Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Dropping "On hold" and "Second opinion"

I'm not sure how helpful the "On hold" status is, nor whether "Second opinion" is used at all. It the interest of paring down the excessive amount of instructions at the top of this page, I wondering if both of these options could be removed? "Holds" could be done informally instead, and articles which need second opinions instead taken to GAR. Thoughts? --jwanders^Talk 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They serve different purposes. On hold indicates a decision being a GA/not being a GA should be done within 7 (or is it 5? same diff...) days. Second opinion indicates it won't be done unless someone else jumps in and helps out. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors of the article are given seven days to address the issues if it were to be put on hold... Qst (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been in several situations where both "On Hold" and "Second Opinion" were very helpful. Wrad (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jwanders. The ideas behind "On Hold" and "Second Opinion" are fine, but the bureaucratic formalization has little benefit. "On hold" is an article talk page matter and does not need to be backed up by multiple templates. It suffices to leave a message on the talk page. In my view, aside from quick-fails, giving nominators time to fix problems should be the default approach to GA reviews, so that as soon as an article is under review, it is effectively "on hold", albeit with no deadline specified. Reviewers should be encouraged to leave a talk page message early in their review. It should be left to the reviewer to specify a reasonable time period to fix problems: the period surely depends on the nature of the problems. We can provide advice at WP:Reviewing good articles, but there is no reason for having a bunch of templates to back it up and so many instructions at GAN.

The "Second Opinion" templates are equally unnecessary. If a reviewer does not reach a conclusion, they should simply leave a talk page message, and remove "On review" from the nomination so that someone else can review the article. The new reviewer will of course benefit from the comments by the first reviewer. Why formalize it? Geometry guy 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I dissagree. The on-hold and second opinion are fine as they are. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound like I'm snubbing you Geometry Guy, but this has been discussed before (as you know), and the resounding majority of reviewers find the current templates to be helpful. On Hold and the related hold templates are absolutely essential to the smooth operation of hold periods, and without the 2nd Opinion template, there's no formal way for us to catalogue those reviews needing a second opinion. As I've pointed out before, removing or revamping templates is not going to help us reduce the backlog, only getting more articles reviewed is going to do that. Shuffling around the process of reviewing while we need to get down to the business of doing reviews is counterproductive. VanTucky 19:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I often put articles on hold, since this lets me move borderline cases to a state where I can pass them with confidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, on hold should be the default, and it should be possible to signal time periods with one edit instead of three. I know this has been raised before, but it is interesting that it has been raised again, I guess by someone new to the GAN process. To deal with the backlog we need to attract new reviewers. This is another small illustration that the current bureaucratic set-up, while comfortable for the regulars, is not succeeding in this respect. Geometry guy 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my reason for proposing this was not because on-hold and 2nd opinion aren't useful. It's simply that the instruction block at the top of the page has too much in it, and I believe it either intimidates potential new reviewers or leads them to skim over the instructions. I think something has to be dropped from there, and the two I suggested seemed like the easiest options. Is there something else we could take out instead? --jwanders^Talk 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are both extremely useful. So, would you rather compromise the efficiency of reviewing, or assume that it would make it easy for newcomers? Also, if a person is that new, they should get more experience before reviewing. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the previous discussion of this issue, and on the right is a graph of the backlog, which has continued to increase since then. I would only correct VanTucky as follows: "...the resounding majority of regular reviewers...". At the moment, new reviewers barely replace natural attrition, and, given the formidable instructions, I am not surprised. Geometry guy 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So, why not start another backlog elimination drive instead of removing two of the most useful reviewing tools, which wouldn't work at all? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against a backlog elimination drive, but Julian, look at the graph: do you not see the rapid bounceback that followed the previous backlog elimination drive? Extrapolating the current linear trend backwards, it is almost as if the previous b.e.d. didn't happen. Geometry guy 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. It could be a monthly ordeal? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How about reformatting the process to be similar to that for FA? Discussion sections for each article and a Good Article Coordinator or Coordinators to help guide things along? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No. That would make the backlog worse. Also, that would make it more confusing. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The beauty of GA is that it is lightweight: most articles need just one nominator and one reviewer, and so the process is inherently scalable. Sadly it has become overly bureaucratic, but it is still lightweight, and that is its underexploited strength. Geometry guy 20:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The GAN reviewing process if fine as it is, so why change it around and remove on-hold and second opinion, and confuse the heck out of wikipedia? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know I'm not going to convince you, but Wikipedia is a lot more than this talk page. For instance, the second opinion process was only created in September 2007, and "on hold" has become more bureaucratic by stages. Regular reviewers like the system and I have a lot of respect for them. I will continue to document the GA process drowning in its own failure to address instruction creep for general information. Sadly I have been unable to help. Geometry guy 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not as partial to the second opinion as I am to the On hold. Second opinion I can live without, but on-hold is an esssential to GAN reviewing. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was saying to get rid of the "on hold" part in practice but just in name. Currently most articles follow this process: Nomination -> Reviewing -> On hold (7 days) -> Pass or Fail. I think what is being proposed is to roll the on hold process into the review, so the process would be: Nomination -> Reviewing (7 days) -> Pass or Fail. --Holderca1^talk 21:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that changing the reviewing process would make it more confusing for experienced reviewers, thus, elevating the backlog further. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the backlog elimination drive. I'm not as concerned about a bounceback or about rising GA noms and reviews as I am about people having to wait longer than a month for a review. If we can keep that from happening, that would be wonderful. Wrad (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons I stopped reviewing at GA is the “hold”. Holds are optional and to be applied at the reviewer’s reasonable discretion. There seems to be, however, an opinion – especially amongst nominators – that holds are mandatory, which frequently results in bitching and moaning at GAR. Reviewers have to waste their time defending their decision and nominators waste time complaining instead of just fixing the article and re-nominating. I agree that holds are useful and have used them myself, but they would best be removed from the formal process and, perhaps, only retained as an unwritten courtesy. Second opinions are meaningless. I’ve seen them go over a month with no response. If you have a question, use common sense and ask it here on the talk page; it’s nonsense to have it formalized as a template and accompanying instructions. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that second opinion is more or less useless. However, I find on hold one of the most useful tools in reviewing GANs, and I know that other people do, too. So, I don't see the point in eliminating the useful tools, when they don't get in anyone's way, but rather make reviewing easier. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola, in my experience, only one out of every ten unheld failed noms (that aren't quickfails) leads to "bitching and moaning at GAR" because there was no hold. The key for me is that in such unheld fails, I always explain why the hold was not appropriate and that it's a hell of a lot faster and less troublesome to simply address the problems and renominate rather than go to GAR. The conduct of reviewers (who didn't explain why a hold did or didn't happen, or those that give holds for ones that don't deserve one) is to blame for the expectation that a hold is mandatory, not the system. VanTucky 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your experiences differ from mine, VanTucky. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've identified, these "useful tools" have side effects that 1) chase away productive reviews, 2) divert reviewers' time from reviewing to defending and 3) distract nominators (i.e. authors) from doing what we're all really here to do - improve articles. Why does GAN need a formal process when the same effect could be achieved by leaving a message on the nominator's talk page saying, for example, "the review has identified some minor concerns, but will pass if the can be addressed in 7 days". That's just common courtesy; it doesn't need a formal process (which, again, creates superfluous instructions and has harmful side effects, negatively impacting would-be and existing reviewers). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we could usefully drop 2nd opinion - if the concept is thought to fill a useful function, maybe we could post a list of experienced reviewers that have agreed to be contacted on their talk pages if someone wants a review looking over? (similar to the PR volunteers list). Something does need to give somewhere - part of the reason (other than an extremely busy RL recently) I don't review as many articles as I'd like is that it takes too damn long fiddling with templates and updating superfluous pages, and I can be more productive for the same amount of time elsewhere (such as copyediting and improving articles). I was hoping that we would see improvements from Gguy's proposals a while ago to drastically simplify the entire GA process... one template, auto-updating list pages, and reviewers get to spend their time actually reviewing ;) EyeSerene^TALK 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The truth is, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a single review template. It's just that none of our usual template masters have stepped up to the plate and made the Super Template (to coin a stupid phrase). VanTucky 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol - it's beyond my ability unfortunately, and would need bot support. I think it's a great idea though: an editor leaves a "request for GA review" template on the article talk page, a bot adds the article to GAN, the reviewer updates the template when finished, GA and GAN get updated by the bot (and maybe even ArticleHistory too), and we lose the multiple page updates and much of the complexity that IMO are such a barrier to getting involved. I have a dream... ;) EyeSerene^TALK 22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So can we find someone who knows about that? In the meantime, let's ground the dream. I agree that perhaps "under review" could be the default, meaning "oh hold", and removing "second opinion" to further simplify. I think the streamlining of the process outweighs the occasional use of the template (just ask another reviewer!) David Fuchs^(talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm inclined to work on such a bot; I've plenty of programming experience, but know nothing about wikibots specifically—just read through the wikispace bot pages and am wondering if I know even less now, but no matter. First step is to see if I can succeed at the basic tasks (e.g. logging in, fetching, editing); if/when I manage that, we can start working up some GA requirements.--jwanders^Talk 09:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds promising, if you don't mind having a go. I realise such a system would mean some fairly radical changes in the way GA is organised and would bring its own set of complications, but I really believe anything that simplifies the underlying processes can only be beneficial. As an added benefit (and more on-topic), we'd probably lose the on-hold and 2nd opinion templates in the process. I hasten to add this was not my idea originally, but when Gguy proposed this a while back there was a mixed response (including my initial scepticism). The reaction has been more positive this time though, so perhaps this is an idea whose time has finally come ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Geometry guy hath not said that the concepts of "On Hold" or "second Opinion Desired" are to be dropped; he said the templates are a pain. I agree. First, the "On Hold" template .. and here I'm talking about only the templates, not the underlying concept.. serve no purpose other than to discourage other eyes from looking at an article being reviewed ... No, I see nothing wrong with the idea of an article being on Hold; the template is what is redundant. It adds complexity and implicitly discourages other reviewers from chipping in. I oppose both of those dynamics.. the dynamic of adding more and more templates when we should have been adding fewer and fewer, and the dynamic of "One pair of eyes only" on a GA review, which is by far the heaviest knock on GA, and deservedly so... instead of a "Second Opinion" template we should be using messages on this particular Tallk page (not the article's talk)... messages like "hey I'm having probs with a review; a little help?" etc. So much more community oriented.. and so much easier.. than a template! BUT... that prob.. plus the steep learning curve at GA.. would be helped by Newbie training. GA is the point of entry for new reviewers.. they need to learn about WP:WIAGA as well as MOS and WIAFA and... so on. BUT.. I say drop as many templates as possible STARTING with 'Under Review' (the worst of the lot, imvso) and including 'On Hold' and 'Second Opinion', replacing the latter with timely, relevant, reduced-effort and increased-community-building messages here on this talk page ....Ling.Nut (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

section break

Let's focus on what the templates have to do in relation with GA's ultimate goal- to have a low-bureacratic way of vetting articles which meet certain qualities.

In that vein, as well as the issues with backlogs, et al, the under review template is necessary. We should not discourage other people chipping in, as Ling points out, but at a bare minimum these articles need to be reviewed by at least one person, so the template serves a valuable fuction.
Second opinion.... I also agree this is unneccesarry, as a talk page comment to another editor would serve the same result, reducing the instructions to a single line instead of complicated instructions.
On hold- I believe this comes down to people who want the article to get improved no matter the time, and those who want to cast them aside for the sake of the speedy process ideal if they can't get their rear in gear. I agree we shouldn't put a "yeah, whenever you get around to it" label on reviewing/addressing concerns, but if individual users are paying attention to their nominations, this shouldn't be a concern. If anything, this would force some to be more stringent about failing articles, but once again if reviewers are clear about what needs to be changed, then that's not a major issue.
Introducing people to ga... if we do simplify the process, I would support writing a page as an introduction to the standards and how to review in depth for the newbies among us. But cleaning up the process itself is the most important thing right now.
Finally... perhaps the compromise between on hold and review is to have the review template act as chameleon? That is, leave the ga template on article talk alone, but update the review template with "this is on hold" or "user input requested" by simply toggling paremeters. That kind of coding, I may be able to do.

--Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In that vein, here's a quick mockup of a consolidated template, currently with only one parameter: Leaving onhold blank leaves the regular message:

Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).

but {{User:David Fuchs/layout|onhold=yes}} gives you

Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). : This article is currently on hold.

The grammar, wording are all random and could be reworded, but just to give you an idea of what could be done. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound folksy, but gee whiz boy! I'd sure like that simple onhold= parameter, rather than a whole new template. You could also add a needhelp= parameter for requesting a 2nd opinion, eliminating that one too. VanTucky 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a step in the right direction. EyeSerene^TALK 00:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, baby steps are still steps. (Off topic: Fuchs is masculine - Der wohltemperierte Fuchs) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added in a rough 2nd opinion parameter now too. Feel free to mess with the template yourselves, I'm going to try and go more intricate so the text flows or only the current status is shown. (As for my tagline, I had it as "Das" since people were confused before where I was ripping it off from, but since someone is actually going to call me out on it I guess I should change it to grammatically correct version. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated the code:Now, If no special parameters are put in, then the default "under review" appears. If you put in either on hold/2nd opinion sections, then the message changes to those. I'll have to tweak it some more, but at least this proves we can use one template. (And I can make one by stealing code from {{cite web}}) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to make one comment that was a little off the current discussion, but as for the GA bot, I suggest waiting until MediaWiki creates an edit function in the API, because right now the only way to do it is to manually recieve the HTML and all that. A few months and it will be easier to do. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

@ David Fuchs: Looks good. It still means a manual update by the reviewer each time something changes, but at least it cuts out all the copy/delete/paste business, having to skip up and down the page, and losing one's place. It will also hopefully mean we can simplify the instructions at the top of GAN a bit. Can we get some consensus on this, then maybe move it into template space and give it a trial run on GAN?

