones they're interested in, or that they feel they could review competently; as a result, an article on a species of bird is unlikely to be "forced to wait" until a series of articles on highways are cleared. When you throw in the fact that the bulk-nominated articles tend to be very similar (if you're not interested in one, you're unlikely to be interested in the other nineteen) and on relatively constrained topics (warships, sports teams, highways, hurricanes), it's a bit of an open question how much they affect an individual article nominated in a completely different field. Shimgray | talk | 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I would say a large number of nominees still has an intimidating effect, especially for those new to the process. Lambanog (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Some pre-screening might unclog things a bit. I just looked at the most recent addition: Bill Dane. It is extremely short, half the article text is quotations, has zero discussion on the Talk page, was written almost entirely in the last week, mostly by seeming SPA's. I'd quick-fail it but I don't know enough about how the whole process works. Are there many others like that? Why not require a peer-review within the last month for all GA nominations? Or, require recent peer-reviews when the backlog hits a certain level? Noloop (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I failed that one. I'm sure there are many more like that. Even more that are better, but still not to standards. I've had two GAs ([9], [10]), and I put a hell of a lot of work into both of them. To me atleast, it just seems like many nominate substandard articles, and most pass anyways. Grsz11 03:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
When you review a GA, please look at the article's qualities, not how long it took to write it or who wrote it. A peer review requirement would merely move the backlog to another already overloaded area and would be quite unnecessary for many if not most nominations. Ucucha 11:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't agree with having a limit of nominations. I've got three reviews waiting, and until last week that was four. While I've been patiently waiting, I've reviewed around eight articles. Anyone is open to review any article on the list and is not limited to the top of any section. I really don't see what the major problem about the number of pages waiting to be reviewed is. The problem, on the whole, is a lack of reviewers. Take away multiple nominations, and you're probably only going to knock 50 articles off tops - and TTT will make up around half of those. Brad78 (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
A peer-review requirement might indeed shift the backlog elsewhere. But, it might not, or do so to a lesser degree. I think some editors seek GA status because they want to promote something and there is no disincentive. It's a bit like a free lottery ticket (granted, with very small stakes, but the principle is the same). If a nomination requires a bit of work, it might eliminate those who want to promote something. Really, don't we expect most GA articles to have received at least one peer-review?
Another possibility is to make some of these things flags, rather than requirements. Make it easy for potential reviewers to see which nominations have had a peer-review in the last recently, and which articles have been nominated by editors with multiple nominations. Then let the reviewers decide if they care about those things. Noloop (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Support I support the flags idea 100% lets make it a formal proposition.--Iankap99 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure GA Bot (talk · contribs) could be made to do that, like the helper bot does at WP:AIV. It could add more details: "This article has underwent a peer review" or "User:Grsz11 has 5 other nominations". Grsz11 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Limiting the number on nominations does not make sense. The only thing that I could see making sense is limiting nominations if the reviewer has a certain number of failed GANs this month, does that make sense? --Iankap99 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Iankap, if people are creating a substantial number of really well written, well sourced, comprehensive articles that are passing GA consistently, I don't see the need to discourage that kind of activity. Quadzilla99 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Copano Bay

Copano Bay was failed at 12:53 September 9 and then re-nominated six hours later. The only edits made to the reverted edits that the reviewer made, and some very minor copy-editing. The article has not been worked on at all, not sure what happens from here. Thanks, Grsz11 14:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is more complex than described above. There is no need to discuss this. Eventually someone will pick up the article and give a review. End of thread. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:History of FC Barcelona/GA1

Hi, i'm looking for a second oponion on History of FC Barcelona as I am an inexperienced reviewer and I might list an article that shouldn't be listed. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 10:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

checkY Done by User:Brad78. Thanks Brad. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Neilson

I just finished up the review and passed Scott Neilson, and now it is appearing at the top of the list for Sports and recreation? Did I miss a step somewhere? Canada Hky (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When you passed it, it had a subtopic of Sports and recreation. A bot has now added the {Article History} template so its gone into Sports. Hardly surprising. I've no idea whether no missed anything, its your review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean with the review, I meant with the closing process that resulted in it being added back to the list of nominees. Canada Hky (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. In this action [[11]] you passed it and changed the subtopic. Gimmebot then added the {ArticleHistory} template to the articlepage; and then GA bot ([[12]]) removed the article from WP:GAN. I can't see its re-entry. The WP:GAN entry is incomplete as it has no nominator, reviewer or timestamps (see the other canditate removed at the same time), was the review manually entered onto WP:GAN, or did the GA bot do it?
I think the bot did everything, and it isn't on the list any longer. It might have just been the moment I loaded everything. Thanks for the help. Canada Hky (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Contest

I've noticed that the only remedy proposed for dealing with this major backlog is to add reviews to the wikicup next year. To be honest, that wont help for a very long time. Perhaps we could have a contest of our very own here? The most reviews in an allotted time wins? This could help to get rid of the backlog.

Or, we could have a monthly competition, reviewer of the month. Surely this could be handled by a bot, does anyone like these ideas?--Iankap99 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

How would this ensure quality over quantity? A bad review done for point would do more damage than none at all. Nev1 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
How does any review ensure quality over quantity? How does the proposed wikicup reviews ensure quality?--Iankap99 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
As with the wikicup proposal, this runs the risk of encouraging people to do reviews to earn points. In that sort of situation, reviews will be poorer as people rush through them so they can win a prize. That mentality is already evident in the wikicup where some participants do the bare minimum to earn points. Nev1 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there is more of a need to educate the nominators, who appear to have unrealistic expectations: some stated above that they thought a ten day wait was acceptable. The wait is more like one to two months. I have no intention of doing an increased number of nominations just to "win" a monthly competition or reviewer of the month; and I did do 58 in one month (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010) but I have no intention of repeating that, particularly when there are still nominators who don't have the courtesy to say thanks in any shape or form for a review (I'm taking about a pass not a fail). Perhaps we need to name and shame those nominators. I consider that the solution is basically a case of put up or shut up. There appears to be a wish for some combination of more reviewers doing reviews and/or existing reviewers doing more; but interestingly those calling for more reviews, can't or won't participate themselves.Pyrotec (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The backlog elim. drives we have had have generally been successful. Knocked the backlog from 400 to near zero last time, and most importantly they were quality reviews. We could always do one in December to clean things out for the new year. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

November sounds like a better idea, the problem is pretty serious.--Iankap99 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
How about start now. Go! Grsz11 02:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm fundamentally on wikibreak, I haven't been editing. I dropped by to check the backlog and though I would try to propose an idea. Perhaps someone else would like to help.--Iankap99 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't the elimination drives see a bounce greater than the problem before them. The problem is consistently keeping people reviewing. Brad78 (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes and no. On the last one, the backlog went from 400 to nearly nothing. It shot back up but has since plateaued around 390 the past month or so. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
At least we cut it about 10. The idea is to keep the drive running. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 18:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Cyborg Kuro-chan

I worked hard on this article after I saw that it was horrible. I greatly improved the article, and I think it looks good. I think it'd be a perfect candidate. Railer-man (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Article looks better!! Go to the talk page; it's where I nominated it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Railer-man (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the {{Good article}} template as it has not been reviewed yet. I also fixed your malformed nomination. I doubt whether it will pass as it is rather poorly written and many of the references are not reliable sources. Try reading the good article criteria and working on it so that it stands a chance when reviewed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
In fact after looking at it again, I have quick failed it as it is nowhere near ready for GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
A sad case where a new user not knowing the scope of things gets slaughtered. I encourage you to read User:Resident Mario/FA: it will help (although it baised towards FAs ;) ). And yes, this is self-advertisement. ResMar 00:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but the OP does seem to be learning after several messages on their talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Apoligies, what is OP? Opposing party =)? Also, someone should point the Good article mentors to new users...ResMar 02:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
It's person who made the original post. Ucucha 02:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Time to get serious