@ Parent5446: thanks for the info! We shouldn't let this die though, even if it does go on the back-burner for now... EyeSerene^TALK 12:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, a baby step it is, but it is in the right direction. However, I'm concerned that it might break the operation of User:StatisticianBot, which updates the statistics at WP:GAN/R. I'll ask. Geometry guy 11:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. I've only reviewed the one article so far but having to skip up and down today to find the right template to mark it as on hold was a pain. I wonder if this could be done with the talk page template as well so that a "onhold=yes" changes the nomination tag to on hold. I guess that reviewers would need to remember to update the date though... Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll see about drafting a replacement for the talk page template so it has the same parameters. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

update so G.guy improved the template by making a single parameter, {{User:David Fuchs/layout|status=}}; the status can be changed to onhold or 2nd opinion to generate the proper messages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may or may not be an improvement, but I wanted to discourage multiple statuses, which would complicate matters rather than simplify them. Note that the status accepts upper and lower case, and a couple of variations, so I hope it would be easy to use without having to scan up the page to read the instructions.

I think a talk page template with a status parameter would be good idea. I suggest using {{GAN|status=}}, which is currently a redirect to {{GAnominee}}. Once GAN is up and running, we could turn around the redirect and make GAnominee point to it. Geometry guy 17:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Combined GAN template

Okay, I've drafted a combined GAN talk page template at {{GAN}}, and I think it is ready for road testing. I've made several other changes. First, I've copyedited the text in the various versions of the template. Some of this text was rather long before, and many editors don't like a lot of talk page template cruft. Second, I've eliminated mention of "pass" and "fail" in favour of "list or not" since I believe the pass/fail terminology generates misconceptions about the way GA works. Third, I've added a separate "on review" status. Finally, I've added a subtopic parameter.

Those who know me may be surprised by the last two changes, since they appear to add bureaucracy rather than remove it. Here are some explanations. At present there are four possible statuses for a GAN. I wish there were fewer, but there aren't, so we should be honest about it. The subtopic parameter is extra work for the nominator and provides a handy link for the reviewer to go directly to the correct section of WP:GAN, saving all that time scrolling around. Finally (and this, of course, is the real reason), providing both parameters means that all of the information about the article on WP:GAN is now stored in the template: this provides the possibility to generate WP:GAN automatically from the talk page information, so that it never needs to be edited again. Geometry guy 13:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It fits my bill, and I can't see any issues with it right now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about article before possible nomination

Take a look at Comics Guaranty LLC#Restoration and its reference #18. Is it acceptable in terms of GA? The source is a Comics Guaranty LLC forum, but the user quoted is the company president and head comics grader. So the question is 1: is the source acceptable in terms of GA quality, and if it is 2: is the reference formatted in a GA acceptable way? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That ref is fine. However, the article fails GA easily - disputed tag, citation need tags, etc. ~~In fact, I'm going to fail it now.~~^{Oops, not actually a GA nom yet. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)} dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! I guess it's a good thing it hasn't been nominated it yet. ;-) As long as I'm working on it, I'll address those points. Thanks for your help! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

More space saving

I propose replace the following items on the GAN page:

↓ Skip to nominations lists ↓

The oldest unreviewed good article nominations are:

The highest priority unreviewed good article nominations are:

Pete Astudillo • 2022 Fife Council election • New England Revolution in international competition • Swim School • Chennai Super Kings

with the following template: {{User:David Fuchs/draft}} which looks like this: {{User:David Fuchs/draft}} The advantage is it combines elements and also adds an optional parameter, backlog, which if activated like {{User:David Fuchs/draft|backlog=yes}} makes: {{User:David Fuchs/draft}} It's minor, I know, but it helps consolidate the junk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Is there a defined point that this page either does or doesn't have a backlog? I suppose if we didn't have any articles waiting over 30 days for a review we wouldn't have a backlog? --Holderca1^talk 21:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno what qualifies, but I think it's based more on volume of articles awaiting review rather than dates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea. However, you need to explain how to remove the backlog notice. Also, the backlog notice could be combined with the rest of the template to save more space. Geometry guy 11:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How's it look now? By the way, thanks for improving my other template :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And done! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That rocks, Waterboy! I made one small change to it; it said the backlog "required experienced editors" which suddenly struck me as odd when we're trying to recruit new reviewer. It now says "requires willing reviewers. You can help!" --jwanders^Talk 08:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If no central training program, then Task Mentors?

OK it's a bit hypocritical of me to write this, since I can't do squat to help (no time)...

I don't think GA needs more essays designed to train newbies; I think GA needs more mentors. At a bare minimum, they should be trained on:

~~Correctly handling the article hist template! Urgent!~~ No longer needed; rmvd option to do this from the instructions on WP:GAN. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:WIAGA (with extra extra emphasis on WP:LEAD and with a conscious de-emphasis on WP:MOS nit-picks not included in WP:WIAGA).

.. so just make a list of those willing to act as mentors. You could even sort them by specialty(?)... The big question, of course, is "Who will mentor the mentors?". It's guaranteed that some who sign up to be mentors will actually need mentoring. I think all mentors shouuld monitor each other, very casually and collegially.. with the end-result that every person being trained would be paired with one mentor for a short while, but would be watched by one or more others, who could chip in.

Ling.Nut (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sign me up. I'm a good reviewer apparently. If we're going on specialties (heck, why not?) put me down for Music and Video Games, although I'm finding myself reviewing all over the place of late, which is good for everyone involved. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good and I'd be happy to mentor. I tend to specialise in scientific articles. (I do have concerns about how ArticleHistory is being run, but understand how it's supposed to be done). To ensure experienced reviewers, GA sweeps are currently done by requested invitation only; might we unify this with "mentors" somehow? --jwanders^Talk 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When I mentioned "specialty" I was unclear (and I apologize for that). I meant... who is a guru on image issues? Who on the Article Hist template? etc. And as for sweeps=mentors or whatever.. knock yourselves out. Y'all set it up however you like. I might also suggest that extremely polite inquiries be made to old-timers like... RelHistBuff? Homestarmy? LaraLove? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea from my trusty handsock, Ling, so I've set up a page at WP:Good article nominations/Mentors, with shortcut WP:GAN/M. Please add your name to the list with reviewing interests and/or areas of GA expertise. If enough people sign up, we can add a link to the GAN page, and probably also WP:Reviewing good articles. However, I do completely disagree with one thing: we should not be wasting time training editors how to use the article history! Article history is for bots and we should be discouraging human beings from using it. Use the GA templates instead: a bot can (and sometimes does) build article history from these templates. One day this will be fully automated. Geometry guy 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kewl! I propose removing the option in the intructions on WP:GAN to edit the article Hist. In fact, I'll just do it now. Y'all can revert if you choose. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Falling over myself to support this! Not to get too high on my soapbox, but I can't understand why the ArticleHistory template is the only place on wikipedia that things must be done perfectly and comprehensively or not at all. What happened to the incremental improvement model?--jwanders^Talk 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea ;) It's implied in the blurb on GAN/M already, but with this in place would we still need '2nd opinion'? EyeSerene^TALK 21:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent). I think we no longer need the "2nd opinion" template. Can I get a 2nd opinion on that assertion, please? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that idea at all. Requesting a mentor and requesting a second opinion are quite different things. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

rename WP:Good article nominations/Mentors as WP:Good article nominations/Mentors and second Opinions, if it makes the cognitive association less odious to you. In practice, though, the concept is the same: One reviewer says, "I need help please." Ling.Nut (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no "cognitive association", odious or not. I simply see these as two entirely separate things. So cognitive disassociation would be a more accurate way of putting it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem being a mentor, I've been doing reviewing for a little over a year now. My focus can be on sweeps, images, inline citations, or anything else I can help with. Although it appears everybody seems to hate updating the article history, I enjoy doing it, and now that I use the preview button I'm avoiding making mistakes. Hopefully this process will benefit new reviewers, we continue to need them. It would be great to mention this in the next newsletter once this is set up. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

sign up here Ling.Nut (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"If you're a registered user ..."

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Above is the extremely short, interesting history of discussion on IP noms (no discussion at the wikiproject). There is no consensus. Can we have a discussion about this?

Some of the arguments against are quite bad. For instance I have my last three Special Contributions pages bookmarked to check articles and talk pages. And that's when I don't have a GA review pending. And article talk pages don't move either.
Conversely, the arguments for are good. Consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia (FA most pertinently) is in contrast to this page as it stands. IP editing is a foundation issue. This, as one editor notes in one of the above links, goes against what the wiki is all about. We should not be creating a hierarchy of editors. Openness and accessibility is important. And so on and so forth. This is the project you signed up for. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record; [6][7][8]. I don't really care, I just care about article quality. But I do suggest you register an account, 86.44.6.14, because there are many editors who couldn't give a rats about IPs. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of IP noms. Reviewers need to be registered for reasons of accountability, but I don't see the need for nominators to be registered: GA evaluates the article, not the nominator. Geometry guy 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't see the problem. If an article is not up to scratch then it would be failed. If an article is just spam and similar, this could just get speedied (and why would they want to nominate it if they are trying to go 'under the radar'). Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think communication is the only real issue here; it's not always easy to contact anon editors (shared IPs, dynamic IPs etc) - useful when following up holds or responding to personal comments. Unfortunately having an account means you're taken more seriously, but that's a Wikipedia-wide issue that goes well beyond GAN. Other than communication, I've no serious objections. EyeSerene^TALK 11:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I have a problem with reviews by IPs. How do i know the reviewer isn't a major contributor? the same problem exists for socks, but pointing to one prob to justify another doesn't wash as an argument. the sock problem is merely more difficult to spot; that doesn't mean it justifies the IP reviewer problem. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I must confess, I don't really follow. But in any case this is more to do with the wording on the main page regarding nominations. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not really bothered about reviews. Any anon can give feedback on an article as things stand; the ability to brand something a GA isn't as important as the ability to get your article looked over. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I am a strong proponent of eliminating anonymous IP contributions to Wikipedia, since they are responsible mostly for vandalism than actual productive edits, in this case, I think we should judge the article on its own merits against the GA criteria, regardless of who nominates it. However, I would be less likely to put an article on hold if it was nominated by an anonymous editor, since I have less of a guarantee that someone would actually respond to the issues raised in the review. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of IP noms. I think we judge articles, not editors, so it shouldn't be an issue. Wrad (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And it would make no difference to me in deciding whether to put an article on hold or not either; plenty of registered editors don't respond to review comments. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

off-topic defence of my beloved IP comrades I'm not sure what the figures are, Dr., but I suspect your view of anon edits is borne of vandalism being more memorable than copyediting and typo correction, with subsequent confirmation bias. Figures I am aware of are those contained in the data the Signpost reported last November, which showed that 180 IPs had written at least 50 articles each, accounting for over 21,000 articles currently in the database, which is not bad, as contributions go. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Early in my time at Wikipedia I noticed that, at least on the kind of pages I was interested in, there was, for every IP vandal edit, at least two fixes by IPs, who just happened to be reading an article they were interested in, and spotted a typo. This sold to me the wiki concept! Geometry guy 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What the considerations against come down to is ability to contact the nominator, questions over whether the nominator is gaming the system by anon. nomination (possible, albeit unlikely) and whether random IPs will nominate articles which clearly fail (prolly no worse a problem than new users who do likewise.) Either way, I'm neutral, I just think we should be clear on all possible issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to consider nominations, and even reviews, on their individual merits. Plenty of registered editors make nominations that will clearly fail, and, dare I suggest it, even carry out poor reviews. In other words we should look at the substance, not the label. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a clear consensus here to allow IP noms, but that we should be alert for potential problems, and adapt to them if necessary. I emphasise that this is about nominators, not reviewers: no case has been made for IP reviewers. Geometry guy 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I'll update the instruction block. This discussion can of course be reopened if necessary.--jwanders^Talk 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't see case for IP reviewers. The issue there, as was said earlier is accountability I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Auto-fail hold > 7 days

Is there some mechanism in place to auto-fail a hold that's been around for more than 7 days, or is it up to the reviewer to close the nomination? (There seems to be a bot touching other portions of this page - that's why I ask). —Rob (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is up to the reviewer to fail the article. Although, 7 days isn't a hard and fast rule. If the nominator is actively working any issues they have, I would hold off on failing it. If there is little to no activity, then I would fail after 7 days. I would be interesting to see a bot that would check the articles as they are nominated to see if they have any POV tags or any other quick-fail criteria. --Holderca1^talk 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I sometimes check through the list/WP:GAN/R for older than 7 day holds. I then check the talk page to see if any action has been taken and fail the nom if nothing has. I don't think a bot is a good idea as sometimes, especially with large reviews for long articles, it can take a long time to get everything done, but that shouldn't discount the efforts of the editor to get said things done eventually. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the backlog, I think it's fine for holds to last a big longer: if there's been a month between nomination and review, holding for only seven days seems a bit short, especially if the nomination doesn't contribute regularly.--jwanders^Talk 03:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree: I think the hold should be at least seven days, and extended at the discretion of the reviewer. This is a judgement call, which is a matter for humans, not bots :-) Geometry guy 19:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the correct action to take if there is a hold on an article, work has been completed to clear up any issues, but the reviewer hasn't been back to reassess? There are a couple of long term on holds which appear this way at the moment. (No disrespect to the reviewers - these things happen) Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 06:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest contacting the original reviewer. You could also consider removing the on hold status: that might be help prompt the original reviewer to respond; if it doesn't, then it leaves the article open to get a fresh review in the light of the improvements made. Geometry guy 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A new guide!

Just whipped up User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/A noob's guide to GA reviewing. Not sure if there are any relevant pages around that I could link to/have it linked from. Comments? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone very new to GA review, I found this very informal but informative and helped back up some of the views I had, while giving me other things to look out for. Thanks for the guide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Perkins (talk • contribs) 09:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry bout that. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 09:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I review this?

Can I review Abbey Mills Mosque for GA nomination? Of the article's 183 edits, 9 edits are mine (approx. 5% of the total edits), where 3 of the edits were on whether a category should be included.