It's really time to get serious here guys. I've been checking in just to see how big the backlog is getting. We need a plan, and we need a plan now. Waiting until the next wikicup isn't acceptable. When I did my nomination in the film category, it made it's way to the top of the list in a month. Now it looks like its taking 2 months. We need ideas, the suggestions have been that we need more editors, but thats not a plan. Any ideas?--Iankap99 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A consistent referencing style on Wikipedia would be a good start. There are too many inconsistencies with the Citation templates, Friendly, and bots, which seem to fight one another's formatting. The problems also contribute to the degradation of current Featured and Good articles. Improved referencing would streamline picking through the prose. With the saved time, we would be able to work on content and write better articles—including more GAs. All is One (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Well that is certainly true, but how does that help the backlog?--Iankap99 (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Since "consistently formatted citations" is not part of the actual GA criteria, how would that help? The GA criteria actually permit any kind of citation that allows the reader to figure out what the source is -- even bare URLs, and using a different citation style for each and every source.
Perhaps the real problem is too many reviewers wasting time by imposing their own "special" requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I assume using templates would be the way to standardize citation formatting? Citation templates as a standard would be awful, many people such as myself hate them. All they do is add needless code and clutter to articles. I've always felt that considering millions of people still use dial up around the world, adding 10-20 kbs of needless code to articles is idiotic. Quadzilla99 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Getting serious and biting the shoddy-goods flooders' articles is the way to go YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean?--Iankap99 (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Some of the highly prolific nominators keep on nominating shoddy stuff and hoping that they get lucky with a soft review YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The MILHIST GAN backlog emlimination drive is thataway. The idea is to start something like that but coordinated by a select informed few (maybe you, YM) that seeks to thoroughly review the giant backlog. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 02:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Except that is only for articles within their scope.--Iankap99 (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Right. The oldest unreviewed MILHIST ones are from a week ago; those aren't the troubling ones. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This never goes anywhere, but we need some sort of quid pro quo, where reviewing will get your article reviewed. Till then, we'll just have a section like this come up every month or so. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense though, what of the users who put forth 2 GANs a month? I think that the wikicup will significantly help this problem due to the ability for ever participant to simply pick-up reviews. The judges can keep the reviews honest.--Iankap99 (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Which is why we need to do one for all GANs. (I thought I said that) WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 04:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Elimination drives only work for about a month. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is going to sound ass-backwards, but I think a way to shrink the backlog would be to speed up the reviews. Over the past year the attitude in reviews has been "no rush, take your time" on both sides, and as a result, articles sit in the backlog for three months while each section is slowly looked at. There's never an excuse to have an article on hold for two months, even one is pushing it in most cases. If we cut that down and had reviewers move from review to review, that might help. It sounds strange, but if we can get that mentality adopted on both sides, GAN will run smoother. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How about those complaining about the backlog start doing some reviews? It would be very interesting for those participating in this debate to state how many reviews they themselves have done. Pyrotec (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean like the person who started this section who it appears hasn't done any reviews? Brad78 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Speeding up the reviews makes sense to me. According to the report page we have 34 nominations either under review or on hold for a week or more. Knocking those off would drop the backlog down to last year's levels. Also, isn't the backlog naturally going to grow in an encyclopedia that's always expanding. And for what it's worth I've done 5 reviews over the past month or so ~DC We Can Work It Out 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There tends to be about 10 to 12% of the nominations On Hold and 10 to 12% On Review at any given time, so some 75% or so of the nominations are sitting there doing nothing; and those ratios are fairly constant year by year. The back log has approximately doubled since May 2007 (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report/Backlog archive); but the current blacklog is comparable with that between Oct 2009 and March 2010. Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
To respond to Pyrotec's note above, I've actually lost count. Not counting reviews where I've cleaned up disappearing reviewers and the like, it's gotta number over 200 by now. Also, while the percentages seem fairly constant as noted, keep in mind this includes those reviews that were done a month ago and no action has been handled since, so it is in a way skewed. The point is, though, we have to be both writing reviews and keeping an eye on other ones. Just closed two old ones today, and there's probably more that have been abandoned. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To take a completely different approach: if every time someone nominated one article, they reviewed one, the backlog would be gone. Now that isn't as simple as it seems, as new nominators often shouldn't review. At last count I had 76 written GAs and 191 reviews, which is close to my attempt at a 3:1 ratio. Are there many mass-nominators who are not reviewing any articles? Where are we getting the surplus of articles to nominate from if all major nominators are reviewing? I'm sure anyone who is able to write repeated GAs is also fully capable of reviewing. Arsenikk (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup particiants are one, but some of them also review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Based on this CUP participants (currently TTT, SV 66, and Sasata) have 51 nominations pending, but I believe they've all done some reviews. I believe (without much evidence to back me up) the real issue is people newer to GAN who submit nominations but don't review themselves, possibly because they don't understand the process or because their only interested in getting their content promoted. ~DC We Can Work It Out 16:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the real issue is unrealistic expectations on the part of nominators. This section was started by a statement by a previous nominator, that a film category nomination took one month last time round and it is speculated that it would take two months now. Well there are quite a few of those film nominations going back to August; but there was also a film nominated on 3 September, whose review started on 5 September - it is still On Hold. Some categories are short of reviewers and much of this "noise" comes from members of these categories. Interrestingly, they don't even seem prepared to review articles that fall in the scope of their own categories. Pyrotec (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps even more interesting is that the initiator of this section has signed up for the 2011 wikicup challenge (see Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups), i.e. the one where wikicup entrants get points for submitting articles for WP:GAN and WP:FAC, but in the case of WP:GAN expect other people, non-cup contestants, to review their articles. I suspect that this discussion has very little to do with GA and a lot to do with WikiCup points. Pyrotec (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Am I allowed to take offense to this? You are judging me based on nothing. I was planning on doing 1-2 GANs for the wikicup and seeing how far that would take me. I am genuinely concerned however, that this backlog will gen worse.--Iankap99 (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Personally I have a hard time seeing how the WikiCup is bringing the project forwards. It tends to give an incentive for participants to nominate large number of small articles at GAN, FAR and similar. However, in no way does it encourage the dynamics required for these processes to work. Essentially, hardworking project members decide that to win they need to aim 100% of their work towards creating content, leaving no time to review. This breaks the back of not just GAN, but also the featured content arenas, which also have backlogs. Arsenikk (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, because the people creating content will do so regardless, and the resources available to review are finite and relatively fixed. However I'm at a loss as to how to deal with it; I highly doubt an MFD would work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There are ways of getting round it. The nominations could be marked as Wikicup entries. Or the Wikicup could review and judge itself, which solves both the problems of how to add points for reviews and the fact that the Wikicup process doesn't help any of the reviewing processes. Brad78 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
(playing devil's advocate here) "they need to aim 100% of their work towards creating content, leaving no time to review". Don't we want people content-creating? GAR doesn't directly help the project; it just provides quality checking and a badge of approval, plus some helpful comments (sometimes). Much of the time it makes no practical difference to the encyclopedia whether a review sits there for 3, 30 or even 300 days - nominators are (should) not be sitting around, they should be writing more content, or improving content. Reviews are good (I personally aim for a 1:1 ratio) but it's not the priority, just a useful diversion. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Greating good content and/or Good Articles is good. What I find less acceptable is trying to suggest that there are problems with WP:GAN and a serious backlog, particularly when some of that backlog is due to WikiCup entries; and using this (false) "problem with the GA system" as a means of smoothing the path of the next set of WikiCup entries. I would be more than happy to review WikiCup entries if I was allowed to enter the cup as a reviewer and each GA review got me 25 points. For instance, durring the last backlog ellimination drive I reviewed 58 WP:GANs in one month (I came second) and that got me an "The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia" award from WP:GA (but nothing from WikiCup - I was not a candidate). If all those articles had been from WikiCup participants that would have been worth 1,450 WikiCup points. That number of points would have put me 4th in Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2009/Round 4. Why should WP:GA put considerable effort into reviewing WP:GANs created under a competitive challenge generated by WikiCup, when the only acknowledgements and awards from WikiCup go to their participants, not the people they "con" (by creating alarms about beakdowns in the GAN system) into reviewing their entries? WikiCup is a very asymmetic process that virtually ignores the reviews and the "stresses" on the system (except when we don't do their reviews). It (WikiCup) needs to change, not the GA process. As has been stated above some of the WikiCup entries are marginal GA-material, sufficent to stand a reasonable change of a pass but not much more. I happen to know and have reviewed many WP:GANs produced by editor who partipate in WikiCup: many of the articles by these editors are very good and potential FACs, but they are mostly produced when the Cup is not running. At present I've completed 316 GAN reviews in two years (and I've got more in progress) (and I participated in the GA review process), so I've done at lot of GA reviews. So I "know" a good article when I see it. Pyrotec (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
OK I'm not one of the power users on Wikicup, in fact I only signed up for next year and I don't plan to be a good participant. I plan to do 1-2 GANs. I don't mind you going after Wikicup, but I mind you associating me with Wikicup and assuming my motives.--Iankap99 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I can understand your problem with some editors criticising the process whilst only serving to add to the backlog themselves. Rather, the point I was trying to make was that there might not be a real problem. Sorry for any confusion. (I don't see any serious problem with either the WC or GAN.) - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
If you ask me, it's true that we need more editors to contribute, but the main problem is how we are going to get those editors who are reviewing articles to actually review articles outside the topics of let say music or theatre, film and drama, and review articles on less popular topics such as "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" and "Politics and government" who barely get any reviewers. We should set up a rule were a reviewer can only review the oldest nominations, and not the newest, which is a problem if you take a look at the Theatre, film and drama, politics and government and probably many other sections!
Oh, and we should limit a GA nominator to only two GA nominations at the time, this would end the back log, and would encourage people to review. An example is TonytheTiger, probably a nice guy, but when you nominate 28 GAN's the system is bound to fall into a backlog. --TIAYN (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the comments in the first paragraph of this section, I'm becoming less convinced that this was intended to be a discussion of the GA review process. It is certainly seeking to highlight delays, by an editor who states "I'm sorry, I'm fundamentally on wikibreak, I haven't been editing. I dropped by to check the backlog and though I would try to propose an idea. Perhaps someone else would like to help.--Iankap99 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)", but yesterday signed up to WikiCup2011 ([13]). I think it is preplaning for the next WikiCup no more and no less. However returning to your point: much of it is wrong, the biggest backlog is on music or theatre, film and drama and I don't tend to review those anyway. I do review "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" and "Politics and government" (see User:Pyrotec/GA reviews). Furthermore I would not be prepared to review nominations under your dictat: since I do this of my own free will why should be be forced to do the oldest and not the newest. The idea is "mad", if you try to stop me reviewing the third or fourth article in the list, I merely have to wait until the one I want gets to the top, if no one else reviews the top one then that means that I don't do any reviews. Its worst than "mad", its a deliberate sabotage mechanism; or its a suggestion from someone with little reviewing experience. I don't tend to do the newest anyway, but I typically do some 150 GAN reviews per year, which is suspect is more than you do. I also strongly object to your aim of trying to limit a GA nominator to only two GA nominations at the time. Some of the most proliffic editors produce good GANs, and some of the newbies produce poor GANs. I'd rather review three good nominations from the same nominator, than one indifferent nomination each from three editors who've never submitted before. I've reviewed one or two of TonytheTiger's articles: but for reasons mentioned above, I'm not reviewing WikiCup entries this time round. Pyrotec (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
OK I'm sick of this, you are judging my motivation as less that pure. I was never that serious about wikicup. I was concerned that a major delay in this system would fundamentally hurt the GA process. I removed my name from Wikicup 2011. I was never all that serious about it. I was genuinely concerned about the system. --Iankap99 (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Today I reviewed Ministry of Finance (Soviet Union), nominated four days ago by --TIAYN. Why? Because it sounded exotic and interesting. Had I had to review Governor of Kentucky first, then I wouldn't have reviewed anything. Similarly, putting a cap on total nominations is discriminatory, as it becomes a restriction on the number of nominations per year based on the independent variable of review time. Thus, if a nominator can have max two nominations at any time, and they are in a category which has an average two-month review time, they can nominate 12 articles per year. However, if the average review time is one month, can can then nominate 24 articles per year. And at the end of the day, what is the real problem with the backlog? Perhaps if we stopped coming up with complex solutions and just spent the time we spend on this talk page reviewing instead, the backlog would drop by itself. Arsenikk (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
My point is simple, if a nominator can only nominate two articles at the time, maybe just maybe he/she will review other articles so he/she can get somebody to review their articles. My point is simple, getting users to nominate two article may increase efficiency and get more reviewers (those who are nominating that is). --TIAYN (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It also prevents them from gaining the experience of producing good articles, so if they do review nominations they will have less experience of the review process than they otherwise would have gained. It also smackes of "my article has not been reviewed yet, so I'm going to make sure that you can't add anymore nominations to the list". I'm also not convinced that someone who's never had an article reviewed let alone passed is going to be a good reviewer, simply because they have two unreviewed nominations in the queue and they would like to add another but can't, so why not review someone else's nomination instead? Secondly, I don't think its a good idea for the nominator to choose who reviews their nomination. It leads to "you pass mine and I'll pass yours" reviews, which hardly aapears to be a means of improving the efficiency of the review process. Pyrotec (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Wizardman's got a good point about efficiency: Reviews that string on for a couple of months, involve reviewers issuing "demands" about details (typically, too often, over details that nobody has ever been able to find mentioned anywhere in the GA criteria), and so forth, are part of the problem. Sticking to the actual criteria would go a fair ways towards making reviews more pleasant, more efficient, and more like the sort of thing that any editor can do. Reviews that "enforce the entire MoS" or "require my favorite citation style" and such waste time, annoy editors, and convince the less-experienced editors that they aren't capable of reviewing articles, since you apparently need to know far more than what the criteria say you need to know -- so they won't even try.
For the record, I think that the perennial proposal about limiting noms from prolific authors is a (very) bad idea, and based on the stats we've collected previously, it would have almost no effect, since something like 90% of the noms are not from prolific authors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Perspective from a GA-newbie: I have one GA (rhodocene), and I found the review process led to significany improvement of the article. I would be willing to review, but feel I lack the necessary experience, plus there are few articles in the area where I feel expert. Based on my (admittedly small) sample, it seems that reviewers' contributions are undervalued. I have just created a GA Contributor ribbon:

GA Contributor
GA Contributor

I could create a GA Reviewer ribbon, if that seems like a good idea to anyone. EdChem (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Reviewer
GA Reviewer

I have been bold and created a GA Reviewer ribbon, for your consideration. Another thought... perhaps some recognition based on the approach at WP:DYKSTATS, or barnstars / medals for 25 reviews, 50 reviews (etc, or at other more appropriate levels). EdChem (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I have one for 300 reviwews? Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
These should be self-awarded. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 14:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
There is hardly any backlog for the MILHIST noms (2, all from less than a week ago). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 17:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

bot problem, or did I screw up

  • I just Passed Kampung Boy (TV series), but instead of being removed from GAN, it shot to the top of the list in its subtopic, with no associated date after the title... did I do something wrong? [Note that there's also a very similar separate entry in the Literature section; that's for the comic that inspired the TV series. That's not a problem.] • Ling.Nut 10:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

An Idea

I have an idea that might help out with the backlog. I only feel comfortable reviewing articles in certain topic areas - in these areas more often than not there are no articles. Every now and then I check back and see if there are any new nominations. What if reviewers could sign up to be notified by nominations in their preferred topic areas? We could have a list of active reviewers in different areas and a person who nominates would be asked to notify the reviewers interested in that topic when he makes the nomination. I know that I would review more articles quicker if I were notified on my talk page by someone asking me to do it. To get reviewers to sign up we could hound the wikiprojects (not usually very productive I know), ask previous reviewers to sign up, and track down contributers with many contributions in particular areas. The topics should be more finegrained than the categories currently in use - I for example mostly take an interest in reviewing, linguistics, native american topics, sociology of religion and nojn-western anthropology, not general history or sociology topics.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Good article nominations/Topic lists already exists. Ucucha 02:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
That is not exactly what I was talking about...·Maunus·ƛ· 13:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I have contemplated reviewing an article, but that would entitle me having to back-check each source for citation accuracy, which is bor-ing. My second thing at the moment is the Signpost, but PRs are a lot more fun to do because you don't have to worry about guidelines—no offense to the GA reviewers, of course. ResMar 02:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
To a certain extent, your'e allowed to assume good faith and assume that the reference supports the statement. If that's you're only caveat, GA may be for you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I do think it is probably good to start with topics you are comfortable with, but after a while when you have a very good feel for the GA criteria you can probably do a fine job in topics you are not familiar with (unless it is a sophisticated math/legal/medical/science/etc article way over your head), and you may learn something as well! As for sources, I typically first check sources to make sure it is not a primary source (evaluate how the primary sources are used per WP policy if there is one), then I check controversial claims or stats for sources, then finally I might look up a small random sample for the more innocuous citations. I am not going to go to the library or amazon.com to get every book or look up all 100 newspaper stories in a big article. Aaron north (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll try one sometime, I suppose. Anyone want to write up a Dispatch on reviewing Good articles? That would make a good addition to the series, following the "tips for PR" one that is here right now. ResMar 15:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a time limit would be beneficial. [14] failed twice in the past 24 hours, and back up for review now. Grsz11 00:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The more I see instantaneous re-noms, the more I'm supporting this idea. It's a pain to review an article for a few hours, fail it, and see it re-nommed six hours later. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

What should I do?

An article which I nominated, Tangram, is currently "under review". Unfortunately, the reviewer simply left one comment stating some issues, which I then resolved, and then abandoned it. He has not responded to my fixes, nor has he passed or failed the article. It;s been quite a while now; Can I request the review be shifted to another reviewer, instead of just languishing? ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 21:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you should probably leave a note on the reviewer's talk page and see if he comes back in the next few days. It very well could be that he simply forgot about the review and no one gave him a ping. Aaron north (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
If no advances are made in the next few days, drop me a line and I'll take over the review. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

10,000 GAs: a time to celebrate and refocus on our mission

Congratulations to everyone involved in GA, from content contributors to reviewers. There are now more than 10,000 good articles. According to GimmeBot (see here), the 10,000th article listed as GA was Ministry of Finance (Soviet Union). Although Good articles still represent less than one percent of the encyclopedia, it is an amazing achievement to bring the number of GAs to this level while also maintaining scrutiny of quality for individual articles. (Please keep contributing to WP:GAR to ensure that weak GAs are improved or delisted.)

To go further, faster, we need to find ways to ensure that GA is accessible to anyone and that GA reviewing is lightweight. GA status is for articles which meet basic minimum standards according to the GA criteria. There should be no compromise on the GA standard, but also no requirement to go beyond it. In that way we can improve the encyclopedia by encouraging a basic level of best practice which everyone can understand. Geometry guy 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Everybody help themselves!
Also, we can't fill up on champagne without something to sponge it up. Sorry I couldn't find a diplomat or a Lady Baltimore, but this pound cake looks pretty good, too!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, 10,000 GAs! I think that this really calls for a sip and a suppet, if any milestone in Wikipedia ever did. Cheers, and long live Wikipedia-in-supreme-quality!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations to all Good Articles writers and reviewers! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Great. I'm writing the Signpost story up right now. I'm glad to have added my 8 to the bunch =) ResMar 14:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

bot problem: reading reviewer signatures

It seems that the bot doesn't read "non-standard" signatures well, failing to add the reviewer's name when marking the nomination under review on the GAN page, and showing as a malformed nomination on the report page. I have fixed two of these today, and several other recently. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A solution is instead of having the template transcribe the user's signature, it can put down the user's username and talk page in a sort of "standard signature" format. Though I have done the most I could to make signatures not be a problem for the bot. harej 02:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem mostly lies in reviewers not actually using the preformed format of the GAn page created by clicking on start review. I appreciate that the bot cannot parse all possibilities as some reviewers prefer to use their own templates. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the main problem is reviewers putting the review above the automatically generated "I am the reviewer" template. I have fixed quite a few of these by simply moving the signatature to the top. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion requested for Kenzo Tange

I would like to pass this article for GA, but I feel I had made one too many edits to it during the assessment such that I might be involved in its contents. Could someone take a quick look and see if the article is of GA-quality, or if I had overlooked something crucial. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, this article doesn't look like it would require highly specialized knowledge. I'll take a look. Aaron north (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I may as well piggyback on this and mention my Second Opinion request for Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. At this point I think I am much better at discerning a good article than when I started, but this very well-written article is intimidating with the sheer size and the controversy. I'm leaning towards passing it with a minimal amount of requested fixes from the editors but I'd feel a lot better about it if someone with more experience looked at it. I wont lie, this article is a monster and will likely require a fair bit of time for someone to adequately look through. Aaron north (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Co-nom

For future reference, how I add a co-nom to a GAN? I tried manually, but the bot overwrote my attempt. Sasata (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it is possible to do that with the current templates. I added Kevmin to the note parameter of the GAN template so that should show soon. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
And that has worked, see WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll use that parameter in the future. Sasata (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Or you can manually add the second nominator in the template after it has been substituted as was done at Talk:Live Show. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that "nominator" isn't an official position of any sort. Anyone can nom any article at any time, even if they've never edited Wikipedia before and never will again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it might still be a good idea to mention you are a co-nom somehow. I send notices to the nominators, so if it is put on a 7-day hold and one is away maybe the other will come to it. Aaron north (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

UNLV article

I am new to the GAN reviewer process and wanted to know what other more experienced editors think should happen. I reviewed the article University of Nevada, Las Vegas and ultimately failed it on October 16 as there were numerous issues that were never addressed in the 11 days it was "on hold". I just noticed today (October 18) that it was renominated yesterday after a few additions were made in the history section and a few bare links were added as sources. Most of the main issues from the first GAN are still present (citation style, lead, prose) and on first glance will fail again. It also has a "citation style" tag on the references section, which would lead to a quick fail. Should I (or someone else) go through and evaluate it again, should it be quick failed, or should the nomination just be removed? Thanks for any help. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is free to renominate an article. The next reviewer should pick up any probloems. I personally do not re-review articles that I have failed, although I think some other editors do. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't re-review articles I fail either, I would just have faith in the process. Let someone else pick it up and require improvement. (if an article I failed was quickly renomed and passed, maybe I was too strict) If I pick up a renom article that someone else reviewed and that previous review wasn't crazy, then I definitely put some weight in how the editor responded to a prior review. Even if it was a borderline issue that I myself might not have held up the article on had I reviewed it first, if a recommendation is just flat ignored without even so much as an "I disagree", I probably would fail it too. I don't think we should have a strict rule that quick renoms shouldn't be allowed because sometimes a review is done by someone who has their own nonsense rules about what a GA article should have that is only documented in their heads. If an article is incorrectly passed, it'll get reassessed down someday. Aaron north (T/C) 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Error in the Article Milestones GA

Lets take for example V for Vendetta (film) this received a GAN recently but it is not listed on the article milestones. Shouldn't a bot be doing this?--Iankap99 (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The bot had not implemented the article history, but I have done so now. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Why didn't the bot? That's my main question. Shouldn't the bot have implemented it? It's not a question about the specifics but more about the gap in the system.--Iankap99 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Quick question out of possible ignorance. This article was a GA a long time ago, then promoted to FA, then eventually demoted from FA. However, it was demoted all the way to nothing (former FA), I would have thought that it would be knocked down to GA. (in other words, FFA/GA on current status in the article milestone template when demoted?) What is the policy on that? I obviously accept the judgment of the last reviewer that it is no longer GA either (I haven't read the article), but would you not need a good article reassessment to remove GA or do you start over from scratch when you lose FA? Aaron north (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You start over from scratch when you lose FA status. Part of this is because when an article is delisted at FAR it is quite often not even of GA caliber, but also partly because when an article becomes FA it loses GA status (is removed from the list and the "this article is a Good Article" template from the talk page if there is one outside of the milestones box), so if it loses FA status there is no GA status to fall back on. Dana boomer (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, good to know. So I guess if one had a goal to improve an article from scratch to FA, they are better off just working straight towards FA. Thank you! Aaron north (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a matter of opinion as to if they are better off not bothering with the GAN process. I've found the GA reviewers to be often quite helpful in delivering the article's first formal overview, an outside opinion of quality and areas that need addressing, and that can help an editor see things beyond their own perspective, things that may have wasted time and created negativity during the FAR. I find it effective to run over an FA potential-candidate via several different avenues of review and evaluation, else I could simply be wasting my time and other people's at the top grade FA process. Not to mention, if it fails the FAR, it can hold onto its GA status, which is still a fair quality symbol in its own right. The fact that it is already a GA may influence the minds of some FA commenters as well. Kyteto (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Your ignoring my original statement, isn't it a gap in the system on why the Article milestones wasn't added.--Iankap99 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The GA bot's responsibilities do not include the milestone history at this time. The responsibilities are primarily nomination list related. harej 02:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Then who should add the milestone history?--Iankap99 (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Article History is implemented by User:GimmeBot, perhpas you should ask there. Any editor can implement or add to Article History, using the template {{ArticleHistory}}. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I brought this up in July on that talk page, no response. --Iankap99 (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-economist needed

Could someone without a background in economics, business or finance take a look at the "revenue" section of Taiwan High Speed Rail. I fear it is written in an incomprehensible manner for people without such a background, but as I have such a background myself, I need a second opinion, and feedback for what is understandable and what is not. Thanks, Arsenikk (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have offered a 2nd opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, looks quite readable to me but then I am an accountant. I invent these riddles :). I'm more concerned about duplication of info already found elsewhere, like higher-than-market interest rates, depreciation rates etc. I'd suggest trimming down "Revenues" (which is really Losses), merging it into "Management", and perhaps renaming the section into "Financial management". East of Borschov 06:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Joint Reviews

I would like to review articles, but I lack the time, experience, and depth of knowledge of the system to do so. I would be willing to do joint reviews with someone with more experience. Perhaps this would let that person be able to do more reviews because he would have help with these ones. Also, many complaints with GAR is that it is subjective to one person. This would certainly help that problem.--Iankap99 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a training system would be a good idea, if there were enough people willing to train new reviewers. DC T•C 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Ian, have you read the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and whatever pages it links as requirements? If so, and if you have a bit of commonsense, then you know enough. Give it a try. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Just dive on in. There isn't a quota, if you can only do 1 or 2 a week and it takes you 3 days to find the spare time to review an article, fine. No one will complain as long as you dont leave an article hanging. I would probably start on articles that look reasonably easy and maybe not necessarily something you are an expert in but at least within your sphere of knowledge. First check it against the "quick-fail" criteria in WP:RGA. WP:WGN is another article that helped me a lot. Some new reviewers tend to be too strict and hold articles up to a higher standard than the GA standard calls for, that article basically explains what you are looking for. You may also want to look at articles on hold just to get a feel for what other reviewers are looking for. If you have to fail an article (not fixed after hold, or too far gone to even bother with a hold), be polite and tell them specifically what needs to be fixed. If you are rude and/or vague the editors will be unhappy. Overall you just need to dive in, start slow, and just get experience. Aaron north (T/C) 05:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln GA

This isn't totally kosher, but since it's a WP:VITAL article, I'd like to make a request. Could someone take this GA with an eye towards FA, and do it over the next two weeks (instead of just one). Our (my co-nom and I) ultimate goal is to get this to FA, and I happen to have time to make improvements starting tonight and for the next 13 days. I know I should take whatever review I'm lucky enough to get, whenever I get it, but the article is so fracking long and important, it's not like most of the GAs I've done. My review to nom ratio is about 1/1 (I think I'm +1 reviews but not sure), but if someone wants to make a deal, I would be willing to do a review or two in return (Lincoln is more than twice as long as most articles, after all). Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it covered. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Space Jam

I nominated the article for GA status. I read it over, and I made a few edits to make sure that the article wasn't vandalized. Railer-man (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has been listed by the bot. It will be reviewed in due course. Have you checked whether it meets all of the good article criteria?Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback/reevaluation of the GA bot automation of WP:GAN

As promised at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Transition_FAQ, it is now time for comments on the automation of WP:GAN implemented by User:harej using User:GA bot. Obviously there were some teething problems in the first few weeks, and there may still be some things to iron out, but there have not been major problems as far as I am aware. Comments on whether the automation has been effective at saving time would be welcome, as would suggestions for improvements.

This reevaluation only concerns the GA bot automation of the GAN page (i.e., listing nominations and their current status here based on the {{GAnominee}} talk page template). Nevertheless, editors may have suggestions for further automation of GA processes. Geometry guy 20:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

From the reviewing view point the bot is generally unobtrusive and it saves having to manually update the WP:GAN list every time there is a change of status, e.g. pass, fail, hold. The various bots as a "team", however, don't seem to handle Holds too well. When an article review is initiated the bot updates WP:GAN fully; but should a Hold be placed at a later date on the review, the status on WP:GAN is updated to Hold but the original date/time stamp remains. The net effect of this is that a review that has been ongoing more than 7 days, rightly, appears in the Old reviews (Nominations that have been marked under review for 7 days or longer) subsection of Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Exceptions report; but when a Hold is placed the article appears instead in the Holds over 7 days old subsection under the original review start date and not in Old reviews subsection. I have three reviews which are more than a week old: one has been On Hold for 11 days, but is shown as being On Hold for 14 days (I don't object too strongly on this one the nominator appears to be inactive, but has been emailed); one it has only been On Hold for three days, but it is shown being On Hold for 10 days; the other has been On Hold for three days, but is shown as being On Hold for 9 days. I have no objection to them appearing in the Old reviews subsection (they don't appear) but I do object to them appearing in the Holds over 7 days old subsection under false dates. Pyrotec (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Any possibility of getting these bots to add the good article symbol on the page after it has passed, or is that excessively difficult? Would save us reviewers a lot of hassle (and I sometimes forget to add it). Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It should actually be very easy, now that I am looking at my own code. There's already a set of code for what happens when the bot detects an article that has passed review, so it's a matter of adding to that. harej 02:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I've now added it. It is designed so that if you add it yourself, the bot won't add another one. If it works, we'll know, and if it doesn't work, then we'll really know! harej 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Bam! Bam! harej 21:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty impressed, I think - it's one of the smoother pieces of automation I've seen, and it copes gracefully with the occasions when people try to do things themselves. For future features, perhaps it could automatically notify nominators when a review's begun? Shimgray | talk | 23:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I also think it is going well. Some of the complementary bots are having problems with the new system and layout of the WP:GA. At Wikipedia:Good articles/recent‎, {{u|LivingBot} sometimes goes down and does not know how to play catchup with the GAbot. Also, I think there is another bot that sometimes follows behind and updates T:AH, but it does not seem to always do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You'd think they would have had a fix queued, given that the bot was in trial for a year. harej 02:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
?!?! It wasn't the automation per se that broke LivingBot, it was the splitting of WP:GA into subsections, which I didn't even realise was in the implementation until someone pointed out LivingBot hadn't been working for two weeks... And I think we're mostly sorted now, are we not? - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 17:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
General comment: I think the automation has been a big improvement, so thanks for the code and the maintenance. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have fixed that now. The bot should pick it up within the next ten minutes or so. Sigh! if only people would read the instructions! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems unequivocally clear that there is approval for ongoing automation of the GAN page. Indeed, this discussion has resulted in another task (adding the good article icon) being automated, saving reviewer time. Concerns and requests can be raised on this page at any time. Perhaps we can also review again the entire set-up of GAN in 6 months time (late April or early May 2011). Geometry guy 23:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems tro have sorted itself out now.[16] You nominated it as Sports and recreation[17] and User:PresN sorted it.[18] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Why is the WP:Good article nominations/Report showing the nomination of The Mask of Zorro as malformed. I checked the timestamp two days ago and reformatted as per other timestamps, but the report still shows it as malformed? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed; dates need to be in dmy format for the bot (it said October 26 instead). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Doh! - missed that! Jezhotwells (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Books page links

WT:CITE#Linking to Google Books pages. RfC on whether WP:CITE should say Google Books page links are not required but are allowed in footnotes, and that editors should not go around removing them. All input welcome. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to GAN instructions = all nominators must review

Proposed change to GAN instructions = all nominators must review at least one GAN candidate, for every one article they nominate. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: this proposal arises from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Proposal_5, where I had proposed that nominators at DYK who have a number of DYKs to their name (eg 5) must review one DYK per nomination. Since Cirt has opposed that there on the basis that GA doesn't do this, his bringing the proposal here in a form I would expect to fail is good exercise for my AGF muscle...[which was not intended as an accusation of bad faith, as noted repeatedly elsewhere] Rd232 talk 13:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I am slightly sceptical about that because my experience is that many nominators are not fully aware of what quality level is expected of a GA. I would fear that the quality level of GA's would plummet as nominators would rush reviews to be able to nominate their own articles, or simply apply lower quality thresholds because they would then expect the same threshold to be applied to their articles. Maybe it should only be a requirement from nominators who have already succesfully nominated several articles (maybe three?) - that would make sure that they are aware of the expected quality. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good in theory, but how will this rule be enforced? María (habla conmigo) 13:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Ideas? -- Cirt (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not too hard: as part of the GA nomination, those with more than 5 GAs point to a GA they've recently reviewed. We'd expect people to honour the system, particularly as people would notice sooner or later if editors aren't doing it. Rd232 talk 14:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, my DYK proposal was aimed at experienced DYK participants, and reviewing DYKs is easier than reviewing GAs. So I'm less sure that this approach is a good idea for GA than it is for DYK. We could for instance work harder to bring in WikiProjects (since depth of knowledge matters more at GA than DYK). It's also a similar problem to lack of comments on RFCs; and I've suggested in the past some kind of lottery system (from a population of editors willing to be selected) to try and bring people in, and not just wait for people to wander by. But nonetheless, a requirement that people with 5 successful GA nominations at least contribute to reviewing one GA per future nomination, even if not taking sole responsibility for a review, could work. If the requirement is relatively "soft" in this way, rather than demanding the entire shepherding of a GA through the review process qua primary reviewer, it's not so onerous, and more of a nudge in the direction of what's needed. Rd232 talk 13:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had 13 DYKs, yet I know for a fact that I don't want to review DYK noms; I'm not too interested in the process and there seem to be a group of "regulars" who know what they're doing. However, I review at least one GAC for every nomination I make, because I feel more strongly about the process; same with FAC. I suspect there are other editors who don't review GAs/FAs simply because they don't want to, or don't know how to. Therefore, I can see how this proposed rule wouldn't work. Reviewers may be hard to come by, but rather than creating a faster turn-around time, this proposed rule may only force people away. Personally, I could see it being recommended that nominators review an article or two while theirs waits in the queue, but to force them to prove they're reviewing articles creates a sense of burden. Burden does not equal fun for a lot of editors who find writing articles more enjoyable than reviewing them. Perhaps if they are somehow forced to review articles, they simply wouldn't nominate at GAC. María (habla conmigo) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I know, I've had several DYKs and contributed only a little reviewing; but that's how the problem there comes about, especially when you have a DYK daily quota. On reviewing GAs - I don't think requiring experienced GA nominators to contribute a little to reviewing need be that much of a disincentive, if it's explicitly phrased so that they contribute as much or as little as they want to any given review. Getting someone with 5 GAs to pick a GA they find vaguely interesting and read it and say something constructive should not be that onerous. We could also ease in the requirement very very gently and see how it goes; say one (large or small) review contribution per 5 successful GA nominations... which concretely requires hardly anything, but gets people thinking and looking for articles they might be interested in reviewing in order to get one done. Rd232 talk 14:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting and actually ties into an idea I had a while ago on setting up a GA "karma" tracking system. Right now we have a bot that updates WP:GAN based on reading the {{GAN}} template on article talk pages. Could we set up the bot to record on a page when an editor:

  1. transcludes {{GAN}} (thus becoming the GA nominator), and
  2. creates the GA review subpage (thus becoming the GA reviewer)?