Nevertheless, this makes me the third most frequent contributor to this article. Would be appropriate for me to review this article for GA (because I'd love to)?Bless sins (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What matters more than how many edits you have made is whether you have contributed significantly to the article. I checked the edit history, and your edits have been helpful, but fairly minor. If you sincerely believe you can give an objective review, based on the state of the article and the good article criteria, then go for it. If, on the other hand, you feel an attachment to the material in the article which might get in the way of your objectivity, then please let another reviewer do it. A high quality objective review will really benefit the article. Geometry guy 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to do this :-D! You can have at it, although I'd make a mention of UNDUE (thus broadness and NPOV). Xavexgoem (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can an article be on PR and GAN simultaneously?

I understand that an article cannot be on PR and FAC simultaneously, or on FAC and GAN simultaneously. However, can an article be on PR and GAN simultaneously? If I nominate an article at GAN, given the current backlog, I would have to wait at least a month for it to be reviewed. The average peer review lasts about two weeks; by placing an article on PR and GAN simultaneously, it will take me less time to get articles to GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec2) Except, if everyone did that, the backlog here would just become that much longer. I suspect the reason for not having articles on both is that the same type of users tend to do both PRs and GAN reviews, so forcing editors to pick one or the other saves us tripping over each other. It also (should) make users think more carefully about which their article needs, (ideally) giving them a clearer picture of what stage it's at. That said, I've had an article I'm working on sitting at PR for nearly three weeks without a single comment, so do understand the frustration—in other words, I could be talked into supporting this rule change.--jwanders^Talk 07:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In my case, I have a pretty clear picture of what stage the article is at. The article is almost ready for a GA nomination, but would never make it through FAC. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to wait until it is either passed or failed in GAN, or vise versa. --Efe (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see why not. Although, to really help with the speed of the GA process, the best thing to do is review an article yourself! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither PR nor GAN have a rule preventing simultaneous listing of an article in both forums, and I don't see any need for such a rule. There isn't a huge overlap between good article reviewers and peer reviewers, and the two processes serve distinct purposes. Geometry guy 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) is on both right now, as I'm using PR to get it to FA. Will ^(talk) 10:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'd never seen a rule in GA or FA that prevented an article from being listed at PR while listed at GAN or FAC. Considering the results PR give, it's proven to be a waste of time to list an article only at PR. Lara❤Love 13:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the directions at WP:FAC more carefully - the second sentence in the second paragraph is An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. While being at both PR and GAN is allowed, in an ideal world PR and changes to improve the article based on PR would precede GAN. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It goes without saying that if PR and GAN were not heavily backlogged, I would not consider placing an article on both simultaneously. By the way, I have already filed a peer review for the article - Homerun (film) - and would appreciate any feedback on how I can improve it. I will only file a GAN if there is a clear consensus that an article can be on both simultaneously, or after the peer review is archived. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can not speak for GAN, but I do almost all the archiving at PR and have no problem with a request being listed both places at once. Because of the GA backlog, an article will likely wait close to a month in GAN and articles can only be in PR for a month before being archived (less if they have no new responses). If, for example, an article is listed at WP:FAC or WP:FLC, then the peer review is archived right away, but no such restriction exists for WP:GAN. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Stability

I am extremely troubled by a recent review at Talk:Kenwyne_Jones#GA_Review. The reviewer declined to place the article on hold for the requested improvements, which was some relatively minor citation work and copyediting, because it "was not stable". Why was it not stable? 47 edits in four days! I have never understood, in practice or in the criteria, for stability to entail that no edits at all are made to an article. It's completely absurd; the spirit of stability is to ensure that a fair review can be conducted (we all know preserving quality after the review is a continuing battle). I'd like to hear from other reviewers if they too, fail articles because edits (of any kind) are being made to an article. VanTucky 18:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit countitis is bad. What was the nature of those 47 edits in four days? Is it a content dispute, or reverting vandalism, or a flurry of good constructive text building? To me, only a genuine content dispute is grounds for failing due to instability. Failing an article because people are busy improving it, I think, is absurd. The result of such decisions will be to anger and chase-away good editors. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They were constructive improvements by the nominator. I also said that content disputes were the only practical grounds for failure related to stability. VanTucky 20:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Spot on. I regard the stability criterion as concerning either edit-warring or major flux due to current events or a massive copyedit (and I've broken the copyedit proviso in the last few days. WP:IAR! :D ). It's helpful to have a stable version to review, but we certainly shouldn't be penalising editors for improving their work. If there's concerns, a review postponement might be more suitable than an outright fail. EyeSerene^talk 20:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'm going to pass that as a GA. The stability thing is for a bomb going off outside the school that is the article subject, not for someone working to improve the article. Thus, I see no reason why it can't be passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that failure for stability reasons was not appropriate, I would oppose passing in this manner: 1) the article's grammar is poor and 2) WP:GAR exists for a reason; if this review is to be properly revisited, please take it there. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I applied the criteria as stated Wikipedia:Good article criteria: "it does not change significantly from day to day". Forty-seven edits in four days shows that the article is changing significantly from day to day. If the editor wanted to make substantial improvements to the article, this should have been done before nominating it, not after. There is a serious problem with the backlog in the "Sports and recreation" nominations list (one of my articles has been listed for 45 days with no review), but this is no reason to nominate articles before they are ready (with the idea that this leaves ample time to get them ready before they will be reviewed). I have no problem with an editor doing a full review of this article, and I will go along with the results. I do not, however, think it should be passed simply because people disagreed with my review. And my preference is that it should go through the proper steps (re-listed now that it is ready for a review, and reviewed when someone signs up for it). Fast-tracking it because the editor decided to nominate it before it was ready would not be fair to the other nominations. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not to be passed just because consensus is against you on your interpretation of the criteria. It's going to be passed because it took the nominator less than 24 hours to fix your content requests, and the article meets WP:WIAGA. VanTucky 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The issues have not been addressed. One of the concerns was that the article receive a copyedit from someone with strong punctuation skills. This is not the case, as the punctuation is still very bad. I would also like to note that my list was not exhaustive and the article needs a full review. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've renominated the article at the place it was before this fail. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the criteria wording now is that some people nominate for GA and then work towards FA while they're waiting for a review. the article may change significantly from day to day as they work. That shouldn't be punished. Wrad (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that's just what I did with Domestic sheep. I made daily edits to the article, and that didn't stop a proper GA review taking place. Perhaps we should take this to the criteria page and alter it, so this kind of confusion doesn't happen anymore? VanTucky 23:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Then let's change the wording. And it should also be noted that some people nominate for GA and then work toward GA quality just to get around the backlog. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, it was just copyediting. I don't see how editing during the GA nomination says anything about the stability of the article - I've done some copyediting during nomination, and GAs aren't perfect - I sometimes see copyediting after the fact. What the stability criterion is supposed to mean is whether the article will significantly change between Date X and Y, then Y to Z, then Z to A. For example, Eliot Spitzer or Jeff V. Merkey would fail the stability criterion, or any article with edit wars, but articles like The Other Woman (Lost), where you might get a little bit added each couple of days for a week or two after it airs wouldn't. Will ^(talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we disagree about the interpretation of the stability criteria. Let's work to get it fixed if what it says isn't what it means. People are clearly not willing to understand what I'm saying, so let's just move on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude GaryColemanFan, but this isn't just a simple matter of "agree to disagree". You are literally the only current GA reviewer who holds that view, and while we will work to revise the wording so it's more clear, you need to abide by the current consensus on the matter if you're going to review GA nominations. VanTucky 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of reviewing GA nominations. I was trying to help by cutting down on the backlog, but you felt the need to criticize me rather than abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. This shouldn't have even be brought up here. If you want a reassessment, go to Good Article Reassessment. Don't attack the reviewer. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not attack you, I brought this up here because the issue is not the result of one review (easily fixable), but the fact that you thought it was acceptable and based in the criteria to fail that article for the reason you did. Me all by myself was not going to do so, that's just one user's opinion. This discussion demonstrated to you what the consensus among the majority of GA reviewers is. And I'm not sure what guideline you're referring to when you say "criticize me rather than abiding by Wikipedia guidelines". Constructive criticism of edits is not a breach of civility, and what I've said has nothing to do you with you as a person. So you weren't in line with the majority opinion on a piece of Ga bureaucracy? Don't take it personally, cause it's not a judgment of you. Notice how I didn't even mention your name in the first post. It's about reaching a consensus about the criteria, everyone very well could have agreed with you. You think I've never been wrong about the criteria in my reviews? Tons of times. You learn better when the community of fellow reviewers starts up communication and reaches a consensus. VanTucky 02:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See thread here on rewording the criteria. VanTucky 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane GA

Should someone review this recently passed article as it was passed by an apparent sock of a banned user? Aboutmovies (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it in GAR to maintain transparency in process. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Renominating is fine. I don't particularly care, but am involved so will do nothing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Newsom and current political figures in general

The article in its current form does not make mention of either Gavin Newsom's involvement in the Hillary Clinton presidential campgain, or of his own gubernatorial aspirations. However, inclusion of these topics would result in an unstable article not suitable for GAN (right?). What is to be done here? Is the article considered not "broad in coverage" if it omits these aspects? Is it not "stable" if it does so?

--Malachirality (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed quite a few times, and the consensus seems to be that articles containing material affected by the presendential campaign should not be considered unstable unless that material represents a significant portion or the main subject of the article, as in the case of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008. Many articles evolve as events unfold without being unstable.

As well as broadness, there is focus to consider. Try to keep campaign related matters in proportion: imagine how much the article would discuss Newsom's contribution to the campaign in a year's time. A paragraph perhaps? An article with one paragraph evolving is certainly not unstable! Geometry guy 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Haifa GAC

Hi. I nominated Haifa for GA over a month ago. It was reviewed by a very inexperienced user (just over 50 edits in total to his name) and I dont feel the review is very useful in terms of the feedback he gives. He also requests some things which are not even standards for GA. If someone could take a look at this for me and advise me where to go from here, Id really appreciate it. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First, there's no real "edit count" requirement that one needs to have a set amount of edits in order to review articles. All that is required is that reviewers have an account (anons not allowed to review) and that they follow the Good Article criteria. That being said, I do agree with the reviewers overall assessment that Haifa fails to meet the GA criteria. There are simply too many short sections, and the article fails the completeness criterion. Some of this can be addressed by simply better organization of the sections & subsections, but there's still a lot of information missing. I've provided a more complete review on the article's talk page. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

orphans?

Can an article bearing the orphan template still be classified as "good"? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's explicitly against the criteria, though there may be a rule prohibiting all such templates. But it does raise a red flag. If nobody can think of a few articles to link it from, that makes me wonder if it's notable enough to survive a deletion nomination. It would depend on the circumstances though, if you're reviewing an article I'd suggest requesting a second opinion on that specific article. -Pete (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You might also look at the GA Quick Fail Criteria, which lists the presence of cleanup banners as grounds for a quick fail. The question is does {{orphan}} fall into the cleanup category? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think as the criteria now stands, the answer is no. Notability could be an issue, but not necessarily. Depends. Sometimes very new articles could be high-quality but just not have anything linked to them. Wrad (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad. So long as the subject passes the notability criterion I don't see a problem. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

Could I request that, if the article Shrewsbury (Places section) is reviewed after this Sunday 23rd of March, and if it is put on 'Hold', that this can be extended to more than a week? As I will be on vacation for a while from that date, I may not be able to reply/fix any issues with the article within a week or so. If it isn't reviewed for say, another two weeks, then there should be no response problems. Thanks, Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to leave a comment on the article's talk page in case the reviewer misses this. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hello. CAn anyone review this article, Nina Williams, and see what it delivers is right? I think it passes most of the criteria LOTRrules (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please nominate it so it appears on WP:GAN and can be reviewed in turn. Please ask if are not sure how to do this or have other questions, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice to article writers

If article writers are using GA to hop to FA, should we request that they just skip GAC and go straight to FAC? The reasoning is that if you nom an article here, waiting times are three to four weeks. FAC offers a community discussion about issues with the article and it would be more helpful for them to fix them than wait for GAC. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are plenty of people who are using GA simply as a peer review before FA, and that's really unacceptable right now because it devalues GA and slows down the process for those who have articles nominated that aren't headed for FA. But there's really no way we can enforce a "no stepping stone" policy in my mind, I can see it quickly devolving in to rampant assumption of bad faith on the part of those trying to weed out future FACs and creating plenty of bad blood. We might place a note on this page to try and discourage such folks, but I don't really think it'll work. Besides, at the slow times stepping stone nominations help boost our activity and provide a valuable service for article improvement. It really sucks at backlog periods though... VanTucky 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. My latest of my 3 GA's I sent to FAC purposely in order to evade the backlog, it was only after it failed that I tried here for some input. Wizardman 01:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that using GAN as a stepping-stone to FA in any way devalues GA. FAN isn't as back-logged as GAN, but that's largely down to the efforts of one individual. Each one of us can make a difference to both processes, just by doing a review this week, instead of whinging about the backlog. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with giving this advice. Agree with Malleus (strongly, especially about the whinging), and also, sending a stack of extra articles to FAC will cause it to be massively backlogged. If they're sent because "GAN said so", it'll lower our rep even further. Bad idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus and DHMO. For many articles GA is intended as a stepping stone on the way to FAC. This does not devalue it at all. On the other hand, as a matter of pragmatism, more experienced editors may be better off (in terms of time) skipping GA and going straight to FAC, preferably after a peer review. However, that is a matter for the discretion of the editors involved with the article and I'm against GAN making any requests or giving advice on this matter. Geometry guy 11:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I say 'turn a blind eye'. Some editors see GA as an end-point. Some editors see it as a stepping stone. Either way, GA is one of the best things about Wikipedia in that it fosters the writing of good articles...so obvious! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wassup puts it best. It improves articles, and that's a good thing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

I thought we had something called "GA Sweeps" to get rid of the hoge backlog. Did it get stopped or something? D.M.N. (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of "GA Sweeps" isn't to clear the backlog at WP:GAN. The purpose of sweeps is to review existing GA articles to see if they still meet the criteria, delisting them if necessary, or referring them to WP:GAR.

To clear the backlog, we have done review drives, which have been reasonably successful. The last such drive was in the summer of 2007. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate people's willingness to review articles, and I've reviewed a few myself, but are there any plans to have a similar drive in the future? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have one real soon, because the backlog is currently the largest its ever been. Noble Story (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

These drives usually take place during the summer because reviewers tend to have more free time.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 01:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If every member of the GA project reviewed just one article in the next week, the backlog would almost be cleared. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for it... --Kakofonous (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to do what I can with GA reviews, so I am up for this if people want to go through with it. SorryGuy Talk 01:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need any co-ordinated effort, just pick an article and review it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I was made to understand there were grilled cheese sandwiches here.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 02:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish, feeling quite peckish now. If I had some bread I'd make a grilled cheese sandwich for everyone who reviewed an article this week, but I've got no cheese. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What might suck is the Bio wikiproject's doing another assessment drive. Good for them, but while doing so one comes across some nice articles. I already nommed one here and almost did for a second just based on what I saw while going through them all. This may mean that we will have to work harder at reviewing. (or i could just not nom them here i guess ..?) Wizardman 02:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There's got to be a little bit of give and take. I'm a big fan of the GA process (and the FA process as well), and I do what I can with reviews in both places. You're also an experienced editor, so as well as nominating, why not also help with reviewing? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I could, and actually did, just review one. I would, but it's best to read an article in one sitting for a review, which due to my schedule is often tough to do. I do help out when i can though, particularly when the sports section if over 35, like it is now and has been for a while. Wizardman 02:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's always said that if editors reviewd one article a week, the backlog would be cleared. But that never happens, because there are never enough editors. So I guess a drive would be in order sometime. And they have been rather successful. I see that last summer there was at one time only 40 articles nominated. But right now I think getting the page down to about 150 would be quite an achievement. Noble Story (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If there aren't enough reviewers, then the drive ought to be to recruit more reviewers, not to pressure the currently active reviewers to review more articles. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What about asking for reviewers directly? For example, there are currently about 30 unreviewed "Sports and recreation" articles. If someone split the articles up among the different relevant projects, a note could be left of the project talk pages asking for members to review articles over the next week. WikiProject Rugby league could be assigned specific articles like Ottawa Senators, Alan Kulwicki, and English Channel (horse). Anyone from the project could review those articles over the following week. Other projects would be assigned specific articles as well. I'm assuming that there wouldn't be a 100% success rate and not all of the articles would be reviewed, but I would guess that at least half would get done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, and perhaps worth a try. The problem though is of course that this is a volunteer project, and so I'd hazard a guess that none of the allocated articles would get reviewed. Why would anyone want to review any article? The reward for the nominators is clear, but what's the reward for the reviewers? Too often it's a bucket full of abuse, or their review is completely ignored. Hardly an encouragement to review another article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

True, it's a volunteer project, but there is no harm in asking for volunteers. Admittedly, there is no reward, but many projects take pride in the work they do for Wikipedia. Finding two people from each project who are willing to say, "Why the hell not?" might not be as hard as you think. I did some counting, and there are 28 unreviewed Sports and Recreation articles. If we chose two for each of the following projects, we could at least see what gets done: hockey, basketball (cross-posted between college basketball and pro basketball), American football (again, cross-posted), baseball, football/soccer, rugby, tennis, car racing (cross-posted on the various specific projects), wrestling, boxing, running, sports, swimming, equine. I'm not an administrator or a WP:WGA member, but I'd be willing to make a few posts and see what gets done. Would it be worth it for me to bring this idea up at the WP:WGA talk page? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, perhaps worth a try. So try it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The backlog in Sports and recreation is now down to 11 unreviewed articles, so it looks like things are working. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in mentioning the "nominate one, review one" idea, we should emphasise that if you don't contribute at least a little bit, then any articles you eventually take to GAC will take a long, long time to get reviewed because of the backlog. But if you review at least one a week or something like that, the backlog will be reduced, and any future GACs, including yours, will go through faster. So you might not see any rewards now, but you will in the long run. Noble Story (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Barry Bonds - Quick Fail?

I'm just about to review this article, only to notice that it is semi-protected after a recent bout of IP vandalism. Also, several paragraphs in the San Fransico Giants section are unreferenced. Would this qualify for me to quick-fail it? D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:WIAGA, "Vandalism reversion...do[es] not apply [to not being stable]". So don't quick-fail it for that. As for not having references, that's not a reason to quick-fail. Merely address it in your review, and the nominator should be able to come up with something. Noble Story (talk) 13.51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. D.M.N. (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Article validation tested

In case you didn't see the Signpost article,I'v copied this bit. Article flagging is being tested. An open beta of article validation is in progress, in English. Registered users can grant themselves one of two statuses: "Editor", which allows a user to flag a revision as being checked for vandalism and obvious nonsense, and "Reviewer", which allows a user to flag a revision as a "good" or "featured" article. When implemented, these statuses will likely be granted manually by administrators, but for the purposes of the test, any user can make themselves a "reviewer". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Miguel Ángel Asturias

The GA Reviewer for Miguel Ángel Asturias has left - see Talk:Miguel Ángel Asturias#GA Reviewer. Anyone want to take over? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that means they've left; no one took the responsibility from them, after all. Perhaps they just need a reminder that either it's still in their hands or they should request a second opinion with the proper template on the GAN page. Have you tried contacting them on their talk page? María (habla conmigo) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea about the second opinion. Obvious. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-evaluating "on hold" GAN

DM is out a bit so I'll ask somebody to re-evaluate "Confessions Part II" he recently put on hold. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Another: Positive Black Soul. --Kakofonous (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, both are

Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Simultaneously GA and A-class?

Recently 24: The Game and Battle of Gettysburg, First Day were nominated (by the same editor, kaypoh). However, both are already A-class articles. When I inguired on the talk page of 24: The Game, I was told that an article could be a GA and A-class article at the same time. Is that true?

It doesn't seem too logical to me, as an A-class article is supposed to be judged with higher standards than a GA article. Noble Story (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Stub, Start, B, GA, A, FA-Class system is a rating system run by individual WikiProjects. There is no requirement that different WikiProjects should give an article the same rating and WikiProjects have their own schemes for designating articles as A-Class: typically these schemes concentrate on the quality of the content, so articles can be A-Class without being good articles. Similarly GA-Class is a WikiProject rating which just happens to coincide most of the time with whether the article is a good article or not. Please try to discourage editors from using "GA-Class" as a synonym for good article; this will help to avoid this confusion arising. The two concepts are logically distinct, and sometimes differ in practice. Geometry guy 15:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles at WP:MILHIST are frequently both GAs and A-Class at the same time, but they also usually become FAs rather quickly as well. For example, here are two GAs under WP:MARITIME which are also A-Class: Benjamin Franklin Tilley and USS Siboney (ID-2999). -MBK₀₀₄ 21:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For the other wikiprojects that I participate in, I usually treat A-class as sort of a GA+ rating. I think that all A-class articles should meet, at a minimum, the GA criteria, and then go above and beyond, providing additional details and fulfilling a more subject area based assessment. They should mostly be meeting the FA criteria as well, but obviously don't have to meet all of them. As such, I don't have a problem with articles being listed as GA and also assessed as A-class by one of their wikiprojects. But I do have a problem with A-class assessments on articles that do not meet the GA criteria and are not listed at WP:GA. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I GA nom'ed Jack the Ripper purely 'cause it was listed as A-class and there was no way it could meet GA criteria. It failed and is now more reasonably a B-Class. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't change WikiProject A-Class ratings to B for failed GAs. This is a matter for the WikiProject: leave a note on the WikiProject talk page. A better mental picture (although this is still a simplification, for the reasons I mentioned above) for the structure of article assessment is:

Stub - Start - B - A
               |   |
               GA- FA

For many WikiProjects, A-Class is a content decision, based on comprehensiveness: it does not cover minutiae of presentation. It is not our job at GA to tell WikiProjects how to do their job. Geometry guy 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with that. In just the same way that it's not for a GA reviewer to re-assess an article's project allocated B-class to GA if (s)he decides to list it. That's down to how each project interprets its own GA assessment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So which project takes precedence when there are four or five banner tags on the talk page? Seriously, other than military history and maybe film, which projects have active assessment 'departments'. Nine out of ten times, A-class is a vanity class given by a contributing editor. And, quite often that contributing editor is long gone. In the case of Jack the Ripper, it seems the active contributors agreed with the down grade. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No project "takes precedence", as Geometry Guy's little graphic was meant to demonstrate. The GA process has absolutely nothing to do with whatever any project may choose to call GA, other than having (perhaps unhelpfully) the same name. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Each individual WikiProject banner is the responsibility of the WikiProject which created it. Anyone can change any banner, but WikiProject assessments are reached by consensus of those interested in the article from the point of view of the WikiProject. It is completely reasonable for different WikiProjects to have different assessments for the same article (see e.g. Talk:John von Neumann, which is great as a Game theory article, not comprehensive as a mathematics article, and needing further work as a biography). Remember: WikiProject assessments are for editors, not readers; they help editors keep track of and improve article quality. Geometry guy 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable GA review

Is it? It doesn't seem to of been reviewed properly to me. D.M.N. (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is pretty awful: half of it is references! I suggest you delist it following the delisting guidelines: in the case of this article, criterion 3(a) (broadness) clearly fails because this biographical article only discusses the subject's sporting career. If you run into problems delisting the article, use WP:GAR. Geometry guy 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this article being "pretty awful". I find that insulting to the work I placed into it and as being very unfair. Also, there are plenty of football GAs which do not cover aspects of the subject not related to their sporting career, with an example including the newly-promoted Michael Symes. The criteria itself states "articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic". Mattythewhite (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The article you cite is possibly worse. I suspect these articles were passed because they meet WP:V. However, GA is not a citation check. WP:V is an absolute policy requirement, which all articles must meet. GA is a broad assessment in terms of the good article criteria. This may have been misunderstood in the past, and such misunderstandings may continue. Your work is great, and it is no insult to it that it does not currently meet the good article criteria. Good luck improving the article further. Geometry guy 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not that it failed GA I find insulting, but the manner in which you described it. I mean, the article describes the whole career of Leo Fortune-West to a fairly comprehensive degree, I fail to see how it makes it "pretty awful". As you implied, it's not particularly long, but I don't believe that is a requirement of GA. Just that it "addresses the major aspects of the topic", which I believe it is successful in. This goes into further detail by stating "articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic", meaning it is not a necessity for it to go into detail on his non-sporting career. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my choice of words. Geometry guy 09:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not reviewed properly at all and clearly fails GA. I was tempted to just revert it, but instead have delisted and left a note about the improper review on the talk page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should give a proper review so Mattybywhite knows what he must do to improve the article so it can be a GA next time. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Its already been delisted. I'd recommend they start with a peer review before renominating it. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry about that review. I haven't done to many reviews yet, and I guess I need to re-read the criteria, because after a second look, I see that this article should not have passed the way I passed it. I apologize for this. iMatthew 20 08 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry too much. After this baptism by fire, you will be one of GA's best reviewers, I am sure! Good luck! Geometry guy 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I had similar concerns about the GA review of Kenwyne Jones and put that up for GAR, but it's been passed. At least Jones' article does go into some of his background.

I have to agree with Mattythewhite and agree with some of Geometry Guy's wording. "Pretty awful" doesn't really beat around the bush. It's a very damming verdict even if you didn't quite mean to use those words. Peanut4 (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But still, I'm not quite sure how it fails criterion 3. It reads "addresses the major aspects of the topic", which it has done by documenting his sporting career. It also reads "articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic", telling that it is not necessary for it to detail his non-sporting career. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm just starting to review articles, and I see that this is not the way to do it. I've re-read the GA criteria, and I will review another article in the near future. iMatthew 20 08 17:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on your reviweing, I'm just trying to find out how it exactly fails GA. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious shortcomings are with respect to criteria 1a and 3a. For instance: "He again gained with the promotion with the side in 2002–03 after they won the play-offs"; "He was to be offered a new deal in April and finished the season with seven goals in 28 appearances." So far as 3a is concerned, it is difficult to argue that a biography that doesn't include any biographical detail meets the broadness requirement. I'd suggest peer review and/or a request to the League of Copyeditors as the next step for this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd method of reviewing

I stumbled across this situation and thought I would bring it up here for broader input (am also notifying the editor in question). Noble Story does GA reviews in User:Noble Story/sandbox, with just a link to the sandbox from the article talk page. When the GA review is done, the sandbox is cleared and used for the next review(s), so that someone looking for the GA review details would have to dig through the sandbox history. This defeats the purpose of having the GA review on the article talk page. Such reviews are helpful for future editors and for things like FAC.

Specific example: Stuart McCall is a GA, but on Talk:Stuart McCall there is a very minimal review and a link to the sandbox. This was blanked here diff to add the review for History of Bradford City A.F.C., which is also now gone.

I also wonder about the level of changes being asked for relative to GA criteria. While it is clear Noble Story is a careful, thorough and detailed reviewer, I think this practice of doing reviews in the sandbox has to stop. I also think the complete reviews have to be "dug up" and put in their article talk pages. Looks like there are 11 articles to date [[9]].