It can then be visible to everyone the difference between the number of GA nominations and GA reviews an individual editor has done. I think if this is put in place it won't be necessary to explicitly mandate that a user must review a GAN for every article nominated; the visibility will encourage editors to do reviews to keep their "GA karma" in balance or on the side of reviews. –Grondemar 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's much merit to this idea of "GA karma", and agree with all you've written above. Another bonus is that it requires no change to the current reviewing system. Just have the bot keep track of names on a separate page, and those who submit excessive articles without doing reviews will quickly find their articles are ignored in the queue. Count me as a supporter. Sasata (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
But would they really? I certainly don't choose which articles to review based on how many the nominator has reviewed; I base my choices on whether the topic is interesting or not. If someone writes several articles relating to aviation (a topic in which I am interested), but does not review any other articles, I will still review their article because I find other articles less interesting, and therefore I do not wish to spend the time going through them with a fine tooth comb. Put simply, I cannot see many people deciding which articles to review based on how many articles the nominator has reviewed. wackywace 17:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps not (unless there are equally interesting articles with different karma scores prominently displayed, which may not happen too often), but a low "karma" score would, especially if there's a backlog, give a certain moral pressure to look harder for some vaguely interesting articles to review. It may not be enough on its own, but it would be a helpful complement to any requirement, and certainly a good start on its own. Rd232 talk 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
You might not check the karma list before picking an article to review, but I would, and others would as well. I think this would introduce a subtle (beneficial) shift in the reviewing equilibrium without requiring any drastic measures. Sasata (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
While I'm only one person, I have been recently reviewing articles of editors that have been doing reviews. That is why I did Grondemar's "2010 PapaJohns.com Bowl", FencesandWindow's "The Story of Marie and Julien", and CrowRZA's "Me Against the World". --maclean (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that flat out requiring every nominator to review another nomination is a bad idea. Firstly, not all nominators are confident about reviewing, and it can take a while to get your head around the criteria. I didn't feel confident about reviewing until I'd had a few articles go through the process, and followed a number of reviews done by experienced reviewers. I've also seen a few reviews by less-experienced reviewers that either aren't thorough enough, or are focusing on things not strictly covered by the criteria. It's certainly been a learning curve for me, but I dread to think what kind of reviewer I'd be if I'd been forced to review nominations back when I made my first nomination. Secondly, everyone here is a volunteer. Presumably most of us come here because we enjoy it. Some people don't enjoy reviewing, and forcing them to do so will just make them stop taking apart in the process altogether. That would help the backlog, but not the project as a whole.
However, we do need more reviewers. I think it would be a good idea to encourage experienced nominators to take part in reviewing. Also, perhaps we should make the step into reviewing a bit easier. I've heard quite a few people say that they just don't feel confident enough to do it. Perhaps we could encourage more mentoring or joint reviews, where a new reviewer does a review and has a more experienced reviewer take a look and make suggestions as necessary. I understand the impracticalities of having reviews checked by a second reviewer en masse, but perhaps having some more experienced reviewers volunteering to help mentor 1st-timers would help encourage more people to take part. Basically, taking "You may also ask for the advice of a mentor" and making it a more prominent part of the process.--BelovedFreak 17:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The proposal should be understood as on the general idea, not "from the first nomination", which is fairly obviously silly. Hence my suggestion to start from 5 successful nominations, and also to not expect people to do sole reviews, but contribute something. That helps ease people in, since it implies some collaboration with other, probably more experienced, reviewers. Rd232 talk 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree. I was responding to people's comments in general, but also to Cirt's initial proposal, which made it sound like "from the first nomination". --BelovedFreak 18:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Interestingly this proposal appears to come from someone who does not do WP:GAN reviews, or at least does not appear to have done any in October or November 2010. A crackpot idea. Pyrotec (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't wish to get involved in a dispute with any particular editor(s). I would suggest that if individuals are concerned about a backlog in WP:GAN then they accept personal responsibility and do some reviews. This proposal and some of the comments above appear to put the "blame" for the backlog on the nominators and therefore seeks to force nominators to fix the problem, i.e. you can't nominate any more until you review some. The use of emotive words such as free rider is not helpful; and I fail to see how producing an article to getting it through GA is "free riding". Pyrotec (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • (EC) How is a term "free rider" more emotive than "crackpot idea"? Contrary to what you've written above, the idea doesn't "force" anyone to do anything, no "blame" is being ascribed. Again, if you don't like the idea, fine, but why deny others the chance to implement it if they feel it will help reduce the GA backlog? Sasata (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm against this proposal. First, how can we prevent 'tit for tat' from occurring? The last thing I want to see is editor A promotes a sub-par article written by editor B, and at the same time editor B promotes a sub-par article written by editor A. You know, it happened before (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide question #15). Second, some people are good writers but not good reviewers. If we enforce this rule, then we're inviting poorly written articles into the system as approved by those reviewers. Third, I don't want to see noms being ignored simply because that person nominates an "X" amount of articles but doesn't review as much. In fact, ignoring is the worst approach because this person won't come back to nominate more even if there are indeed articles out there which meets the criteria. While it's a net-positive to the GA system, it's a net-negative to the entire project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • On your last sentence: that situation is only a net positive to the GA project if you think that the project's goal is to have a short list of articles waiting for reviewers, rather than an accurate identification of all GA-meeting articles out there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Projects don't nominate articles. Editors nominate articles; and in my experience the nominator usually (but not always) fixes any problems that arise. I've almost never seen a project fix problems. Pyrotec (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose requiring anyone to review GAs. The very furthest down that road that I'm willing to go is a friendly, non-coercive message to frequent nominators that invites them to voluntarily review nominations (on the grounds that they are clearly so familiar with the criteria, not because they owe the process anything).
    I would be happy to have some statistics that show who is nomming/reviewing. Perhaps seeing that a significant number of people do both, and that there are some reviewers who never or rarely nom articles, and that most articles are not nominated by someone with five successful GAs, would put this "free rider" notion to rest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I also oppose requiring anyone to review GAs. The karma system, in effect, serves as the "gentle reminder" you suggest. Sasata (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well I've done over 320 GAN reviews and I seldom nominate. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this thread needs some re-factoring; I don't think Pyrotec, OhanaUnited and WhatamIdoing are responding to Grondemar's proposal. I like the idea because there is no enforcement and no extra rule or extra work. It is simply a list or monobook feature that illustrates a user's 'GA karma' kept up-to-date by bot. Preventing 'tit for tat' is a much larger issue. How does the current system prevent 'tit for tat'? -maclean (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
      • The top of this section states: "Proposed change to GAN instructions = all nominators must review at least one GAN candidate, for every one article they nominate [after they reach an agreed level of experience, eg 5 successful GA nominations". It did not orginate from Grondemar, it seems to have been proposed by Rd232 at DYK and appears to a proposal being forced on GAN. I will continue to strong protest against it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a better idea guys. Perhaps we can just note somewhere that doing reviews makes it more likely that your articles will be reviewed in a timely manner. No more, no less. I can speak from experience, my articles are generally reviewed pretty fast, as are Sasata's, to use another example. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

!Votes Subhead struck. WP:NOTAVOTE isn't negated by cutely putting ! in front of "vote". Rd232 talk 21:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose While I have reviewed five or six good articles and nominated around the same number, I think that actually forcing people to review nominations is unfeasible. I support the idea of a "karma" scale, which can be viewed by everyone, as I think this would undoubtedly increase willingness to review articles, since I know I wouldn't want everyone knowing that I was spending time writing and not reviewing. I oppose forcing people to review articles, since we have some excellent content contributors who would be spending their time much more wisely by doing something they are good at, and thus increasing the quality of the encyclopedia. To actually force them to review articles would be wasting their time, but encouraging editors to do so is an excellent idea and, in addition to a "karma" meter, what we should be discussing here is how to effectively encourage people to review articles, rather than force them. wackywace 18:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose for the reasons given by OhanaUnited. I'm against this proposal. i.e. First, how can we prevent 'tit for tat' from occurring? The last thing I want to see is editor A promotes a sub-par article written by editor B, and at the same time editor B promotes a sub-par article written by editor A. You know, it happened before (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide question #15). Second, some people are good writers but not good reviewers. If we enforce this rule, then we're inviting poorly written articles into the system as approved by those reviewers. Third, I don't want to see noms being ignored simply because that person nominates an "X" amount of articles but doesn't review as much. In fact, ignoring is the worst approach because this person won't come back to nominate more even if there are indeed articles out there which meets the criteria. While it's a net-positive to the GA system, it's a net-negative to the entire project. Pyrotec (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "forcing" or "requiring" GA reviews for reasons given above, strongly support "encouraging" reviews with gentle, friendly social pressure. Sasata (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Karma system. I will try to implement it. Expect no perfection or ability to account for the past. harej 18:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: GAN is a deliberately lightweight process, the seemingly continually proposals by some to require nominators to review, etc. is all rather pointless. If editors think that there is a problem, they can resolve it themselves by going out and reviewing some nominations rather than wasting everyone's time with yet more bureaucratic proposals. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think 'forcing' people to review articles will lead to all sorts of problems. Cavie78 (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above Aaroncrick TALK 22:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose and the karma system doesn't work YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I respectfully defer to the above consensus expressed by the community. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Reboot

HALT Do NOT pass Go, do not collect $200, do not read the first few words of this thread and then !vote accordingly. Please read my comment.

Comment. If User:Cirt did intend to torpedo this idea by presenting in a form unlikely to succeed [I'm assuming he didn't intend that Rd232 talk 11:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)], that would seem to have been a success. Because as soon as a badly put proposal reaches the WP:TLDR stage people stop reading the discussion, where the idea may be refined, and vote (sorry !vote) on the initial presentation alone. Here, for instance, I, who actually thought it was a good idea for DYK and possibly helpful for GA, have tried very specifically to argue that the requirement should not involve lead responsibility for reviewing; input to any review should be acceptable, however minimal, as at least making an effort and a step in the right direction. As I said above, this would encourage collaborative reviewing for those new to it, those not good at it who never will be can make small contributions and others will gradually get their feet wet and later graduate to being primary reviewer. And of course, to emphasise, this would only apply after an agreed experience level; I've suggested 5 successful GA nominations. Now, I think that sounds a lot more appealing than Cirt's presentation, but at this point the well is somewhat poisoned. Anyone got chlorine tablets? Rd232 talk 21:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that five (successful) nominations makes anyone a competent reviewer at WP:GAN. I'd go further than that, I'm fairly certain that by the time I'd completed my first five GAN reviews, which took place over a fortnight or so, I was still a novice reviewer. I've seen quite a few incompetent reviews by editors who aught not be to doing reviews (I'm not naming them, but they can be found in the archives of this and similiar talkpages); but the vast majority of reviews are reasonable or better, some very good. Pyrotec (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Per the reboot, and doing my best to agree with both rd232 and pyrotec: at the moment, [[WP:GAN] page section "How to nominate an article" has only this text, embedded in a para near the end of the instructions: "If you are a registered user, you are encouraged to help by reviewing other articles." I notice harej has made a comment about implementing karma system. Not sure what s/he means, but harej's has a good record on implementing improvements, so would like to see what they have in mind. I wonder if tweaking the top box might be a start:

Good article nominations

Good article nominations
Good article nominations

Wikipedia:Good articles is a list of articles that meet a core set of editorial standards but are not featured article quality. This page provides a list of articles which have been nominated for consideration for good article status, as well as instructions for nominators and reviewers. Articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article. There are currently 696 nominations listed and 599 waiting to be reviewed. Please consider reviewing an article against the good article criteria now.

Beyond karma-encouraging changes, I don't think there's a lot we should do. We have versions of this discussion pretty regularly, and it tends to always come back to the facts that not all reviewers are writers or vice versa; that the whole project is voluntary, so such injunctions can have negative effects as well as positive ones; and that it isn't always clear that there is a problem anyway. I can see issues looming at DYK, and I feel for the editors trying to work things through there, but I don't think introducing this kind of standard across the two platforms is the way to go. The backlog here at GAN appears basically in a long-run equilibrium, and the last exercise we went through to clear it was a huge success (kudos once again to the lead actors, particularly Jezhotwells, Pyrotec, SMasters, Wizardman and Canadian Paul), showing we have the capacity to address spikes and accumulated noms. The issues at DYK are different and, i have to say, much more challenging. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As with many others, I am opposed to requiring nominators to review. It would lead to distortions in the system and conflicts of interest.
However, asking/encouraging nominators to comment on open reviews would have several benefits. First, nominators would learn about reviewing and hence be more likely to become reviewers and/or better nominators. Second, it would encourage a greater feeling that while GAN reviews are decided by one editor, all contributions to the review process are welcome to help that editor make a good decision. Geometry guy 23:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for those thoughtful comments. I'm quite happy to use a "nudge" approach (prominently encouraging) rather than any formal requirement. Done right it might be very effective in getting the advantages we want without the disadvantages. Rd232 talk 00:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the main thing in terms of how to nudge is to make clearer the expectation (or at least hope) that experienced GA contributors do contribute something to reviewing. It would probably help to say something explicitly about easing into reviewing through collaboration rather than as primary reviewer. Rd232 talk 11:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
discussion about some comments, not about the issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note on above bad faith comments by User
Rd232

I did indeed post the above suggested proposal here for discussion after Rd232 (talk · contribs) addressed a comment to me at WT:DYK which stated: "If you're suddenly keen on improving GA, go propose something there, and drop a link here. Thanks." Then, after I followed the advice of Rd232 (talk · contribs), the user seemingly flip-flopped or somehow forgot that it was he himself that suggested this to me, and commented that my posting here was somehow, "good exercise for my AGF muscle". Let me emphasize this: I think this was a very good discussion and a proposal that at the very least, did indeed merit this discussion. And let me also emphasize that I personally for myself - do indeed try to review at least one GA candidate for every one that I self-nominate. I do not expect or demand this behavior of others - but I do try to maintain this review practice, for myself. So to say the least, I am extremely disappointed by the bad faith and hypocritical comments above by Rd232 (talk · contribs). I did indeed post here after a suggestion by Rd232 (talk · contribs) that I do so, but I also strongly felt that it was a discussion worth having, and a proposal to be considered and discussed on its merits. The community clearly has expressed a consensus viewpoint about it, and I of course respectfully defer to that consensus of the community. -- Cirt (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AAGF. I said it was good exercise for my AGF muscle, not that I'd sprained it. Rd232 talk 11:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully request you to please strikeout those inappropriate comments above, especially in light of the fact that it was you yourself that suggested that I post here to this talk page in the first place. -- Cirt (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Equally respectfully, I don't think it's necessary to strike, it is not an accusation. To be somewhat clearer, the reason it was good exercise is because the concept at DYK, as I'd suggested it there, clearly involved experienced DYK contributors (by some agreed measure). It is obvious that experience is more important in GA reviewing than DYK reviewing, yet your GA version of the DYK idea omitted this. My remarks were intended to declare that I was accepting that as good faith error, but that it took some effort to do so because it's a glaring error and you had opposed the idea at DYK. Rd232 talk 11:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
My proposal was just that, a proposal to start a discussion. It was not in any way a formalized proposal structure. I have actually changed my mind at DYK - I agree with most of your proposals there. Your tone and bad faith nature, combined with your flip-flopping and hypocrisy throughout this entire process - even while I have simultaneously reversed my positions to agree with you, and followed your own suggestions to post to this talk page - is most inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
If you pay attention to what I've actually said, there is no flipflopping or hypocrisy. There is also no distinction between a formal and an informal proposal; the way things work around here with new ideas (as you ought to know) you basically have to present things pretty well initially; collectively people tend to oppose ideas that sound bad and leave it at that rather than run with it and explore the associated problems and possible solutions (it takes some motivated individuals to break that collective tendency - we had some of that here, but it's always a battle). Rd232 talk 11:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
My initial post was a request for a discussion to take place. -- Cirt (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Guys, cool down. I think we all get a general gist of what occurred and how feathers may have been ruffled but from my reading it probably wasn't done in bad faith—more likely a poor choice of words on one side that the other party felt had to be responded to—so let's nip this in the bud before the mud really starts flying shall we? Lambanog (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you, Lambanog (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you to Rd232 (talk · contribs) for the strikeout [19]. Most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking over a GA review

User:Special Cases has been blocked indefinitely from Wiki having started a GA review of "Too Much (Spice Girls song)" - what do I need to do to take over given the new automatic system? Thanks! Cavie78 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just replace where it says Reviewer: with your sig. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, wasn't sure if there needed to be a record that I'd taken it over or not. Cavie78 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a good idea to report it here, with reasons, as you have done, thanks. Geometry guy 01:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Replacing the sig doesn't seem to have made a difference to the GA noms page... Cavie78 (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
To save time each update cycle, the bot caches certain details. I think the reviewer is one such detail. I'll update the database. harej 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Cavie78 (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification please?

I recently posted an article to GAN. It was reviewed and stipulations made in the 'broad in coverage' criterion that are impossible to fulfill. I withdrew the article for this reason. Later I noticed a FAILED tag on the article's discussion page. There's no procedural rule about failing an article that's been withdrawn. I need some clarification on this. In the future I will not send articles to GAN if they're going to be failed because a reviewer's demands in my opinion cannot be met. Here's a few posts between the reviewer and the nominator:

  • I've withdrawn this nomination because I won't be able to do the research in the next 7 days. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(The reviewer offered the nominator more than the 7 days at this point.)

  • No, I don't think granting more time would help. To meet the broad in coverage requirement a considerable amount of time would be needed for the research, and, frankly, I cannot invest that amount of time in research that in my estimation will end without producing any significant results. Potter's design is 100+ years old, was never published, and, for that reason, had no impact on the world of board games in general. It was simply a typical chase game using Peter Rabbit as a motif -- a spinoff to indulge Peter Rabbit fans and a gimmick Potter devised to promote sales of her books. Eventually the motif was used to save Warnes from complete ruin. If reviews of the game or its impact on board game culture are not found in materials about Potter I doubt if they will be found anywhere, and, while other Peter Rabbit games have been published since the original, it is doubtful whether they owe much to Mary Warne's version. If they do, it is unlikely reliable secondary sources will be found establishing a connection. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Alright. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(The article was then Failed by a "Brad" something or other. I removed the Failed tag because there is no rule covering this sort of thing. The tag was returned by Cirt.)

Thanks. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no tag for withdrawn, as far as i know, so failed is used in place of that, since they're technically the same thing. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The rules need to state this: "Articles withdrawn after being reviewed and before a decision on pass/fail has been made will be failed." In the future, I will not review GANs or send articles to GAN for review. I feel that as a nominator I am being punished for withdrawing my article. The article was withdrawn because the reviewer posed requirements for passing that were impossible to meet in reliable sources. At this point there is no written rule on this and imho the article should be left as "withdrawn" and no further pass/fail action taken. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If the reviewer failed the article for unreasonable reasons take the article to WP:GAR and request that the article be reinstated at WP:GAC with the original date priority. Make it clear that the article adheres to all elements of WP:WIAGA and note the unreasonable demand.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Per above explanation to the GA nominator that the revert at the article talk page removing all history of the prior review was inappropriate, I have added its history, back [20]. -- Cirt (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, GAR could help.
This sort of thing usually comes up because the reviewer is unfamiliar with the subject and has no idea what the sources say. It's easy to imagine that whatever detail piques your own curiosity must have (somehow, magically) been covered by reliable sources, and that its omission means the article is therefore significantly incomplete. A while ago, a reviewer was pushing for a detailed description of the dinner menu at an article about an award.
You might also like to read WP:What the Good article criteria are not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a current GAR about an unreasonable request at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dan Cocoziello/1. The reviewer wants an expanded professional career section for Dan Cocoziello, but he has essentially done nothing as a pro so there is no encyclopedic content to add. He has only played in 8 professional games and scored no goals. I am requesting that the review be overturned.This is what I am suggesting. I have done this recently before with Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/B. J. Prager/1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The reason I added the failed template, is so that the GA review is properly archived and available from the article history. Exactly the same reason that FA nominations are archived, rather than failed. Perhaps the GA wording ought to be changed to be the same as FA and be changed to archived / not promoted rather than failed. Brad78 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
{{FailedGA}} is just the historical name of the template. It does not actually state that the article was failed rather than withdrawn, but I'm not against changing the name or wording of the template. I have replaced it with the ArticleHistory equivalent, which states, more clearly, that the article was "not listed". Geometry guy 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Asking the other parent ?

If a GA nominator does not like the particular GA Review they got or the fact that the first GA Review failed - are they allowed to simply "withdraw" it, after the first GA Review was completed, and immediately submit it through for another "first" GA Review - instead of going through the standard WP:GAR process? Please see [21], followed immediately by [22]. -- Cirt (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Karma system

This comment [23] by Grondemar (talk · contribs), followed by this one [24] from harej (talk · contribs), do indeed sound promising. Perhaps we should have a more focused discussion, on how this could be implemented? -- Cirt (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If editor/users choose to do so they can add the necessary symbols on their Userpage: such as
This user has helped promote 10 good articles on Wikipedia.
,
This user has reviewed 10 Good Article nominations on Wikipedia.
. Interesting Grondemar uses both, you have the former, but not the latter and I have both; but I don't see it is necessary for a bot to add it to some talkpage. Pyrotec (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
One think I worry on a Karma system, is that it implies one role is worth more than the other. While I appreciate that reviewing is a time-consuming and trying activity, trying to gauge the worthiness and quality of the article and if it meets certain styling/formatting rules; the work faced by both sides of nominating and reviewing is quite variable. While I tend to spend weeks getting an article up to scratch ahead of a nomination, another user might not contribute anything at all to an article and nominate it anyway. I've seen both, I would say that dragging an article that's being lingering in a half-way decent quality up to an inarguably better one can be far harder and time consuming than reviewing it. Likewise, reviewing an article in depth is way harder than the nominators who didn't really do anything at all to their articles, and considerably harder than reviewers who simply sign off on an article without any personal observations.
I'm known, at least I think that I am, for spending a great deal of time trying to recreate articles in need of overhauling, and it can be the most extensive work an article has ever recieved. I often get help from others these days, but I cannot always count on that. I just wished to point out that the reviewer doesn't always get the hardest part of the article, a decent nominator should be working away long before the nomination; on both sides there are those who do things with effort and those who do the bare minimum. I'm opposed to using a system that forces nominators to be reviewers (or vise versa) because some editors are great at reviewing, and others are great at producing content ready for nomination. It does some good to be reviewing occasionally, I have participated a few times in the reviewing side, but I think my heart is better placed on content development and bringing high quality entries to the attention of reviewers, I feel that I accomplished more going along that route. These are my thoughts on the issue. Kyteto (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Waiting to hear back from harej (talk · contribs), but I do not think having a bot compile statistics would change any existing process. More information being made available, is a good thing. -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Would delisting an article from GAN count towards the magic number? I'm not proposing anything bean-related, just observing that quite a few GAN candidates are so far from standard that they there's no need to pretend that the nominator can improve them in reasonable time. Better remove them then clutter the desk and complain about backlog. East of Borschov 16:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
IMO if you produce a formal, organized "review" that explains, point by point, how the article fails the six criteria, then yes, you've reviewed it, and it "counts". If you just remove the entry from this page and leave a quick note ("There's no way this totally unreferenced article meets the criteria!"), then I don't think that counts as having properly reviewed it. (IMO it does count as a valuable service to this page and the community.) I expect editors to use their own best judgment in deciding how to classify encounters between the two extremes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And all these arguments brought up complicates the karma system. If it were to be made automatic, then it would give undue credit in certain places and not recognize hard work in other area. Until I was reminded of this fact, my idea is that my bot would tabulate instances where a person made a nomination and then instances where a person reviewed. This is easily done because the bot has to recognize it anyway. However, that might not be fair since it ignores the factor of who is doing the work and favors being able to transclude templates or starting up review pages. Thus this system would either need to be more sophisticated in its automation or be largely manual. harej 19:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

We could try it with the bot, and see how it works as a trial run? -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that there is any agreement to do so. The section above seems to indicate strong objections to "forcing" nominators into reviewing articles. This appears to be a back door way of "embarrassing" nominators into reviewing articles and/or reviewers into submitting nominations. Interestingly you have not implemented it yourself (see User:Cirt), Grondemar has (see User:Grondemar/Contributions) so have others. Many of whom objected above to your proposal of "forcing" nominators into reviewing articles. Pyrotec (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, and pressure to do reviews will result in an increased number of bad reviews. Resolute 22:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I am not completely against compiling statistics, but using and interpreting those statistics to influence reviewing behaviour is likely to distort the process and damage its integrity (for example, tit for tat reviews happened in the past, and were very damaging to the reputation of GA).
The status of GA depends upon its integrity: I hardly need to emphasise in current times just how important integrity is, but single-minded determination to stick to one's goals is key to earning and keeping respect. In our case, the determination is to list as GA precisely those articles which meet the GA criteria and not list those which don't. Any proposals should be evaluated against that goal. Geometry guy 00:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Let me clarify: The request to compile statistics is only for that, to view the statistics. This is not to be used in conjunction with any form of pressure, merely to have the information available and compiled in such a fashion. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What would be the point of collecting statistics if not for some form of peer pressure? harej 01:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Information, for those who desire it - for example to check for themselves and their own prior activity. -- Cirt (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
And also to poke people to review when the reviewed count gets as low as it did. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Much of that information is already available, voluntarily provided by the users. Cirt, for instance, is a member of WP:Good Articles, chooses to record on his usepage the number of articles contributed to FAC, GAN and DYK, not not how many GANs reviewed; did not appear to particate in GA/Sweeps (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total); did not participate in the 2009 GAN backlog elimination drive (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009); nor in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010). If the plan is to name and shame people and/or poke them. We have an example here. Pyrotec (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Pyrotec (talk · contribs), perhaps you could keep your comments focused on general policy applications, and not individual users? I have stated above already on this talk page that I do try to review at least one GA candidate for every one I nominated - sometimes more than one. The "plan" is to collect statistical data. Nothing more. -- Cirt (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Its been made clear above that its to poke people. If you object to your own information being interpreted in the way that I did above then you should not seek to collect data about editors that nominate and review articles at WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
No. Apparently you failed to recognize my comment above, [25]. I purely wish to view this statistical data for its own informative purpose, nothing else. Pyrotec, you seem to have an inability to make your point without going after and attacking and singling out individual editors with specific and individual negative commentary about individual contributors. That is inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Cirt has objected both above and on my talkpage to my interpretation of data voluntarily provided by editors. Let's be perfectly clear. Cirt's proposal is to collect and used data on editors nominating and reviewing articles at WP:GAN. None of the editors those editors have been ask to provide assent for their data to be used. Pyrotec (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrong again. I only wish for the data to be collected. -- Cirt (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, None of the editors those editors have been ask to provide assent for their data to be Collected: and what is the point of collecting data if it is not to be used (and, what about ...."And also to poke people to review when the reviewed count gets as low as it did. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)"....). Pyrotec (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
That is not my view. That is the view of Wizardman (talk · contribs). An interesting one, but not my words. -- Cirt (talk) 10:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My words of consolation are that if I were to set up such a listing, it would be done in an impartial way as to not advance some kind of karma system. harej 11:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you are intending to set up a listing (see User talk:harej#Karma system) that intention should be clearly stated on the WP:GAN page so that all nominators and reviewers are aware that data about their activities is being logged. It should also be made clear from the start what the intended use is. It is not really acceptable for one or two editors to come to some private agreement (see User talk:harej#Karma system), e.g. that its good to see the data; and then at a later date to start using it to bully or "encourage" editors to "balance" their nomination/review ratios to that which has been agreed elsewhere, such as on the DYK talkpage, etc. Pyrotec (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Quoting the disclaimer present in the editing window before users' save their edits: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." -- Cirt (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with re-use of written. It is about policy on WP:GAN being decided by one or two contributors on Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Changing DYK, discussed above in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Proposed change to GAN instructions = all nominators must review nominations & Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Karma system and then arrangements made for it's implementation in user-space for the benefit of Cirt and Wizardman (see User talk:harej#Karma system) with corresponding assurances from two of the three particiants that such a system is merely for data collection, or if such a system were to be set up..... Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. It is about data collection. It is not about any change to policy. The proposed change was abandoned, per my comments in view of community consensus which I respected, here [26]. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrong again. The request was made by Cirt on behalf of Cirt and Wizardman "I, for one, know that it would be interesting to see such data. Apparently Wizardman (talk · contribs) would also find it useful. That makes at least two editors that would like to see it. Separate from any discussion over applications to processes, could you at least place this info within a subpage of your userspace, to be made available to satisfy the curiosity of users such as myself and Wizardman? -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)" Cirt has stated .... "Information, for those who desire it - for example to check for themselves and their own prior activity" and Wizardman has stated .... "And also to poke people to review when the reviewed count gets as low as it did". Those are incompatible objectives, if the aim is only to see one's own data, the only person that can be poked when the review count is low is oneself, provided that the system only supplies data on one's own contribution. Similarly, if the aim to only to one's own data then the system could quite openly sit on one's own talkpage, not placed in Harej's page under a neutral name like "Review statistics". As a stated sometime ago some editors provide that information freely on their talkpage (mine in respect of views is at User:Pyrotec/GA reviews) I don't need to navigate to Harej's talk to find a hidden tool in "Review statistics" to find my own data, or to poke myself when review counts get low; however, perhaps I should expect to get a poke to nominate articles when the GAN review list is considered by DYK to be too short. Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Easily addressed. The statistics could be provided to any user upon self-request, as an opt-in basis. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've having problems finding a policy to cover this: but it seems to come under Wikipedia:Bot policy. One stated aim is data collection on WP:GAN (Cirt) and another is to see one's own data (Cirt). Another aim might be to see other people's data as a way of managing (in someway yet to be agreed) their GAN nomination/review ratio. So the "solution" is for each GAN nominator/reviewer to opt in, if they so wish, thereby making their data available to anyone who might poke them if their nomination/review ratio is considered to be "wrong". Fine: then the bot needs the necessary approval (I assume) and that option of opting in or out needs to be placed on (possibly) WP:GAN so that each nominator/reviewer is given that choice. Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, if this is going to be a political football, then I'll deem it not worth a minute of my time. I have far better things to do. harej 21:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If it is opt-in, then it should not be. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
As it stands this is neither a political football, nor a productive discussion, as it has primarily been a to-and-fro between two editors with opposing views. If this thread is going to go anywhere rather than die, then other views are needed on whether it would be helpful or appropriate to collect data on nominating and reviewing. Data can be helpful, but can also be misused. Geometry guy 01:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
While I do think it would be useful, Geometry guy's point above is good as well. Above it seems like the discussion's just went back and forth between two now, that's not gonna create anything productive. Can it be used to show who's reviewing and who isn't? Yes. It could also show people we could note when GA reviews are slow or an elimination drive's coming up. It really depends deep down why we want the data that will determine if we should even get it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm try to be somewhat neutral here. Any editor can choose on their user page to include various affiliations (WPs, etc), numbers/lists of (successful) FAs, GAs, DYKs, GA reviews, GA sweeps, etc: some do, some do. That is a personal choice. Individual editors can opt into X!'s Edit Counter, again on a personal choice basis, and those standing for Admin, etc, are asked to do so for at least the duration of their nomination. The question of "balance" comes up very frequently on this talkpage (see the archives), e.g. should multiple-submissions be encouraged/allowed, is WikiCup a good/bad thing for this project, should nominators try to come to neutral balance, i.e. one review for one nomination, is one review equivalent to one review: I'm not going answer any of these here? A bot-owner is being asked to produce a bot to collect data, but the parameters have not been agreed here and there are diverging aims, "including see my own personal date", to encourage/bash those considered to be "abusing" (purposely vague here) the GAN process; and we already have the bot-produced Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report, with its "Exception" section, long reviews and long holds are listed (but some of the dates, I believe, are wrong). Signpost has also been suggested as a way of getting more GAN reviewers, "we have a bot-friendly system, its easier now than before" (my words, not necessarily those being used). The "open" way would be to add that additional data collection on WP:GAN has been requested, but the parameters are not yet agreed by this project, for example, what data, future/present/historical data? That data resource could be used for various purposes, including management of the project (currently undefined); but also to obtain information on individual editors, posssibly with or without their knowledge, which they may or may not choose to place on their userpage. The "open" way would be for the project to define what data is to be collected and what it legitimately could be used for; I beleive this should happen before the data is collected, not after a system has been produced for private viewing; and to also inform all affected nominators/reviewers, not just those who read this talkpage. Pyrotec (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I came across this discussion by accident. I won't be participating at GAN if this system comes into operation. While I enjoy writing I leave reviewing to editors who want to review not those forced into it. I think it's an appalling idea and likely to result in fewer Good Articles.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Retaliation GA reviewing appropriate ?