I also think the directions need to be made more explicit as to reviews being done in the article talk page only. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. I brought this up with NS in regards to Portland Trail Blazers, but did not pursue it too hard. But I do think it should be made clear that reviews need to be made on the talk page where they are prominent and easy to find, both during and after the fact. -Pete (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add, that review was very thorough, and will serve as a great guide to improving the article even if the article doesn't pass. -Pete (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pete. My own requests are the two above, Stuart McCall and History of Bradford City A.F.C. The reviews were very thorough and an enormous help in making great strides forward with the articles. I'm not sure if they'd be too long to add to the talk page. Just an after thought, would it not be possible to add a link to the old page on the Sandbox when passing or failing the GA? Peanut4 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not disputing the thoroughness or helpfulness of the reviews, but they need to be on the article talk page, then if too large they can be archived as a talk page archive so they are easily accessible. They should be one click away, not a long hunt through the sandbox history - it took me a good 5 minutes to find the final version of the Stuart McCall review, which is useless for future reference. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The reviews need to be properly placed on the article talk page per the GA review instructions. The length of them should not be a deterrent in any way, shape, or form. If the article's talk page is bloated, add an archiver, archive the older stuff, the post the review. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, GA reviews should not be placed in sandboxes, but this raises a more general issue (see below). Geometry guy 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Permanent GA reviews

The importance of making GA reviews easily available to future reviewers and editors has been pointed out above. However, the current GA practice of storing reviews on article talk pages is not ideal in this respect, because talk pages get archived. In particular, for high traffic articles, the talk page is often archived automatically on a timescale of 1 month or less. This causes numerous problems finding old GA reviews, as links are often broken and the review isn't a click away, because there are multiple archive pages.

It might be better to store GA reviews in a permanent place (e.g., a talk subpage such as [[Talk:Stuart McCall/GA2]] for the second GA review of Stuart McCall) so that they can easily be found at any later date. While the review is active, it can, of course be transcluded onto the talk page, just as peer reviews are listed on the peer review page. After the review, a link can be left, but it will be a permanent link. This approach might appeal to User:Noble Story as well. What do others think? Geometry guy 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I could support an idea like that, particularly since it would be closer to what is done with peer reviews and FAs. I've always wondered why GA goes on the talk page instead of using similar processes to those two. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a very good idea. I found Noble Story's review extremely useful but also found it easier to be on his Sandbox rather than the McCall talk page. The same for the History article. Peanut4 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I ~~like this idea a lot~~ love this idea - it would also save playing edit history archeologist in the talk page archives ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always supported the idea of having GA reviews on the talk page because I believe that it encourages the participation of those editors who may not be inclined to look at the "please leave comments" link at the top of the talk page. On the other hand, I agree that having to excavate for old GA reviews is a pita. So if transclusion can serve both aims, then fine, let's do it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough a review I am undertaking at the moment led to a small discussion on the editors talk page. This I copied this back into the article's talk page Talk:History of timekeeping devices so that the process of the GA was understandable to others. I do like the idea of a GA subpage as long as it is transcluded onto the talk page, a {{box}} with clear instructions as to what is going on and a {{box}} at the end saying where the archived GA process is. Brilliant idea. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw this edit fly by not a half hour ago and couldn't help but think that it could serve as a sufficient example. —Rob (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually feel that review offers the best option: archive the GAN for ArticleHistory et al after the GA has passed/failed. That solves worry about people seeing the review and contributing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I seem to be the center of this debate, I might as well explain myself. I originally used my sandbox for testing and/or previewing major edits. However, it eventually morphed into a place for my review of GANs. I wanted to use them that way because my reviews are often very long (like this one). As as I side note, I do keep a list of my reviews, and there I have a link to all my reviews. However, I see that it is best to put it the review the talk page. So, my apologies for those who were put out by my methods.

By the way, are you saying I should create a page like this, to keep reviews for future articles I review? Noble Story (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Noble -- no need to be sorry! I think that WP:BOLD requires us to do stuff in the best way we can think of. When we need to discuss it and modify it, we do. But I for one don't think you did anything "wrong," even though I think there are better ways to do it.

My reading of the above is this:

Include reviews on talk pages, has strong consensus and should be done.
Proposal for a standard/permanent link like Talk:Blabla/GAR sounds good, but is still under discussion.

-Pete (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I was wondering if this could be viable. After reviewing the article (in this case failing it), I include a note at the end of the page to showing linking to the archived version of my review on my sandbox. That way the review will always be there, and the link will be on the talk page, easily accessible for anyone who wants to look over the review. Noble Story (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think creating a third talk space for GA is viable. Either use the regular talk page or have a completely separate space like FA. Creating a special GA review space is adding more bureaucracy to the system, not simplifying it. Also, using the talk page is extremely convenient for both reviewers and nominators. Hardly anyone goes way back in the history digging for GA reviews years or months old anyway. The problem with the reviews that started this discussion was that the review existed permanently nowhere except in the history of a user sandbox. So long as talk pages and archives stay permanent, and they always do, it's not a problem. Creating a new GA review space is using a cannon to kill a gnat. VanTucky 03:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I get your reasoning. However, I would think that an old version of an article would exist just as much as an article in an archive. They are both there, after all, and they won't be deleted. I don't know if my reasoning is correct, but that's what I'm thinking. Noble Story (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is that each GA review would have its own page, exactly like FAC and peer review. It doesn't matter where this page is (it could be a Talk subpage or a Wikipedia subpage), as long as it is permanent and easy to find. Geometry guy 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with this, as long as while each review is 'live' it can be found in full on the article talk page and edited from there. Conducting the review on the talk page, as we do at present, seems simpler to me than creating and transcluding a separate page, but I've no real preference. Certainly archiving the review somewhere permanent would have the advantage that the AH template can then be linked properly too. EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with VanTucky, plus new reviewers might not understand or skip this new step and we would end up having reviews everywhere. It's really not that hard to find archived reviews besides most articles don't even have archives. I don't know, changing the whole process to spare a few clicks seems pretty silly.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly see the drawbacks as well as the benefits. However, the former can be minimized: the dedicated page for an article's GA review would be set-up by the nominator, in exactly the same way as it is set-up for peer reviews. So, no extra work for reviewers. As EyeSerene suggests, this dedicated page would be transcluded live and in full onto the talk page, so it could be edited easily as now using the edit link for the section on the talk page.

It isn't just about a few clicks, it is about accountability: it is not unheard of for articles to be made GAs without a proper review; we get one every couple of months at WP:GAR and it takes some work to spot them, so I am sure we miss many more. A permanent link to each GA review would help to eliminate this problem. Geometry guy 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Accountability? What about talk pages are not accountable? We're not having a large problem with the accountability of GA reviews, in terms of making them permanent and visible. Again, cannon to kill a gnat. I don't want to have to create an entirely new page just to write a review, especially for quick fails. It is extra work for reviewers, and I strongly dislike it. Talk pages serve this function well. Besides, isn't our goal trying to reduce instruction creep, not expand it? Having to create a new discussion and review space just for GA certainly doesn't simplify the process. VanTucky 19:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the thread. You would not have to create the review page. Geometry guy 09:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not big on this idea, but seemingly quite a few others are. How about making a subpage of GAN, just like FAC/PR do it? eg. Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Wrought iron? (to take the article at the top of the backlog list now) Nominator creates it, and instead of using {{la}} as we currently do on the main GAN page, we develop a special template for this page which links to the review subpage and has parameters for "on review" and "on hold" (replacing the current templates for that). I guess I just don't like talk page subpages because that's where archives go, and this could make it confusing for the prefixindex. Comments? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is largely a matter of psychology where the review page goes: a subpage of GAN works just as well as a subpage of article talk. However if would have to be something like Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Wrought iron/1 to accommodate multiple reviews. Although I see the issues with bureaucracy, I am also interested in this idea because it might help with the automation of WP:GAN, which has been much discussed (not just by me:), but not yet taken forwards. Geometry guy 10:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the main attraction. We're taking small steps in this direction anyway (with alterations to the GA review template), so why not move things forward further? As far as setting up the pages, although it's inevitably slightly more complex for the nominator, a script might be helpful for regulars (similar to the Xfd script). EyeSerene^talk 11:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A subpage is a good idea. Well, maybe. For archiving, yes. But for accountability? It really doesn't do a lot. Actually, that's the problem with GA reviewing. There is no accountability. Isn't there some way to make the GAN process like the FAC process? Noble Story (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It will help accountability in that the absence of such a page will be a good indicator the review was not conducted properly. We've deliberately avoided mimicing FA too much though. GA is not really supposed to be some sort of FA-lite ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking links

I have just been checking the links on an article I have submitted for GA. Some of the links are coming up with the message "Cookie test detected. Killing loop". Does anyone know what this means? The links work fine, as does another that is marked unavailable. --seahamlass 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, sounds like a problem with your browser to me. I dunno. VanTucky 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a site that requires the reader to have a cookie from the site in order to browse their content. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, going on what Tim said, I think it doesn't work with the link checker, so just ignore it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the advice! --seahamlass 06:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Video and computer games section

Any objections to renaming this section to "Video games", as per the WikiProject (which was once called "Computer and Video games" (IIRC) and renamed)? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

None here, seems logical. EyeSerene^talk 10:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it. Feel free to object, anyone (diff). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Homerun (film)'s GA nomination currently on hold; input appreciated.

Homerun (film)'s GA nomination was placed on hold by AnmaFinotera, who appears to be an inexperienced reviewer. I disagree with some of his comments. Thus the review would benefit from input from others who are familiar with film articles, the GA criteria or both. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Review of my review of Battle of Iwo Jima

I just reviewed Battle of Iwo Jima and it is my first GA review. I am asking for any input that I need for reviewing, mistakes etc etc. Please respond on my talkpage or notify me of a reponse on my talkpage. Thanks, PG Pirate 15:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What happens when...

a reviewer who has placed a bunch of articles on hold and isn't editing so can't check them? Malachirality has not edited for two weeks [10], and William Wilberforce and its anxious editors have been waiting on tenterhooks for a week longer than that, with other articles waiting even longer.[11]. Does somebody take these things up at some point? --Slp1 (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this too. I'm going to put up a second reviewer request. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!--Slp1 (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell seems to be in the same situation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have reviewed these two articles. William Wilberforce actually passed; it's quite good. Bertrand Russell isn't even close to WP:WIAGA -- too long, too disorganized, too many quotes. It's just above Start-class, really,... Dr. Cash (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/GAN passed spam

(Shortcut: User:DHMO/GAP - remember to subst! - {{subst:User:DHMO/GAP}})

I just made this, which I plan to use as a footer when passing GANs, to help encourage others to review. If there's anything you think is missing from it, feel free to say so here or add to it - and of course, feel free to use it yourself. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take you up on the offer to use the template. :) It's a very good idea. Vassyana (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could also add something like this to the GAN page: "If you nominate an article, please review at least one article as well. This will help reduce the backlog, and will help your own nomination to be processed sooner..." Something like that. I think that might encourage nominators to participate in the the review process as well. You think so? Noble Story (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That's been brought up a few times before...I was generally in favour of it, but (IIRC) it hasn't gone through because it creates the impression that you have to do something if you want your article reviewed. Not the best image. Plus, some people are great GA writers, but dodgy reviewers...you just get that. =/ dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I've nominated a candidate and do feel a mutual obligation in return. But conducting a review would be rather daunting, not being familiar with the minutiae of the Manual of Style, for example. If the page suggested a way in which I could spend an appropriate amolunt of time assisting in the GA process, however, I would be pleased to help, and am sure others would too. MikeHobday (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and think DHMOs spam should be moved into WP space, with some minor caveats, of course. Geometry guy 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to move it to wherever you please, and make any changes you think would make it better. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject GA Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where is best to raise this issue, but it looks as if this page is actively watched. I'm not sure if editors are going to be on the lookout for April Fool's jokes in this issue of the newsletter since it's now April 7th, so I sort of wonder if it might not be best to remove the jokes? --JayHenry (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've removed the jokes. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

"Add {{GAN|05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)|status=|subtopic=name of section where article is listed}} (five tildes) to the top of the nominated article's talk page."

Maybe get a bot to do this.

--Kaypoh (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It's not a big deal. You can do a review without the template being there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This could be made easier using template substitution, as in the process for requesting peer reviews. The only nontrivial information is the subtopic, and that is optional; the date can be supplied automatically. Geometry guy 09:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Peak uranium

Could an uninvolved editor please take a look at what has gone on at Peak uranium and Talk:Peak uranium#GA review. An attempt at a GAN review has gone awry, and another review may be necessary. Johnfos (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The review is now posted.Mjamja (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please take the On hold tag off the article page. Johnfos (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week

Since Epbr123 (talk · contribs) hasn't been doing these for awhile, I thought I'd take a crack at looking at reviewers over the past two weeks:

Week ending 4/6/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Noble Story (talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 6 April 2008. Noble Story is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:

Week ending 4/13/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 13 March 2008. Lpangelrob is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:

Congratulations to our GAN Reviewers of the Week for the past two weeks! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved in both cases, and thanks for your work, Doc. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Way late, but thanks. :-) I'm trying to rope other people into reviewing, but there's a learning hump that they need to get over. Anything to help the backlogs. —Rob (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Greeks - reviewed ???

I had volunteered to review the article at "13:32, 15 April 2008" and left the review note on WP:GAN page and ypdated the GAN tag on Talk:Greeks [12]. Today, i see the article passed at "15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)" by somebody else. Is the pass valid? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know, if I need to review it now or not.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it is as you say Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs). It is odd. But looking at the article itself - Greeks - there doesn't seem to be a misplaced confidence in the article. I think an average reviewer would pass it. Do you disagree? You don't need to review it unless you see a problem. If it is OK, then you might as well remvove the entry from Wikipedia:Good article nominations Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Maronite mummies - GA fail

I don't know what GA criteria the article fails, but I failed it on moral grounds as i noticed two of its section were plagarized copies of their source website. I hope, this is accepted.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfectly valid reason. Also, the very large number of fair-use images in this article is potentially unacceptable. If they are on display at the Lebanon National Museum, then they should be considered replaceable. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Independent sources do not exist?

I was looking through GAN to find an article to review and was curious what people though of the nominations here: Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Law. The articles come with a note reading: "Note to reviewer: If you're unfamiliar with legal articles, please bear in mind that governments generally only find it necessary to legislate once at time on a particular topic, and appeal courts need only decide cases once. Therefor, multiple, independent sources for articles like this do not exist." I'm not familiar with the courts in the United Kingdom, but this struck me as an unusual statement. In the United States there are countless law reviews, journals and newspapers that cover the most significant cases. If these articles nonetheless satisfy the inclusion criteria, can they be considered Good? --JayHenry (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the little {{caution}} box at the top of WT:GAN does not begin with a grammatically correct sentence. I'm not really sure what wording the GA regulars are looking for, but someone might want to fix that. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I fixed the wording of the template. As for the lack of references, I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability in articles on legal cases. Editors there seemed to agree that third-party sources were needed and that Good Articles must be properly sourced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... the discussion has now been archived to Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 21#Notability in articles on legal cases. On the one hand the Court of Appeal of England and Wales is the second most senior court in England, which tilts toward documentation of its cases as an encyclopedic goal. I think the question which needs more feedback is whether or not an article is "WP:GA-quality" if it indeed uses the available material, but that material is minimal. In other words, are there articles which should be included, but cannot be GA because of the shortage of information? --JayHenry (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have done more research into this issue, and it's evident that a body of secondary literature exists at this level of court decision. This book and this book discuss the first case. I'm sure there are other books, tracing the development of these areas of the law. If secondary literature exists and is simply not used there's no way to pass this article, is there? --JayHenry (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 4/20/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 20 April 2008. GaryColemanFan is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:

P.S. It was actually quite close this week -- the top three were almost tied ... almost, but not quite. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Answering question about the survey

There's a short survey through April 30 that is now posted in every WP:GAN heading from "Social sciences and society" to "Miscellaneous". I was asked the reason for the question about wikiprojects and other groups. There are guidelines that apply just to specific areas or wikiprojects, for instance, WP:Scientific citation guidelines. And people tend to write like their friends, and for their friends. This question is for the education of the people who work on style guidelines, so that we can find out if there are writing trends we didn't know about, either inside or outside Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger/stability concern

The article group maths seen here is a GA nominee but there is a merger debate going ahead. Should it be quick fired, there are definate stability concerns in my opinion. Advise appreciated. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd be inclined to say quick fail. An article with a current merge proposal/discussion would seem to fail GA criteria for stability and for being ready at all. From the talk page, it seems like merge is likely, which would change the content of the article. So I'd quick fail with note to feel free to renominate when merge is complete and article restabilized. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, will do unless anyone else objects. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well know one responded. Ill give it another hour. If i hear nothing ill quick fire. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, ill quicker fire, ive waited long enough for a reply, im sure ill get slack for this in approximately 8 minutes lol. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, i just went back and all of a sudden they found a consensus not to merge. Lol, im not getting involved. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention for a figure briefly in spotlight

I'm currently reviewing Katie Sierra, and I have a question in evaluating for broad in coverage. As the article is titled now, it reflects that it will remain a biography. The subject is a young woman who was in national press at the ripe age of 15, for being suspended from high school. As she is no longer in high school, and probably won't be suspended from it again, I was wondering if the article should be renamed Katie Sierra controversy or Katie Sierra antiwar protest or similar. How likely would the article remain up to date on this young woman's life in a few years if she no longer makes news? --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look (sorry no one answered for a while). In my view this clearly is (or should be) an article about an event, not a person: I see no evidence that the subject of Katie Sierra meets the notability guidelines. However, the event itself almost certainly is notable. Although it is point of view to present it from Katie Sierra's perspective, the article name is there simply to help readers find the article, and Katie Sierra was the centre of this controversy, so the alternative titles you suggest sound good to me: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) for further ideas.

Good luck with the review: you seem to have taken on quite a challenge there! I agree with your concerns about neutrality and verifiability, especially the reliance on politically motivated sources. Court TV surely borders on being unreliable for information which is not purely factual. My favourite neutrality test for controversial topics is that one should not be able to tell where the editors' sympathies lie. This article is a long way from passing that test. Geometry guy 11:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

GA symbol on article page

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again: suggesting training of GA reviewers

As we all know, the fundamental difference between the GA and FA review systems is the "One reviewer; no experience necessary" system in place here at GA.

I maintain that GA has outgrown this system, at least in its current form. This is esp. true given the Great Green Dot Controversy.

It's time for GA to shed its old skin and crawl out into a new day.

Yes, I know the lack of bureaucracy is both appealing (esp. to anti-bureaucracy cranks such as myself; see the mini-rant on my user page) and practical (see the backlog at WP:GAN).

I'm not proposing anything mandatory. Everything is voluntary. GA newbies can still pop in, file a review, and disappear into the murky waters of wherever. I am proposing a mentoring program. Umm, let's see if I can break it into steps:

Agree on a plan for creating a system acclaimed by consensus. In some ways, it would kinda work along the lines of the "Adopt a New User" program...
1. I would suggest that the first stages should include selecting a group of four to six people who have a double role as Coordinators (creating the plan) and Mentors. I'm guessing that would be done through the GA Wikiproject...
2. Those four to six draw up a learning plan'. Take your time! Get it right! Once it's done, it acquires some inertia (though of course it isn't set in stone... nothing in Wikipedia ever is).
  1. The training plan should include for example many examples about images (placement; licensing, etc.)...
  2. and about WP:LEDE (my personal soapbox! I truly hate crappy ledes!)
  3. and about referencing ... but walking a tightrope—showing that the criteria of WP:V are not the Ten Commandments (again see my user page for link to another mini-rant about "challenged or likely to be challenged"), but should also avoid any hopelessly mechanical and divisive "must have one reference per paragraph" creed...
  4. and about some common WP:MOS faux pas such as spaces around m-dashes (see WP:MOSDASH) and articles with a rash of {{cquote}}s (see the edit summary of this edit).
  5. ..and so on and on.
3. The learning plan, which has been developed in user space, is moved onto subpages of WP:GAN or WP:GA or even of the wikiproject...wherever seems best.
4. A cool page is developed entreating/begging people to sign up for training (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team for a wonderful example to emulate)
5. The mentoring should be live (done on real WP:GAN articles) and comprehensive. If people can pass it in under a week, it isn't comprehensive enough.
Even the "old hands" who are not selected as mentors (or who decline the job for any reason) should take/pass the training, as examples to others. I volunteer to take the training at some point or other (but not to be a mentor.. not for a long while though.. most of you know my RL soap opera! ;-) ).
Two cool user boxes are created; one for Coordinators (who are also the mentors) and one for those who pass the training. A cool page listing those who have passed is also possible. No page for mentors; that would seem kinda stuck-up. [hey, I've seen those "reviewer of the week" discussions.. is there an award for that? One with levels, perhaps, similar to the wikistripes in WP:MILHIST? And not just for reviewer of the week, but for... whatever...
The number of mentors, originally small, could be expanded over time— but there should be some WP:CONSENSUS on those chosen.
Etc etc etc. Fill in the blanks. Lather, rinse and repeat.
most importantly of all, the trainers and trainees should work to develop/extend a sense of community.. which is beneficial for many reasons.. including especially being the force of moral suasion (and the carrot of camaraderie) which encourages others to complete the training.. the training, I repeat and stress, is voluntary, but highly encouraged... but those who pass it get recognition, cool shtuff, and membership in a Cool Cool Elite GA Cabal.
I'm done! Ling.Nut (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So, the essence of this proposal is that as well as one person passing or failing an article, one person also passes or fails each reviewer in another voluntary process? Is that really addressing the concerns that critics express about a GA only having being assessed by a single reviewer? I don't think so. Is there any evidence that significant numbers of articles are being listed at GA that shouldn't be according to the criteria? Since when did the critera include a check for spaced mdashes anyway? The relatively lightweight nature of the GA process is its strength. If there is evidence that the present system of checks and balances is proving to be inadequate, then let's work on those checks and balances. I'm quite certain, for instance, that many new reviewers would welcome some mentoring with, or some feedback following, at least their first review. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think each candidate for GA should be assessed by two different reviewers. The second reviewer doesn't have to give their own assessment report, but should add any additional comments not made by the first reviewer. 86.29.138.220 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As a new GA reviewer, I've found the input from more veteran reviewers (such as Dr. Cash) to be invaluable. Perhaps reviews made my reviewers with less than N number of reviews under his belt should have his reviews seconded by a more veteran reviewer. Then, after they've done a few on their own they would be able to move on to reviewing w/o the need for a 2nd review. This will provide oversight on the new reviewer by the veteran and ensure that the newbie fully understands the GA criteria. I'd be against any kind of "training" as everything a new reviewer needs to know is on the GA criteria page, and if it isn't, can be easily added. will381796 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible proposal, and wouldn't add too much additional process wonkery. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As a new reviewer as well I learnt by having an article go through the system to get to GA status. As a return for the effort of the reviewer I began to look at articles I could review for GA. I did not ask for guidance (but that is my problem), I read a series of failures and successes as they were notified - and still do. If this proposal means that an experienced reviewer is looking over your shoulder advising, pointing out the missed obvious etc then I think it is excellent. As mentioned if I have read it right, the review should not though be by both in the first instance. Will it though answer what to me is obvious - get more reviewers, especially if some experienced ones are diverted away from GA review to GA mentoring. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the danger of process wonkery, it takes people away from productive jobs into managing the process. GA clearly needs more reviewers, and I think that many would appreciate a little bit of light-handed oversight on their first review; I know that I asked for it when I did my first review. But not this training program. Why would anyone bother anyway? I certainly wouldn't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this; generally, anyone's first 5 GA reviews might be light on content (or, like mine were, questionable). I'd hate to say that people should be forced to use something like {{GAList}}, but for the first few reviews, it at least provides a good checklist that may or may not be used in subsequent reviews. —Rob (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would support something, but not now, at the minute we are way way way too backlogged. Putting people off the GA review process, right now, i think would be a disaster. Generally reviews start off with a few questionable reviews but they soon get the hang of it. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd also say that it's far easier and quicker to review someone else's review than it is to review the article they've reviewed. There's no need to turn GA into FA-lite. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)

"We are too backlogged" means "never", not "later". The backlog will never go away, not unless 20 or 30 new reviewers join up immediately. So you'll need to buy into the full measure of that line of thinking, if you are concerned about backlogs.
There are two probs with the GA system: One is that it's a one-reviewer system; the second is that the aforementioned reviewer needs (and often has) little or no idea what he or she is doing. This proposal addresses the second problem.
As a huge side benefit, it makes GA reviewing more attractive, as it creates an explicit system of teamwork and cooperation, along with rewards.
As a further benefit, it is simply advertising.
It would only draw people away from the process initially, during a startup phase. Later on, as the ratio of trained to untrained improves, the "process wonkery" (an unfair characterization!) decreases tremendously.
There are always critics to anyone who wants to change things. So be it. Do you argue, then, that no change is needed? Ling.Nut (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I argue that the case for change has not been made. Your premise was that change is necessary. So provide the evidence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Great Green Dot Debate clearly shows that a palpable lack of trust in the GA process still exists. The other evidence is simply crappy GAs. I mentioned one in the Dot Debate. My jaw hit the floor when I saw it. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion, not a fact. My own opinion is quite different from yours. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not entirely stupid. :-) If it were only my opinion, then I would be well aware of that fact—and I would have given up on this suggestion many, many long months ago. But as i said, it is instead an opinion held by a significant section of the community. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont believe there is a lack of faith in the GA process, no offence to anyone, but most of those who oppose the GA dot debate are FA elitists. Also as those who support the dot are in the vast majority i dont think you can use that argument. You said it plain and clear yourself. All we need to get that backlogged sorted is 20 more volunteers, lol if we are struggling to get just 20 people now its clearly not wise to add further restrictions. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dravidian parties

The above article has been kept on hold for a while now. All the suggestions have been appended and clarifications given on particular sections. It would be nice if some reviewer can let us know if there are any more concerns which need to be amended and if the article now satisfies GA criteria. Thanks Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 14:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried to contact the initial reviewer directly? will381796 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, done that. I have been contacted by a few editors who would like to contribute to the article to elevate it to FA status, but we are worried about the stability which may affect the GA. Cheers Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So long as the edits are good-faith contributions and are not drastic re-writes, I'd say feel free to let the contributors work on it to get it up to FA. I would try sending the reviewer one more message and wait a few more days for a reply. If still no response, we can bring it up w/ others about possibly getting a new reviewer assigned. will381796 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have sent another reminder to the reviewer. I would take your advice on improving the article then. Cheers Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 19:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for not reviewing. On a side note, I don't think you should go for FAC anytime soon. There is a lot of copyediting to be done. Noble Story (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlog purge

I was curious: is the backlog ever purged of articles? I ask simply because its quite possible that if an article was nominated 3 months ago before it finally gets reviewed, isn't it likely that the version of the article being reviewed is significantly different from the article that was originally nominated? Is there currently any systematic review where nominations that are older than, say 2 or 3 months, are automatically purged from the backlog? will381796 (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I haven't seen one that old in awhile, actually. Most of them are handled in a month or less. Wrad (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've slipped a bit recently, but not by two months! See [13]. Wrad (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter that the version reviewed is not the version nominated? I'd guess that they hardly ever are. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there are currently any in the backlog that are that old. I was just curious about protocols that are followed. will381796 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're supposed to check the history and make sure it hasn't been vandalized recently, so that you can take that into account. If it has, you can remove the vandalism yourself to clear the way for a good review. Wrad (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