In response to my review of an article nominated by Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs), Talk:The Game of Peter Rabbit/GA1, the GA nominator immediately went and posted a negative review of an article I had posted as a GA candidate, at Talk:Don't Forget the Bacon!/GA1. I request that someone else please do this review. Should the GAN nominations process be used in this type of retaliatory fashion? Is this type of behavior appropriate? -- Cirt (talk) 09:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is absolutely not acceptable. A retaliatory GA review is deliberate disruption of Wikipedia and a blatant assumption of bad faith. Such a review does not contribute anything to community spirit or the amount of recognised high quality content on Wikipedia. However, I certainly don't think that Susanne's review of Don't Forget the Bacon! is "negative". A "negative" review would be one that simply says the article is of a poor quality. Susanne has given relevant constructive criticism, which, for the most part, I agree with and, had I conducted the review, would have likely pointed out myself. Admittedly, having reviewed the discussions about Talk:The Game of Peter Rabbit/GA1, Susanne has a "motive" to carry out a derogatory review, I don't think she has. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific as to how you consider the review to be "negative"? Regards, wackywace 09:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
See above. Instead of posting to WP:GAR and following normal processes, Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs) attempted to do an end-run-around, asking the other parent. It is not appropriate to push a failed GA Review under the carpet as if it did not happen, repost to GAN, and immediately expect another reviewer, if you are not happy with the first review. This, combined with this type of snarky commenting by Susanne2009NYC, shows the retaliatory nature of the whole process. Not to mention the timing of Susanne2009NYC's selection of the GA candidate. I respectfully request another different GA Reviewer. -- Cirt (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely aware of the GAR process and only posted again to GAN because I've seen the same thing done at GAN by others. I assumed it was normal procedure. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the first GAN states that you break off the review for another reviewer because of "unreasonable expectations". Let's not go overboard, this is game from the early 20th century with apparently very little info on it in reliable sources. It's not unreasonable to expect an article to conform to the GA criteria regardless of how old the subject matter is and some articles simply don't have enough coverage in sources to get them to GA level. Shopping around for another reviewer won't change that. That said, while the comment on Susanne's review linked by Cirt looks like an example for someone not being removed from another contributor the rest of the review seems not out of the ordinary. It's sad this became a clash. Hekerui (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this: (some articles simply don't have enough coverage in sources to get them to GA level.) I don't really agree with that. If a subject passes notability and is stable, then it should theoretically be possible for any subject with any amount of existing and available coverage to reach GA status. Criteria 3 is not "I believe an article about X absolutely must have Y in it, and if a Y source on your subject about X does not exist and likely never will exist, then it can't ever pass". Specifically in WP:WGN, I refer to this point under "mistakes to avoid" on criteria 3: ("Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources.") I believe to fail on coverage on something, coverage on that thing must at least, at a minimum, exist. Aaron north (T/C) 02:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Reviewing an article on a topic of borderline notability such as the Peter Rabbit game can be hard. The major reason why this game deserves an article, perhaps the only one, is the notability of its author. For such an article the tension between verifiability and broad coverage becomes a real problem, and the GA criteria don't say explicitly what happens if an article that cannot possibly satisfy both criteria because there are no sufficient sources can be a GA anyway. It's reasonable to disagree about this.
  • I found a somewhat related discussion from 2007 at WT:Good article criteria/Archive 3#GAs and Future Events. It was about interpretation of the broadness criterion for articles about an event which cannot be broad in their coverage because the event has not happened yet. In the end the problem was solved by resorting to the stability criterion. Unfortunately that doesn't help with the Peter Rabbit game (and on a later occasion this interpretation of stability got only moderate support).
  • WT:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Good article criteria problem is a related discussion from early 2009 precisely about our problem, but with no significant participation.
  • Susanne2009NYC's response was certainly not optimal. Instead of renominating it, it would have been better to start a discussion at WT:Good article criteria about cases in which criteria 2 and 3 contradict each other. It would have been even better if Cirt had started such a discussion before failing the article. Looking at Cirt's nomination was a natural and legitimate reaction, and so was pointing out some obvious defects. Actually reviewing Cirt's nomination was problematic. I encourage both sides to avoid doing anything that can be perceived as unconstructive by the other. Hans Adler 12:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Abandoned GAR

An editor began the review of Croatian War of Independence (talk | history | start review) , but abandoned the process for lack of time. Looking at the nomination list, it appears as if the article is being reviewed, while in fact it is not. What is the proper way to "reset" the listing? GregorB (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In the past I have reset nominations by moving the review page to an archive (e.g. /GA1/archive) without leaving a redirect. However, this requires admin tools to do, so I suggest that a better mechanism is to move on to the next available review page. This involves incrementing the page parameter by one and resetting the status in {{GA nominee}}, as in this diff. Geometry guy 20:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! GregorB (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Would anyone want to help me out with writing a GA review guide for the Signpost? I figure that's a possible way to increase our review numbers, because they're at very low levels again (under the 80-10-10 unrev/rev/hold mark we need to average). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoever writes it should emphasize how the process requires fewer steps than it used to. harej 04:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
<smiles>harej is right - it should mention that: for people who found the old system cumbersome, it might help entice them back. Wizardman, why not start putting something together in a sandbox page and let us know the address? I would be happy to check it out and comment / make contributions, as might others. Would that be feasible? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a cunning plan. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll get a draft working tonight and post it here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: User:Wizardman/Signpost. Not much concrete there yet but I'll be working on it over the next few days. Feel free to add things in. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've let whoever still follows WP:FCDW about the draft, in case they have anything to add. Was this going to run as a dispatch? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it'll be run as a dispatch. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Parts of it are done, though could use a few more eyes to get it up on the 15th. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Rail trail category

I'm having some trouble determining the category for Wallkill Valley Rail Trail. I initially put it under Places, but that really didn't seem right so I put it under Geography. It's a remnant of a defunct railroad (perhaps that makes it historical?) but also a public park. What is the proper category for rail trails?
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say places. ResMar 03:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved it there.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Help me list an article

Hi i just reviewed and passed the GAN for Greater Germanic Reich. This is the first time a review, and don't understand how to list the now passed article. I tried following the instructions, but I think I did something wrong. Could someone please help me? P. S. Burton (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you did everything right; it goes in the appropriate subsection of WP:GA, which you went and did. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Just had to wait for the bot apparently. Cheers. P. S. Burton (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about including good articles on the front page at Did you know?

The long-running discussion about including newly promoted good articles at WP:DYK has spawned yet another proposal that folk knowledgable about the GA process may want to take a look at. Several issues have arisen, including whether recent good articles are the type of new content that it's appropriate to showcase at DYK, whether the GA review process will save time by avoiding duplicaiton of DYK review, and if the two processes can be integrated somehow (e.g. a successful GA review leading to a suggested "hook" for DYK reviewers to look at). I haven't been an active GA reviewer for a while now, and I suspect input from someone who would understand if/how the GA review system would match (or could be changed to match) the needs of DYK would be helpful. TheGrappler (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot glitch

Why is the bot saying that Liverpool F.C. in Europe is on hold by Grondemar, when it is I that am reviewing and have placed this on hold? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not one idea in the slightest, though I have fixed it. harej 17:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Another one, I think I mucked up passing Economy of England in the Middle Ages ? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. harej 17:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
There is still some sort of problem. Why is the bot not recognising the timestamp of the review at Talk:Liverpool F.C. in Europe/GA1? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Because when updating the signature (to make it your signature), I forgot to copy over the timestamp. :-) Should be visible when the bot comes around next. harej 02:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks - still a little puzzled as I signed it "properly" :-) Jezhotwells (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm puzzled as hell, too. If anything like this happens again I'd like to know so I can see a pattern develop. harej 17:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
That's weird. So now, every time the bot updates the page, it's letting us know that that particular article is on hold.--BelovedFreak 11:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Could we try failing the nomination and then restoring the nomination with the on hold parameter? wackywace 11:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The answer to the first problem is that Grondemar did start the review page, but then did not complete a review. Wizardman then deleted the review page, then Jezhotwells recreated it. I suggest that we don't delete unfinished reviews any more, but instead increment the page parameter, so that a new review can be started on the next /GAn page.

The second problem could be caused by a blank line, which I have removed. In any case, for some reason, when generating the edit summary, the bot is not recognizing the format of this Review template, and hence things the onhold it has found in the GA nominee template is new. Geometry guy 13:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot is readding the blank line. I've traced it back to this edit: it looks like when harej copied over Jezhotwells timestamp, a newline was added by mistake. I think only harej can fix this. Geometry guy 13:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem seems to have got worse. Whereas before it was saying that the article was on hold only when changes were made to the statuses of other GANs ([27], [28]), it now seems to be doing it without any changes to anything else. ([29], [30]) wackywace 14:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It's doing other stuff too in those edits; without the glitch the summaries would probably be "maintenance".--BelovedFreak 14:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I restored the Grondemar revision that I deleted and that seems to have fixed it. Sorry for messing things up there, I forgot I had deleted that originally. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You didn't mess up, as we didn't have a clear procedure for dealing with stale reviews. And it wasn't the undeletion that solved the problem. It was partially fixed by incrementing the review page number, waiting for the bot to notice, then moving the review page from /GA1 to /GA2. Thanks for undeleting the old revision. I wish I had noticed you did that before I made the page moves, as I intended to leave that revision at /GA1 and undelete it there just in case the bot got confused that Grondemar is the reviewer again! Instead the bot has not found any reviewer, nor recorded the "on hold" status. I will try again to fix this! Geometry guy 19:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I put the article back "on hold", and the bot added the information, but with the same blank line. I refer back to my comment above that this appears to be something harej has done that only he can fix. In the meanwhile, it may be better to remove the "on hold": Jezhotwells is famous enough not to need additional publicity every half hour ;) Geometry guy 21:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(←) Now fixed: see User talk:Harej for details. The upshot is that the bot records information in a database, so when a review stagnates, it is better to start a new review page than delete the original review page. If other editors agree, I think we should add this to the FAQ and other relevant guidelines. Geometry guy 23:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I didn't know that I am famous! --Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

School project

Just a heads-up to reviewers, several articles being nominated at GAN today are a product of this school project. The nominations for Languages of Singapore, Speak Good English Movement, Linguistic competence, and Internet linguistics are all part of this. Apparently their assignment was to have their chosen article promoted to GA by midnight today (Singapore time), and as far as I can tell most of the nominations are hasty and premature (in several cases the editors just dumped a lot of new text into the articles within the past 24 hours; I don't think the instructor was aware of the amount of time the GAN process takes). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

GAN Statistic

I propose that an addition to the monthly GAN statistics is the oldest nomination that is yet to be reviewed. ex. 2 months. This would be instrumental in allowing us to track the backlog. Any comments? --Iankap99 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you are referring to? Is it the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report? --maclean (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
He is referring to WP:GA/S, I think. I think the size of the queue and the number of articles greater than 30 days old is a better indicator of the backlog.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually think I had gotten confused with the monthly reports posted on the talk page at WP:PR. Although The report does provide more than adequate statistics on the matter. Perhaps the monthly number of reviews older than thirty days could be organized by month into a table, although GA/S wouldn't be the place for details regarding GAN. Anyway so where we stand now is a potential monthly table on this? I would be happy to go to the history of the report if this is accepted. Regards,--Iankap99 (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any opinions of this?--Iankap99 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone?--Iankap99 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I get it correctly: Where should these stats displayed? What are the differences to WP:GA/s? mabdul 22:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:GA/S is used to track monthly statistics of GAs, whereas WP:GAN/R provides daily information on nominations. Hence there is scope for a separate page which provides an overview of nominations statistics. If anyone wants to create one, the natural place would be a subpage Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Statistics with a shortcut WP:GAN/S. Geometry guy 16:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there no bot that updates WP:GA/S? If there is one, why not updating it and then it could do both tasks. (shouldn't be so hard to develop the extra tasks). mabdul 21:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
No there isn't. GA/S is updated by hand once a month by various editors. In contrast, GAN/R is entirely automated. Geometry guy 01:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Washington State Route 22 GA review