There was an article that i failed about a month ago as none of the corrections were made while on hold. Ive just noticed that its back on the nomination list. Would i still be allowed to review it again or is that a conflict of interest issue? Does it look bad? Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, although if you feel uncomfortable you can avoid it and let someone else chime in. Not a problem either way. Wrad (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no conflict of interest there. If you think that it's still got a way to go yet though, then I'd probably be inclined to let someone else pick it up, just for the sake of a quiet life. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, i can leave it for now, there are plently of older ones on the list, maybe someone else will get it. Cheers for your response. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also noticing that this is a problem. I recently failed Battle of Marion and Wilkins Peak. Both have been renominated with no substantial changes. Wilkins Peak was nominated 12 hours after being failed. As a reviewer, it's pretty frustrating and insulting. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan, I think you have been quick failing a lot of articles, and applying overly stringent criteria. I wish you would place more articles on hold, list what's wrong, and give people a chance to fix them. I'd actually like a different reviewer to have a look at SS Edmund Fitzgerald. Your evaluation of that article was not especially helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 02:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad that you said that. I was just thinking exactly the same thing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that any reviewer would have a problem with an article that is largely unsourced. Please also remember that the lack of references was brought up two years prior to the nomination. Would one more week have made a difference? As for my reviews in general, I place many articles on hold. If it seems as though the issues can be fixed within a week, I agree that placing it on hold is the best course of action. If there are serious problems with multiple criteria, however, failing the article is perfectly valid. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You said "almost completely unreferenced". That's just not true. I'd like a different reviewer to look at the article and provide a second opinion. A list of specific objections would help us improve the article, even if it does eventually fail after a week. You might be surprised how much progress can be made in a week based on good, specific criticism. SS Edmund Fitzgerald is a very important article and it's a shame we have not done better. Jehochman ^Talk 02:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say "almost completely unreferenced"? At any rate, if you believe the review to be in error, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment under "If you believe an article should be listed". GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Exactly. If you disagree with a review, take it to WP:GAR rather than renominating. The instructions are quite clear, and make a lot of sense. You shouldn't be "fishing" for more sympathetic reviewers. And at GAR, the reviewer too can learn if he or she has been too harsh (or even too lenient). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I will consider that path. My concern is that editors who come here, maybe with their first GAC, get turned off with a speedy fail, and maybe we never see them here again. Jehochman ^Talk 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with a /speedy/ review, renominate at GAN, noting that it was speedy failed and that you're renominating. GAR would preferably be use for disagreements in full reviews, as the likely GAR response for a speedy is simply "take back to GAN". dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing the name of a nominated article

Is it OK to do this? I nominated Wagner's Rhinemaidens a few weeks back, since when other editors have suggested a change of title, either to "Rhinemaidens (Wagner)" or just plain "Rhinemaidens". I am inclined to agree. If we do change, do I have to change the nomination page, or is that done automatically? Or would it be better to wait until after the GA review? Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually in the History of timekeeping devices review I asked them to look at why the article was called what it was, and the possibility of changing the name. If it improves the article then IMO there is no problem. Just do the procedure properly. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 19:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

After moving (renaming) the article, just change {{la|Wagner's Rhinemaidens}} to {{la|Rhinemaidens}} (or {{la|Rhinemaidens (Wagner)}}) on the GAN page. No big deal. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How long can an article be held?

I recently reviewed MacPaint and placed the article on hold. The primary contributor stated, in a message on my talk page, that they are awaiting a book on the subject of the article, and that they will be able to address the concerns that I raised when it arrives, in one to two weeks. Should I allow the article to remain on hold for that long? My understanding is that generally holds are used for less than a week. There's nothing major wrong with the article; there's just a few points that I'd like clarified. Should I keep it on hold for the time the contributor requested or fail it and suggest that they resubmit once the changes have been made? will381796 (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be on hold for as long as you like, if you feel that your concerns are being addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 4/27/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 20 April 2008. ThinkBlue is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were: Dr. Cash (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Length

How small, if at all, can an article be and still pass GA? As im really busy at the moments ive got in the habit of going for smaller articles. Sometimes there is a really good article but its small which makes me reluctant to pass it. I get a second opinion usually in these cases. Could i just have some clarity on this. How small is too small? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 08:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Length doesn't factor into the GA criteria. What matters is that the article is broad enough in its coverage. FAC requires that the article be comprehensive, and I tend to regard GA in the way as well (personal taste), but as long as every important aspect of the subject is covered, the length doesn't matter. María (habla conmigo) 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my feeling, but you do lose faith in yourself when there is an 8,000 byte article infront of you and your thinking, hell this is kinda good. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it depends on the topic. Sometimes, a 8 KB article may touch many aspects, but not cover them in enough detail, but sometimes the topic is such that one can't write more about a topic e.g. the article Sif about a minor Norse deity, is just 8KB. I web-searched about the topic and found nothing could be written more of the deity.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Take, for example, Eagle Cash. Also 8 KB, but it was well-sourced, well written, and covered all the major aspects. I ended up passing it without putting it on hold first (something I almost never do). Noble Story (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But can something like Mooning the Cog be long enough? 2 KB seems ridiculously short. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to fail that right now. IMO, it should be a Stub. D.M.N. (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

COI: Friends

I am concerned that the nominator of Friends reviewed the article 21 minutes after listing it and passed the article. I'm not sure how to deal with this, but I am hoping that somebody can help. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to pass; I've notified the passer to this discussion. And I agree that a more thorough review was in order; I hope JayJ47 will consider doing so. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How about we get in a second opinion? JayJ47 (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My second opinion is that the article should definitely undergo a full review for prose, sources, etc., and should be placed on hold. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My third opinion is that is absolutely and categorically unacceptable for the nominator to carry out the review. I have restored Friends GA nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have given the article a Good article review and hopefully we'll see what the outcome of the article is. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it on hold now then? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be, thanks for your help, Zenlax. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is no problem at all. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Placing GAN on hold (backlog)

How about shutting down for nominations during 3-7 days? the backlog could be cleared, nominators could have another couple of days to revise the articles and, even if we have an avalanche of nominations afterwards, there won't be any more month old nominations.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Another idea might be to limit the number of articles an editor can have nominated at one time. 15 at a time is too much, especially when it's an editor who is unwilling to review articles or to address the concerns brought up when articles he nominated are reviewed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone nominates 15 articles and doesn't review I'll personally hunt them down, tie them to a chair and make them swallow the GA criteria. But no one seems to be in danger as it looks like only imatthew and thinkblue have made more than 3 nominations and are not reviewing.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 18:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Kaypoh currently has 15 nominations but does not review any articles (and, when articles that he nominates are put on hold, he does not respond to the reviewer's concerns). iMatthew has reviewed quite a few articles, and ThinkBlue was last week's Reviewer of the Week. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 19:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Pass?

New York State Route 8 appears to of just been passed, except one whole section is unsourced. I could be bold and emergency delist it, but I wanted to get other opinions on this. D.M.N. (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the section you cite is a route description, where one source is used for the entire route description section. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Added citations to the section. Issue resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's better. D.M.N. (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick-Fail?

Does Lennox Lewis vs. Mike Tyson qualify for quick-fail? It was created almost a week ago and has three edits to it's name, and is not a very good article. iMatthew 20 08 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it appears it does. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 21:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quick fail. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominations with no nominator

At present, there are a couple of nominations without a nominator listed: Taxiride, Phil Hellmuth, River Oaks, Houston, Texas. Should these just be removed, or should we allow them to stay and be reviewed? Nikki311

I would think that you should remove them, because otherwise you don't know who to go to if there are comments on the review, or if it's on hold, etc. iMatthew 20 08 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One of those was mine, forgot to sign. Sorry. Best bet is to check the talk page history for the article and contact whoever added the GAN template to it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

White Mountain art was GAR, failed, restored, and has multiple problems

This article is on the nomination list. I read it, believe it has multiple breeches of MOS and problems with POV and OR. I wrote a preliminary review here, but when I went to post it and put it on hold at the talk page, I see that it has recently been reinstated as a GA. The article in its form right now is not GA. I'm new to reviewing so I don't know how to handle this yet. Please assist. --Moni3 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely troubling that the GA review was done on the nominator and reviewer's talk pages. I agree that some descriptions contain POV, and I noticed that there are several unreferenced paragraphs. Perhaps Wikipedia:Good article reassessment? The other option would be to delist it and replace the nomination at WP:GAN, after which you could review it (I notice that you had signed up to review the article). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm new, so I didn't think to check the talk page first to make sure it was nominated and not GA already. Still learning, apparently. I put the review notice up, spent a couple hours reviewing it, then when I was ready to put it on hold and post it, I see it's been reinstated. Unnecessarily, I have to add. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to add that the principal author of the article is using his own website as a source. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for what to do if you question an article's GA status can be found here. After reading your preliminary review, it would seem to me that the best thing would be to summarize your view on the article talk page, link to your preliminary review, and give editors a week or so to fix the problems, mentioning that the article will be delisted if it still doesn't meet the criteria. If the problems are still there in a week, you can delist it. If your actions are contested, the article can be brought to WP:Good article reassessment. Geometry guy 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case I can't see any evidence that a review according to te GA criteria has been carried out at all, so I'd have delisted it, restored its GA nomination, posted up a proper review and put the article on hold. And that's still what I think ought to be done. This is no time to be pussy-footing around what looks like a possible case of a mate nodding through a GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I placed my own review on the talk page, noting that whatever was done on user talk pages was insufficient. I don't know what to do about listing, de-lising, or GAR. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the bull by the horns and delist the article and restore its GA nomination. If you then put it on hold then we'll be sweet. :-)

I'll put it on hold. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting multiple reviewers to comment on the response to my recommendations. Many of my recommendatins are marked as "disputed" or "disregard", particularly those for OR and POV issues. I am fairly open-minded, though I have very high standards from going through multiple GA and FA process. If my standards are too high for GA, please overturn my suggestions. However, I believe my standards are right where they need to be. --Moni3 (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the review, and I'd say that you did a good job. Original Research and Point of View statements are clearly present and do not belong in any Wikipedia articles, let alone Good Articles. You might want to simply check back in six days and fail the article if your concerns have not been addressed. There is nothing under the "on hold" instructions on the WP:GAN page that states that you must wait seven days, however. I know that Beaujolais was recently failed when the nominator refused to address the concerns brought up in the review. It went to WP:GAR (see here), where it was decided that the reviewer had the right to fail an article if it was made clear that the concerns would not be addressed. It might be good to wait to see if User:JohnJHenderson intends to fix them, though, as the refusal came from the editor who initially "reinstated" the GA status rather than the nominator himself. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look and commented in general terms. The review is fine. I suggest ignoring the deconstruction: some of the "disputed" or "disregard" comments may have a point, but many do not and such deconstruction is not the way to proceed with a GA review anyway. Let the editors improve the article in the light of your preliminary review, and then see where the article stands. It shouldn't be necessary for additional reviewers to comment, unless the outcome is disputed, in which case GAR is available. Geometry guy 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this at my talk page. My first instinct is to send to GAR if there is objection to Moni's GA review from the article author.
Jack Bethune's comments are valid in the sense that he's allowed to disagree with certain requests, but I would say that suggesting they be ignored is probably taking it a bit too far, and can only cause confusion in the long run. I would suggest Jack sit it out until Moni's comments are dealt with, and then raise any other issues he has with the article on the article's talk page after the review.
I would suggest Moni wait until her comments have been dealt with, and pass the article as normal if there is no objection from anyone else afterwards.
If Moni and Jack are unable to agree on issues to be resolved with the article after her review's issues have been dealt with, I would suggest they take it to GAR and have some wider community discussion on the GA merits of the article.
As a side note, I suggest the talk page be archived fully, and that Moni re-add her review (by copy pasting the original diff, perhaps), because at the moment it's pretty hard to read what's happening there.
My thoughts - hope they help. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

While I don't see any major edit warring evidence in the article itself, I do interpret the stability criterion to include disputes on the talk page regarding the article, since this could very easily spill over as an edit war in the article itself. As such, my first instinct here is to fail the article on account of the stability criterion requirement. The disagreements based on the review are also based on WP:NPOV issues, which is another criterion. These must be dealt with and all issues regarding this must be handled before the article can be listed at WP:GA.

Also, as somewhat of a separate issue, I have noticed many parts of GA reviews recently going into multiple main section headings on the talk page. This is going to cause issues with the article as talk pages (and GA reviews) are archived, so please try and keep comments related to the GA review within one main section on the talk page. If you need to start a new subsection, then please do. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Input on VG article writing guide

Hi, the Video games Project has recently been undertaking various efforts to provide resources to better educate our less experienced members. One such effort is to create a guide on "How to write a good video game article" (title not set in stone). Here is the current draft of the guide.

Seeing as the purpose of the guide is to assist an editor as they improve an article up the quality scale (hopefully to GA or FA status), we thought it would be best to get input from some of the people that are part of the process. We'd like your thoughts as to whether this will get the job done on the GA front. Any input is welcome and appreciated as we want this thing to actually be useful.

And for those curious, see the first and second VG talk page discussions for more details. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Anybody? :-(

I understand there's currently a sizable backlog of GAN, I just hope this isn't forgotten. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Help at GAR requested

GAN reviewers may recall this post I made in January requesting help at GAR. I quote:

“

GAR is important because it determines consensus on good article quality issues in borderline or disputed cases. As such, it interprets the good article criteria in the same way that courts interpret the law. Sometimes this also results in changes or clarifications to the criteria. It is therefore important that editors with frontline reviewing experience join in.

”

At the time there wasn't much of a backlog, but there was a shortage of participation. Now there is a backlog and although several editors have been contributing occasionally, at the moment there is a danger of GAR turning into Majoreditor-and-Geometry-guy-dot-com, which would not be a good thing, despite these two being such fine editors :-)

Many thanks to those who have been contributing, such as ElCobbola and EyeSerene. I would encourage more reviewers to watchlist User:VeblenBot/C/GAR (*) to keep track of new GARs, and visit the reassessment page to comment on some of the articles currently listed there. Thank you all! Geometry guy 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(*) P.S. You will also need to make sure your preferences are not set to hide bot edits.