What's best to do with this review by this editor? (minimal review by 2 day-old account with 46 edits which include recent vandalism.) It needs a proper review, but should it be renominated at a new GA page? --BelovedFreak 22:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like it's been given a review by a more experienced editor now. --BelovedFreak 09:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrei Gromyko listing glitch

Could someone experienced with GAN process please take a look at the Andrei Gromyko listing? The first nomination was failed yesterday, and the article was re-nominated today (not by me), but the nominator filled "page=" parameter for the 2nd nomination incorrectly, specifying its value as 1 rather than 2. The GA bot, understandably, got confused and listed the article as "on review" by the reviewer who processed the first nomination. I tried to fix this problem manually, but apparently something is still not quite right. Nsk92 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed "onreview" from the status, lets see if that fixes it. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I also changed the topic to World history as the subject is dead. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to be fixed now, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
If there are problems, look at the GAN template on the article talk page as that is usually where the problem lies. It is pointless trying to adjust the WP:GAN page as the bot will overwrite manual changes. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. I actually did edit the article talk page first [31] (by changing the "page=" parameter in the GA nominee template), but I did not notice the "status" field in that template at the time... Nsk92 (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Inexperienced reviewers

I know that GA is supposed to be a relatively light-weight process, and that anyone who is registered and not heavily involved with an article is supposed to be able to review. Is there any way we can prevent, or reduce the likelihood of, reviews like these: [32], [33], [34] (one editor), [35] (another). There may be something else going on, but assuming good faith and that these are just new editors trying to help out, they're not really doing anything wrong. Is there any way with the instructions on the GAN page that we try and prevent this, or do we just rely on more experienced reviewers spot checking? On the plus side, it's one way to reduce the backlog... --BelovedFreak 20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The first reviewer also did this "GA review" [36]. The user only appears to have been active on 21 November; and, it looks more like a mostly vandalism only user account. Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominees under review

Why is the bot not picking up reviewers' names? It seems to be particularly in the music nominees, but there are many reviews that have been opened by the reviewer creating the review page, but their username has not been listed on this page. Anyone know anything about this? Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There are still some inexperienced reviewers copy pasting template from previous reviews rather than following the link, this results in malformed reviews. I have just fixed three in the music section, by adjusting the talk page GAN template. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes: we edit conflicted. From the one that I've looked at, it seems like a reviewer just created a review page rather than either clicking on the "follow this link" on the article's talk or "start a review" on the relevent line on WP:GAN. Another editor (Jezhotwells) attempted to rescue the situtation by trancluding the review template onto the article's talkpage and updating the status to "onreview". The bot is being bypassed. It can't seem to cope with reviewers that bypassed the system, but presummably if the bot was not there they might also bypass the manuel system. Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Another reviewer (not the same as the one I did not name above) did the same in respect of three more review pages. Pyrotec (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyborg Kuro-chan

Article has significantly been improved. See the talk page. Railer-man (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

October 35?

The Hurricane Virgil (1992) article mentions it was placed on nomination on October 35, an impossible date. It was nominated a day or two ago, and was likely reviewed sooner than otherwise due to this date issue. I'm guessing this is a bot glich? Thegreatdr (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot did nothing. Perhaps Yellow Evan did that himself, or MediaWiki screwed up in a way man could not have possibly been foreseen. harej 05:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
One cannot overemphasize the impact of human error. Thanks for the quick response. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Sylvania 300

The bot removed it from its original place, and added it to the top when it passed. Here is the difference Nascar1996 05:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to happen if the template is changed at the wrong minute. Those get fixed in the following update (so about 60 seconds) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot glitch on Talk:Paul Rand/GA3

The bot seems to have picked up Sillytimmy1 from the abandoned Talk:Paul Rand/GA2. I started a review today (as GA3) but it has listed Sillytimmy1 as the reviewer! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It has fixed itself now. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Three Laws of Robotics

Hi all - my first GAN so I have a couple of questions

I could not decide which category as the topic covers literature, social science, robotics, technology, ethics, laws and so many more. i placed it as miscellaneous but could I have placed it in more than one topic rather than misc ?

The article was up for peer review and notified on a couple of projects. Unfortunately no-one bothered apart from one editor with passing comments rather than an actual review. Will the fact that the review did not happen reduce the chance of GAN review or should I have taken other actions first ?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no problem with nominating the artcile as miscellaneous, if it reaches GA status it can be listed under more than one section. You do not have to have a full peer review, although it is often suggested. I know that not all requests for full peer review are fulfilled. The main thing is to check that the article meets the good article criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bot problems

The bot seems to be doing some strange things at the minute. At 16:18, 28 November 2010 Music of Madagascar was listed as having failed its GA - it had actually passed - and now it seems to have not added the 'Reviewer' line to the GA noms page for my reviews of "Mothers of the Disappeared" and "Better in Time" (could be my fault although I don't think I did anything wrong) Cavie78 (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Dioceses of the Church of the East to 1318

Dioceses of the Church of the East to 1318 is listed as GA but I get the impression that it was never even reviewed as I cannot find a link to a review (and I don't think it stands up to GA quality, given the lack of refs for large parts of the article and some other problems). What is the appropriate action here? -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been assessed GA in Oct 2009 [37] without a formal review. It is not listed at WP:GA. I think it is not GA-class because of its numerous citation needed tags and an inadequate introduction. As such I have re-assessed it to B-class. --maclean (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In fiction

Are "in fiction" section suitable? A user now wants to add a four-paragraph "in fiction" section the GA Svalbard. Is is a good thing to start a trend with mentioning every book that ever took place in a particular place? Arsenikk (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a good thing, and four paragraphs is totally out of proportion. Hekerui (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, not a good thing. Where a location is famous mainly because of a particular work of fiction, e.g. Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse#Allusions to autobiography and actual geography Godrevy#Godrevy Lighthouse then it is appropriate to have brief mentions. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

GA bot's wrong action?

I noticed that my GAN Shashthi (see Wikipedia:GAN#Religion.2C_mysticism_and_mythology) was added to the top of the list [38], instead of in the bottom, as usual. Is the action intended??? I haven't changed it yet. If it is mistake, please change it. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[39] harej 00:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Article in wrong place

Somerhill House should be under Arts and architecture, but has ended up under Miscellaneous. Should it be manually moved to the correct place, or will the bot sort it out? Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In the nomination template, the subtopic parameter has to (I think) exactly match the name of the subtopic on the WP:GAN page. So, this one should be "Art and architecture" rather than "Architecture". I've changed it so hopefully the bot will move it.--BelovedFreak 10:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but when I used Art and architecture on the template, previewing show an "uncategorised" message, which disappeared when I used Architecture. Mjroots (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Weird, have no idea why that is!--BelovedFreak 13:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
In any case, the template should be corrected to encourage the use of the correct term. (I know I have been procrastinating on implementing a solid system for recognizing synonyms; please bear with me.) harej 18:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Rapid renominations and other issues

I would like some feedback on an issue I'm seeing. User:Racepacket nominated Virginia Route 27 last month. It was reviewed, and failed by User:Dough4872. That review may not have been the most helpful, and Racepacket made a few changes and renominated the article. Last night, User:Rschen7754 reviewed it. He found several issues and made suggestions for improvement. Rackepacket made some changes which only minimally addressed the review and renominated the article. I gave the article a third review, found most of the requested improvements not done, or done poorly and failed the article again. My concern is that the substance of the second and third reviews will not be addressed and this article will be renominated before the end of today.

A second concern is that Racepacket is striking issues in reviews himself. Isn't it proper nominator conduct to allow the reviewer to strike his own concerns? Otherwise the nominator could be striking issues as complete, when they are not. The "fix" in the article could make the issue worse, or bring up a second concern. Feedback on both of these issues is appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll add the fact that he interprets the criteria in an un-uniform fashion. He gave me hell at New Jersey Route 26 for not having more than one citation that sources four paragraphs (placing them at the end of each paragraph). Its not listed in any criteria that I must have a certain minimum of citations and I refused to change it, arguing it over with him. The several articles he nominated, Red Line (Washington Metro) and Virginia Route 27, are pretty crappy written articles, but with the many reviews he's given, he wants picture perfect, if not hypocritical, its definitely an issue. New Jersey Route 26 (linked earlier), M-20 (Michigan highway), where he wanted User:Imzadi1979, who posted above me, to readd a WP:SPS to the article he removed for that reason before nomaination. On M-66 (Michigan highway), he wanted a change, and got a change, not totally to his liking, and marking it as NOT DONE as if the criteria is totally his decision. Finally, on M-152 (Michigan highway), he wanted a change made, then after it was made, wanted it right back to the way it was. Not totally proud of the style of his reviewing and he doesn't seem to want to take into account this. Someone who can't write very well shouldn't be making ours be picture-perfect when his isn't.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 21:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these kinds of problems do unfortunately happen.
There's really nothing special about being a "nominator" or a "reviewer". The standard talk-page guidelines apply. If one person objects to someone striking something from his/her previous comments, then you should normally respect that; if no one objects—for example, I find that marking things as checkY Done is often helpful to everyone—then it's okay. What I'll call "attitude problems" shouldn't appear on any talk page, but they do (we live in a fallen world, etc.) and they should be handled the same as any other attitude problem at any other time on any other page.
You can take the article to GAR, if you need help on a specific article. Perhaps you would find reading WP:GACN helpful. It directly addresses several of the problems you name (e.g., made-up requirements for the minimum number of citations per paragraph).
(Some days, it's tempting to write a GA-quality article that uses solely WP:General references just for the fun of seeing the reviewer's reaction.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

wikicup scoring discussion

(evil laugh) I figured carrots were better than sticks and am posting a proposal for social experimentation in the wikicup to see if it gets more core and underrepresented content Featured - see discussion here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Too many poll options OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? I thought it looked like a well-laid out poll, with some really good options. Of course, per other discussions on multipliers that have been had on that page it might get a little crowded and tldr later on, but as of right now it looks quite nice to me. Dana boomer (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ohana - it needs to be structured, otherwise any discussion or twaeking of proposals and it becomes a wall of text. It really doesn't require too much thought surely...also circumstances are different for each case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

On a GAN being a candidate for merging

I'm looking at a GAN right now that's a spinoff of a subsection from a parent article. (article in question is Development of Spore. The more I look at it, however, the more I think it could probably be cut down and merged into the main article (which itself needs a heavy trim). I was interested in getting input on whether I should just continue the GAN or recommend it for a merge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You can do either, but not both! If you wish to recommend a merge, you should withdraw from reviewing the article, as there is a potential conflict of interest: reviewers should only review nominations against the GA criteria, without imposing their own editorial views on the best future course for the article. If you wish to review the article, you should review it as it is, taking care to raise only concerns related to the GA criteria, and to give article editors an opportunity to address them.
In the former case, other editors may agree or disagree with the merge, and may or may not withdraw the nomination. If they don't withdraw the nomination, a new reviewer is needed.
I hope that helps! Geometry guy 19:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that sounds about right. I'll propose the merge. Thanks, gg. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
On that note, how the hell do I remove myself from GAN without the bot adding me back? I deleted the review page... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Reset the GAnominee "status" parameter: I've fixed it here. The FAQ contains further information. Geometry guy 13:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

GA and semi-protection

Can a GAN be advanced—listed as GA—even while it is under semi-protection from IP vandalism? The question came up at Talk:Coandă-1910. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, vandalism reversions are specifically exempted from the stability criteria, per WP:WIAGA. So I would think that semi-protection due to vandalism would fall under that exemption as well. Just my opinion, however... Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Here is a longer, more accurate description of what's going on at that article: The IP-hopping editor has been edit warring over content, trying with changes such as this and this to put forward a POV version of the article that is against consensus. The edit warrior's contributions to other articles include instances of outright attack such as this as well as removal of referenced text at Costoboci and Carpi (people).
As a result of this content-related edit warring against consensus, by an anonymous editor who is otherwise difficult to block, the article was granted indefinite semi-protection. Is GAN hopeless under these conditions? Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Second reviewer needed

The first reviewer has become "semi-retired", and the bulk of the recommendations from the initial review (pending at Talk:The Most Hated Family in America/GA1), were responded to. Would be appreciated if another reviewer could come by and see if the article is now satisfactory to be promoted to GA status. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll jump in. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
My thanks to Binksternet (talk · contribs), for helping out with this. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Image review

We have been patiently waiting for an image review so that we can wind up Talk:Bobby Orr/GA1. There are two images that I consider borderline in the article. One is an iconic image that is closely associated with the subject of the article. The other is a picture of a display at a museum. The author is willing to remove either or both, but I need an image specialist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion on Talk:Joseph J. Romm/GA1

I would appreciate second opinions on the citations to potential copyright violations on the Joseph J. Romm. The nominator claims that they are fair use by the Climate Progress web site that hosts them. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for imput on this. Cheers! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, two clarifications. First, I believe that there is only one link at issue now. Second, I am not the nominator of this article. I am just the guy doing all the work after someone else nominated it who has never contributed to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And still seeking a second opinion on a sourcing issue. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll try and take a look today or tomorrow, Jez. Ping me on my talk if I forget. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, this has been resolved now. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Does the BOT take a Christmas holiday?

I nominated Robert Latham Owen (a deceased US politician) for GA review under North American History (a sub-category of World History) back on the 24th, on the understanding that the BOT would promptly post it on this page automatically. Three days on there's still no sign of the BOT doing so. I tried posting it manually here under World History, but someone or something moved it to Miscellaneous. I've done a fair bit of work on Wikipedia, but have not previously grappled with the GA machinery. Advice from Old Hands? Nandt1 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The subtopic you want is "World history". I fixed that in your nomination (on the article talkpage). Fixing things on the page manually often doesn't work or is reverted by the bot. You also seem to have had "North American History" in your timestamp which seems to be unreadable by the bot.--BelovedFreak 22:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks ok now. --BelovedFreak 23:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this!Nandt1 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem! --BelovedFreak 00:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

discussion box

I think that it would be better if the reviewer would add a discussion box to mark the closing of the GA discussion on GA subpage. At present the reviewer can close the discussion on the talk page, and editors focused on the GA subpage might not notice what has happened on the talk page. I think that an instruction should be added that tells reviewer to add a discussion box to mark the closing of a GA review (pass or fail) on the GA review subpage. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Review not updating automatically

I created the subpage for the GA review for Indianapolis Motor Speedway yesterday, but its entry on this page has yet to be updated. This is the first time that I have reviewed a GAN - am I doing something wrong?--Midgrid(talk) 14:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're good, the bot's just been down for a little while. Should be back up in ~12 hours. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information!--Midgrid(talk) 15:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Review issue

I nominated U.S. Route 223 for GAN. Racepacket (talk · contribs) selected the article for review. I found that odd, and somewhat hypocritical, because he earlier proposed that no reviewer review more than five nominated articles from a single editor/nominator. This article would be the sixth nomination of mine that he's reviewed. The review had some valid feedback, but the last series of comments centered on a content dispute over the status of Interstate 73 in relation to how it might impact US 223 in the future. In dealing with this reviewer, it was my feeling that to further continue the review process would be fruitless, that unless I gave in and inserted misleading and less than relevant information not supported by pertinent source, that the review could not come to a satisfactory conclusion. I closed and withdrew the nomination. I renominated the article to gain a fresh, second opinion. The second review was opened by Racepacket, against my explicit request that he no longer review my nominations. I have since withdrawn that review and brought the situation here. Imzadi 1979 → 07:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just let Imzadi1979 get the second review from another editor that he wants? I don't see why Racepacket feels the need to keep rereviewing the article so it doesn't get a second opinion. --Rschen7754 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
1. Because the idea behind the GA process is that a fresh pair of eyes should look at the article, "kick the tires", and invest considerable effort in determining whether the article meets the GA criteria. I have spent hours doing that. That effort will be wasted if the nominator assets the right to "fail" a review without consulting the reviewer and then immediately post the article for a second review. The correct course in a situation where the reviewer and nominator have a difference of opinion is for the nominator to suggest that they are at an impass and request a second opinion. Otherwise, we are face with WP:HEAR of the nominator not "hearing" what the reviewer is really saying.
2. The review process must be transparent. The nominator should never delete text from the article talk page, downplay the failed review, or delete the transclusion of the full review from the article talk page.
3. In this particular case, the lead paragraph says "although neither state has plans at this time to complete the freeway" which I questioned as misleading because the states do literally have plans, but they are inactive. "at this time" violates WP:RELTIME. But the nominator refuses to address my concerns.
4. As a practical matter, the highway articles pose a logistical problem for the GAN process. A lot of editors edit a lot of articles, so it would be difficult to find someone who has not edited the article to review it. I felt that I was helping Wikipedia by volunteering to review an article that has been edited by a number of different people, including Rschen7754 and TwinMetsFan, who do a lot of highway reviews. I don't think that it is hypocracy to review this article, given the fact that the remaining highway reviewers who have not edited this article have reviewed far more than six of Imzadi1979's nominations.
5. I can appreciate a situtation where the nominator realizes that an article is far from meeting GA criteria and does not want to put any more effort into working toward passing any GA review. In that case, the nominator should have the right to state that he is withdrawing from the GA process. But that does not give the nominator the right to "fail" the review and renominate it a few minutes later. Racepacket (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. Your time is appreciated, but please note that past experience with your reviews has shown that you've requested incorrect information be added to an article based on an incorrect reading of sources [M-6 (Michigan highway)], requesting a change in an article, receiving it, only to request that the change be reversed [M-152 (Michigan highway)] among other minor issues. You had proposed that a reviewer only review five articles by a nominator, and this was number six from you for me.
    1. I have heard every one of your suggestions and read all of the articles about I-73 to which you've linked. The problem is that you haven't WP:HEARD me when I said that all of this is speculation, not fully supported by the facts in MI/OH vs. SC/NC/VA, and not appropriate to the article under review. Imzadi 1979 → 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. It is transparent. It was archived to the usual location.
  3. Your solutions break WP:CRYSTAL since the new Congress doesn't even convene for 2 more days. Even once they're in session, it's speculation to know if they'll include funding for I-73 in a highway bill and if that funding is directed to more than just SC/NC/VA/WV. Further, it's speculation that they'll even write one of their massive highway bills rather than the regular appropriations for the USDOT. They don't do those big highway bills every year. Finally, all of this speculation included in the US 223 article is WP:UNDUE weight. It should all be in the I-73 article. The fact that MDOT had plans which might have impacted US 223 in 2000–01 doesn't mean they still have them. I see old Control Section atlas pages showing proposed realignments that don't appear on the current editions of the atlas. In fact, I-73 doesn't even show up on the 2001 or 2009 editions.
  4. TMF's last edit to the article was in 2007 [40] to remove a project cleanup template with AWB because the project banner on the talk page took over that function. Rschen's only edit to the article was in 2005 [41] to tag it for cleanup and set the sortkeys for the categories. Neither action is "substantial editing" nor does any of this guarantee that Racepacket's "in-bred reviewers" would pick up the review. The fact remains, that the members of the national-level project don't edit much outside of their regional specialties (mine is Michigan, TMF's is New York, Rschen's is California and Washington) until such time as an article is ready for GAN or ACR.
  5. I think that the article already meets the criteria. The outside opinion you canvassed even agrees with me to that point. By default though, to "withdraw" means that the article "fails". It's a bit hypocritical of yourself to criticize anyone's timing for renomination when you received a review on VA-27, did not address the substance of the review and renominated it hours later.
Now then, Racepacket, you have chased me away from this article. Please re-close the extant reviews and detach. I have no desire to renominate this article at this time. I will ask that you refrain from reviewing any of my nominations, and I will do the same with yours. Imzadi 1979 → 17:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that we can certainly resolve any differences about U.S. Route 223 on the review page or the talk page, but the issues raised above on this page have more far-reaching policy implications. I did make a proposal to limit to 5 the number of time that a reviewer could select an article from a particular nominator, but that proposal was rejected, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. I did renominate VA 27 after considering all changes suggested in a prior nomination failed by the reviewer, which is a very different thing than trying to shop for a "yes man reviewer" by the nominator "failing" a nomination and then immediately renominating it. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia wants editors to keep improving articles until they meet the GA criteria. Also as a matter of policy, Wikipedia wants a "fresh pair of eyes" to review the GA nominated articles and that means that the reviewers pick the articles rather than the nominators pick the reviewers. Racepacket (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Your "yes man" reviewer theory is flawed; when I review a GAN, I *always* look at previous reviews and take those into account. --Rschen7754 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


(ec) I have not picked the reviewer in any shape, way or form. Can you prove that I have solicited anyone to make the second review? (If so, that would be news to me since I have not.) I have attempted to disengage from you and your review. I have considered all of your suggestions, and rejected them as failing policies and guidelines. Your suggestions hurt the article, not improve it. All of your remaining "issues" center on Interstate 73, not U.S. Route 223. Feel free to address those issues in that other article and improve it. As for U.S. Route 223, I have walked away from it completely for now. I attempted to get a second opinion in the form of a second review, but you attempted to force the issue by taking the second review as well. You've also reinstated the first review back into the list. Feel free to fail it yourself if you wish. I will not engage you further. There is no requirement for me to do so. Further attempts to engage me on the reviews will be considered stalking by myself. In other words, leave me alone.
BTW, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Suggest more info .2F clarification on the .22nuts and_bolts.22 of review_process clearly has stated that there is no requirement to leave a review transcluded to the talk page of an article once concluded. It is by your refusal to disengage that the review wasn't concluded when I withdrew it. If you're free to disregard the content of Talk:Virginia State Route 27/GA2 to renominate it within hours, then I should be allowed to discount the portions of Talk:U.S. Route 223/GA1 where you've requested the addition of speculation about a tangential issue and seek a second review. Imzadi 1979 → 18:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
These are both good people. May I suggest a 100% disengagement regarding reviewing anything where the other is the nominator or major editor? North8000 (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I concur with this suggestion. Especially since this review continues to drag on based on two sentences, even when the reviewer has received solicited and unsolicited second and subsequent additional opinions that concur with the nominator on the questions at hand.  VC  18:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BOT issue?

Resolved
 – Let the bot do the work, not the users themselves. HeyMid (contribs) 12:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This diff shows an article being nominated for GA, and 4 minutes later the bot failing the article. The article talk page shows no review. Is this a bug? EdChem (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing I know is that users shouldn't nominate an article manually; they should let the bot do it itself. HeyMid (contribs) 12:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There we go! HeyMid (contribs) 12:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
(e.c.) Interestingly, the bot has now re-nominated the article itself. FYI, I didn't do the nomination, I just noticed the failure on my watchlist and then looked at the article and was surprised that there was no review. Anyway, maybe this was the bots way of saying the nomination was done wrong and then fixing it. EdChem (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The users put the GA nominee template on the articles' talk page, then they should let the bot do the rest, they should not manually add it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations. HeyMid (contribs) 12:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, that is what I have been doing when I made my nominations. I simply saw that a new nomination had been failed by the bot, four minutes after its nomination. I thought this was a problem, so I reported it. Sorry for the inconvenience, I was only trying to be helpful in pointing out a problem that might upset the nominator and might indicate a bot problem. EdChem (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry – you seemingly only reported it here. Regards, HeyMid (contribs) 12:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Theatre, film and drama reviews

I am enquiring about the reviews in the Theatre, film and drama section. The backlog is always there, but it isn't helped by the reviews that keep taking place. They're on hold for well over two weeks. The first two in the list have been on hold since the 20 of December, there is hardly any reivewing going on in the article. Nor has the nominator tried to get the ball rolling with the GA. I don't think this is fair as some editors are willing to correct and improve for GA in the days following a review taking place.RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 19:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The reviewer in questions seems to be scarcely active, so I'm slowly but surely going through the articles he tagged for review (still have 9 or so left). The TF&D section has always been one where the proportion of writers to reviewers has been bad, so poking projects such as film to help out may be beneficial. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"Under review" by nominator

Zbigniew of Poland is currently under review by the article's nominator, who seems to expect a proper review or a pass by someone else. Perhaps someone can resolve this strange situation: Talk:Zbigniew of Poland/GA1. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This happens more often with people who don't understand the system and genuinely screw up than with people who think they can review their own articles. I'll clean this up. harej 17:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Eric Cantor/GA1

Resolved
 – reviewed and failed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The above review was opened by Ryderofpelham123 21:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC). After a few initial comments there was little activity and it was failed by Wizardman 03:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Ryderofpelham123 then surfaced on 22 December 2010 (UTC) and stated that the article was on hold and they reinstated the GAN template as on hold. Three other editors then opined that the article as it stood should fail. I came across the article, noticing it in the GAN report and added a note that it had been failed and I re-added the failed GA template (as originally placed by Wizardman), removing the nomination. Ryderofpelham123 reverted this action and has stated that a final review will be issued on 8 January. This appears to be a bizarre distortion of the review process and the original nominator, User:BLM Platinum, has not even been notified by the reviewer that a review is under way. What to do? Jezhotwells (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to give my version of events. When I started this review in September, a few editors commented that it should be failed under quick criteria #5. I felt that it was more appropriate to put the nomination on hold until after the election season. Wizardman made no attempt to contact me and failed the nomination without even an assessment. When I returned to the article I reinstated the nomination because Wizardman is not the reviewer and is not authorized to fail this article. I decided that this Saturday I will publish an official assessment. As far as contacting the nominator, I do not usually view that as standard practice. In my experience as a GA reviewer, most concerned editors will go back to their articles and look at the GA review status. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The statement above highlights the inexperience of the reviewer who has failed to produce any assessment apart from "After looking over the article, I like it. It is not an automatic GA, but I think it will pass" in three months! Wizardman did in fact explain why the article should fail, as can be seen by anyone reading the review page. How Ryderofpelham123 expects any feedback from the the nominator without even the the courtesy of notifying them, beggars belief. I suggest that this reviewer stands aside and lets more experienced reviewers, who have commented on reasons for failing this nomination, fail this nomination now. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Ryderofpelham123's initial decision to place the article on a prolonged hold until after the election and/or new Congress was faulty and unnecessary (and the advice one editor gave in this regard was faulty as well). BLPs for politicians do not usually change that much, even during an election season; most of their content is biographical narrative covering their whole life, not just what is happening 'now'. As an example, the John McCain article made both GA and later FA during the 2007–2008 presidential election (GA before he became the nominee, FA after that but before the election). The "article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint" GA prohibition guideline referenced in WP:RGA #5 is for articles like John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 or 2010 FIFA World Cup or Working on a Dream Tour – articles about particular events that have a well-defined beginning and end. It makes no sense to put any of those three examples up for GA until that campaign, tournament, or tour is over, because until that happens the article can't be finished. BLPs, on the other hand, are essentially open-ended, and they can be put up for GA or FA at pretty much any time. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
For how I came involved, I noticed that the review had not been touched by either the nominator or the reviewer in about a month. In fact, when I reviewed it at the end of October, BLM Platinum hasn't edited in two weeks and Ryder hadn't edited in nearly a month. As such, I did my own review of the article, as is the custom to do when taking over a stalled review (I've done this many times before, with reviewers usually grateful that someone finalized it.) It was not until nearly two months later that Ryder decided to keep his review up. I should note that hidden in all this is the simple fact that the concerns I had in October were never addressed; that's the definition of when to fail a GA.
One thing I will agree with Ryder on is editors usually do tend to watch the page they've nommed, so they'll know if a reviewer pops up. Only if they've been actively editing and haven't touched the page do I notify them. Still, the point is he says he's been in touch with everyone on the article when I see absolutely no evidence of anything in his contribs, and seems to want to keep it on hold despite consensus speaking pretty clearly for a fail. GA holds are 1-2 week processes, not three months. Always have been. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate Wizardman's remarks and do not blame him for anything. I have already said that the review will be given on Saturday, so this hold and mess will be over soon. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to the controversy surrounding this article, I have removed myself as the reviewer and requested a second opinion. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Following that, I have reviewed the nomination and failed it. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Abandon

I am abandoning my review of Bartow, Florida. Us441(talk)(contribs) 00:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall take this review over. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2

These nominations should probably be cancelled, as the nominator is an IP with only a few edits and is unlikely to respond. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a dynamic IP, so the nominator may have more edits than it appears. Though I agree that IPs are in general less likely to respond, they are still allowed to nominate articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, it does no harm for a review to be undertaken. A superficial look shows that both articles have the possibility to be GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have just reviewed Super Mario Galaxy and I found two problems - a prose issue (the article was not written from a universal standpoint, but rather seemed to require intimate understanding of gaming systems before reading) and a lack of in-line citations for a large part of the article. It certainly could become a GA in the future, but it needed too much work for it to be put on hold IMHO. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, so they did decide to include GA reviewing in the Wikicup? That's going to go well...--BelovedFreak 23:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:EMBED list incorporation

During a recent GAR, three of us had a long discussion about the appropriateness of a particular type of list in an article. The debate arose because of the application of WIAGA criterion 1(b): "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for ... list incorporation". I was not happy with the outcome at the GAR and have raised the broader issue that concerns me, at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(embedded_lists)#Embedded_list_sections. Editors might like to take a look and comment, because it appears this has come up more than once in recent times as a result of GA reviews. Please note that the question being raised at that discussion does not involve any proposal to revise WIAGA or GAN, but is about the general interpretation of WP:EMBED. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_14&oldid=1259818640"