Watchlisted the bot page - I'll try and help out a bit more. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link Gguy - didn't realise there was a bot page :P EyeSerene^talk 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't figure it out

Popped up in the error category so I reverted, left a message, have gotten no reply, can't figure it out. Talk:Battle of N'Djamena (2008). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of it, the article was promoted to GA here, the bot came along and added {{ArticleHistory}} here, then someone later disagreed with passing the article and put it on hold here. That edit is what appears to have caused the error. --Holderca1^talk 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Article length - what is the shortest GA

Hi all, I have not reviewed many articles here and hence didn't have a feel for minimum length - Buckeye (chicken) is nice and compact but measures only 4.7kb in length. Have folks had any minimum sizes in mind for GAs? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant criterion here is no. 3 (Broadness). As long as the subject is covered adequately, there is no set minimum length. In fact, part of the reason for GA is to recognise these type of articles (that would be unlikely to qualify for FA). The article looks ok to me - I don't know how much more one could say about a chicken anyway ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

At a glance and going on gut instinct (as I know nothing about chickens) that doesn't look like it's quite broad enough, but as EyeSerene says there are no rules. Cas, if you think it covers everything, then it's fine. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 07:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I know little of chickens, also, but my instinct is that this isn't GA since a first read left me wondering about other things. What is the distribution: did it only stay locally in Ohio or taken up by small farmers elsewhere? How did the breed get from Nettie Metcalf's backyard to a wider distribution in the first place? Did she sell breeding stock, or did someone else get on board? How is breeding stock sold now? Market in fertilised eggs or chicks to hobbyists? Do people buy the chooks and set up themselves, breeding their own? What desirable characteristics did the original cross-breeding stock have? Can we trace the characteristics to the parent breed? Is the distinctive colour from one breed, or a mix of genes? What leads to such colours? Are the characteristics dominant, or at risk of dilution? Are there similar breeds (or has no one else tried crossbreeding Rhode Island Reds and Buff Cochins, etc)? Are there any specific health conecerns of the buckeye: more susceptible to certain diseases? They seem to be cold-hardy: how would they cope in a warmer climate? Would egg laying differ? What's a decent laying ability? One a day? Are they good parents of fertilised eggs? Are they left to nest or are there breeders who raise chicks in incubators? Do they mature at the same rate as every other breed? What is the life span? Laying life: how many seasons of eggs can you expect from an adult hen? They're now endangered: what steps are being taken to save the breed? There are only five flocks now: were there ever very many? Have they always been a fringe breed (with a handfull of flocks) or were they a little more widespread? Are they marketed, to encourage hobbyists to buy them and therefore increase the number of flocks? And that's just after one read of the article; I could probably think of others. Perhaps these points have already been considered and rejected. Anyway, I'll leave those thoughts with you, Casliber. Feel free to copy to the talk page if you feel this would be useful there. Gwinva (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's got to be the bottom line in considering whether the article is sufficiently broad (as opposed to the FA requirement for complete). Does it leave the reader with lots of unanswered questions? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want an example of a short GA that passed, the shortest I know of is Robin Starveling. Wrad (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There are much shorter GAs. Take a couple of mine, New York State Route 312 and New York State Route 216, for example. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

IvoShandor (talk · contribs) and TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) have a quite a few miniatures on obscure historic events or heritage listed buildings. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I feel a bit clearer now. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up - controversial article nominated

As a heads up, Cold fusion, which is tagged as a controversial article and has been the subject of many an ANI thread, has been nominated. I would suggest that this be taken by one of our better reviewers in the subject area (Physics and astronomy) - thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For your information, this article has come out of mediation successfully. All controversial issues have been resolved. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokes, could you make this harder?

I just came across the Laurence Olivier and wanted to offer it up to GA. Yikes! I have to go to three different pages, edit them, and cut and paste arcane wikitext between the windows? Are you kidding? Look, I know there's a backlog and everything, but the nomination process has to be improved! Surely someone can write a tool for this? Maury (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Only two pages; the article talk page and this one here. And that's a grand total of two copy pastes. A script would be pretty unreasonable...it would almost certainly not work. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's a grand total of two copy pastes 1) paste gobblygook into the page body, 2) paste link into edit summary, 3) paste more gobblygook into talk page. Three cut and pastes, and three pages assuming you start on the article page (I did).

A script would be pretty unreasonable...it would almost certainly not work. On what do you base this opinion? I disagree with it. Maury (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a complete and total freakin' idiot when it comes to processes on Wikipedia: creating templates, designing boxes, etc., and I think the instructions are pretty clear. I was able to do it the first time around, and I can barely do anything it seems, except - you know - write good articles. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)\

It's not the instructions, it's the actual actions. Maury (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to do an edit summary...re. the script comment, a script couldn't determine which part of WP:GAN to place the article on, as far as I know. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the third step (adding the template to the talk page) could be done through a bot or auutomated script. Reducing bureaucracy and instruction creep in this manner will make things easier for both the nominators and the GA community. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That has been suggested, I think Geometry guy has some ideas for that...but they were generally opposed, if I recall. G-guy, help us out? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Logical progression would be for the nomination to added here to appropriate section then a bot do the article/talk page stuff. Gnan garra 11:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Maury, feel free to nudge one of us on our talk page if you need a hand with anything ;) This does keep cropping up though; I think the instructions themselves are pretty clear, but a bot would be great. Ideally IMO the only nominator edit needed should be to add a GA review request template to an article talk page, and everything else process-wise would happen automagically. I think this was Gguy's idea originally, and I've certainly come to see the attraction - however, every time it gets brought up it dies away without any decision. Is this for lack of a bot-writer, or do we need to open a full discussion to gauge consensus? EyeSerene^talk 11:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene, having the nominator edit the talk page and the bot edit the GAN page, instead of having the nominator edit the GAN page and a bot edit the talk page, has several disadvantages. Nominators would not be able to add comments to their nomination. Similarly, it would be harder for reviewers to indicate that an article is under review or on hold. There is also less need to keep the talk pages updated to the minute. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Automation redux

Okay, here I am. Automation has not generally been opposed, but related suggestions to streamline process have been opposed by some reviewers. Those used to the complexity and bureaucracy that has grown around the GA process are reluctant to part with it, sadly. Unwillingness to compromise has led to a lack of will to take automation forward, and a lack of a committed bot-operator.

Concerning how to automate GAN, the proposed system is to operate the entire GAN process from the article talk page. I agree that there are disadvantages to this, but it is much much harder to automate the article talk pages.

Technical aside. To automate the GAN page, all we have to do get the GAN template to put article talk pages into categories indicating their status and subtopic. A bot then reads the contents of these categories and uses this information to generate the GAN page. To automate article talk, a bot needs to download the GAN page, parse it into its contents, read which articles are listed, compare this to when it last downloaded the page, go to every talk page whose status has changed, download it and either add a template, or parse the page to find the template and remove it, then save the page. I know which of these I would rather code if I were a bot writer.

The disadvantages are not quite the ones Hildanknight suggests. In particular, it is easy to keep track of "under review", "on hold" and "second opinion" on article talk, and categories can be used to provide this information on the GAN page. Also the GAN page could easily be updated every half an hour (or even every 10 minutes), as this approach is not at all server intensive. It is true that, without a change of process, nominators and reviewers would not be able to add comments to the GAN page. However, since the review process takes place on article talk, this is fairly minor. A more serious disadvantage is that the name of the nominator and the reviewer would not appear on the GAN page. Both these issues could be fixed by a change of process in which the GA review takes place on an article talk subpage. The review could be transcluded from this subpage into article talk, while names and comments of nominator and reviewer could be transcluded onto the GAN page. There are other reasons for storing the review on a dedicated page: it provides a permanant link to the GA review for ArticleHistory.

The main change, however, would be the dynamics of the GAN page. This is probably the hottest page on most editors' watchlists, with regular edit summaries appearing like "Nominated X", "Put X on hold", "Passed X". This would change dramatically into an update every half an hour with edit summary "Automatic update"! Accountability could still be covered by watchlisting the GA page, but I'm not sure that reviewers would like it. Comments and ideas are welcome, anyway. Geometry guy 14:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm still in favour of the GA review on subpage technique, though this has been opposed, I'm sure! In response to "A more serious disadvantage is that the name of the nominator and the reviewer would not appear on the GAN page." - couldn't a bot add that information while listing/adding on hold templates/whatevering? Surely, the information should be easily available from the talk page's history. Otherwise, you have my full support. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, same here (no surprise really!). I'd also support reviews taking place on a sub-page, but it may be best for the present to separate the two and see if we can get consensus one step at a time (even though the two logically go hand-in-hand). EyeSerene^talk 11:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support automation of GA and use of subpages and making the change simultaneously. This automation process has worked well at Peer review. The only caution I see is the topic is the part most frequently messed up at PR - despite fairly clear directions and only 10 choices, many of the entries for the topic are phrases which are not a choice or other invalid choices. The good thing is that blanks or invalid choices all go into the general topic at PR. At GAN there are 11 broad categories and these are divided into 34 subsections (although Mathematics and Miscellaneous are their own subsection). My strong suggestion is to make this part a drop down menu which the user must choose from - if you rely on the nominator to enter the topic, my guess is there will be a huge increase in Misc. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My approach to the topic and subtopic parameters is to make them accept as many variants as possible. To help to track this issue, I have created Category:Good article nominees without a subtopic, Category:Good article nominees with an invalid subtopic and Category:Good article nominees with cut-and-paste subtopic. This drew attention to several editors using an Oxford comma, so I updated the template to accept Oxford commas. The last category is rather funny: the most common error is a subtopic equal to "name of section where article is listed". I laughed out loud the first time I saw this, but by the time I found 7 errors, the laugh was on the idiot who wrote the instructions (me): they need to be clarified!

One solution to the problem of invalid subtopics is to have reviewers fix errors. However, given that the template is very generous in accepting variants, a better solution may be not to list articles at GAN until the nominator provides a valid subtopic: just place the article in an error category instead. Geometry guy 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure the "don't list at GAN" solution would be overly use friendly. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative

Why automate from the talk page to GAN, the same process can work in reverse and given that GA reviews dont normally happen within minutes of the nomination a delay in the process doesnt matter. What I suggest is that editors nominate on the GAN page then the bot does the article and talk page templates. By using a nomination template, similar to WP:RFPP to nominate, when the article is reviewed the reviewer places a Hold, Pass, Decline template. The bot then closes the review subpage, adds the result to the talkpage and notifies the nominator of the result. At each stage the GAN page still needs the nomator, reviewer, and bot to make edit summaries thus retaining the advantages of the watchlist.

This then provides an opportunity to look at the way in which On Hold reviews are processed including the potential of notifying;

the nominator of an article being put on hold

the reviewer when the concern has been addressed

closing after x number of days, if not addressed in a timely fashion, could even remind the nominator 1 day before hand.

For nomination its requires one edit to be placed, a nomination template into the section on the article topic from there the bot can create the review page with all criteria listed. For the reviewer they need only do the review then add a template to GAN when finished. Gnan garra 01:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well, but can you find someone willing to program, maintain and operate such a bot? Geometry guy 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

would not this or the first or the original automation redux allow for the GA sub-page process, which I was slightly for (?) but concerned about the administration of it all. Both these could cut back on that. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 11:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, automation would help to support GA subpages and vice-versa. This is why these two ideas probably need to be implemented together. Geometry guy 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction

In this edit, my summary should have been "Passed 2007–present Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden". Sorry for the mistake.Bless sins (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kaypoh and drive-by noms

I think it's time to start making a policy about drive-by noms. Kaypoh has a long habit of nomming random failed FACs and A-class MILHIST articles and nomming them for GA and rarely cleaning up the necessary things. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Drive-by noms are time-consuming and disruptive. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Kaypoh is quite clear about the process see User_talk:Kaypoh#GA_nomination, but you are right, no matter what good intentions there are behind the action, because the nominator is unwilling to GA review it does guarantee an increase in the number of articles waiting. Course of action? 1)If action is taken against the nominator then "innocent" articles maybe "punished" by missing out on a GA review. but 2) if they are failed FACs and A-class MILHIST then an editor has gone through a process of nominating already and can do so for a GA if they wish. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 09:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have been avoiding doing reviews for articles nominated by Kaypoh, unless there is evidence that other editors are watching and are interested in dealing with the comments that come as a result of the review. I wouldn't object to something restricting Kaypoh from nominating articles he/she hasn't worked on directly. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating to have a nominator nominate an article and then not offer to improve it. I only discovered this the hard way, Now I know but there are alot of reviewers. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I removed the three B-movie nominations that had not been reviewed, and left a note for the primary editor of the articles. As far as I can tell the nominator has never edited the articles, and has not edited Wikipedia in three weeks. Gimmetrow 23:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

i totaly disagree. If an editor want to nominate an article without creating it, that is their problem. That is like saying i should not be able to nominate Grey griffins series since I did not create it. But i have read over it and have helped it and now i HAVE the right to nominate the article and so does someone else. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 23:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki. You can revert if you wish to take responsibility for the nomination. Gimmetrow 00:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kingrock - it isn't the problem. I agree anyone can nominate - it is frustrating when the nominator is unable or unwilling to improve the article if the reviewer finds stuff that needs doing for the article to pass GA, which is what happened when I reviewed Glasgow after Kaypoh nominatd it and I (nor he) could access material the article nbeeded to pass with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I have understand, the editor does not have to contribute to that article at all to nominate it. Even if they are "unable or unwilling to improve the article if the reviewer finds stuff that needs doing for the article to pass GA" they can nominate the article if they feel that is good anyway, if you have a recurring problem like this, why not report it to a Admin, not a talk page. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can nominate anything. This is, however, a series of articles, and the nominator appears to have abandoned them. So I elected to remove them. (And I didn't know this thread existed when I removed them.) Gimmetrow 00:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

So from what you saying it sounds like a editor made an article and then just completely stopped editing it after it went through GAN and failed. Then the reviewer left some advice and the editor did nothing to improve the article ever since the nom. Then a few weeks later came back and nominated the article. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The nominator of these articles has not edited Wikipedia in any capacity since April 24, three weeks ago. There is no evidence that editor is around to handle any issues with the articles, and that editor has *never* edited the articles, as far as I can tell, except for the one single edit to the talk page adding the nomination template. Gimmetrow 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Where in the bloody hell on Wikipedia does it say an editor MUST contribute to the article to nominate it, and if you think it's wrong to do that, something really is wrong with your mindset, also the last time the editor has edited on wikipedia has no bloody influence on wether or not he/she should nominate the article. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 00:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If an editor has been gone for a year, comes back, and nominates an article, fine with me. But this editor has from all appearances retired; there was no response from the nominator about any other articles nominated. So much for trying to save other reviewers time. If you want to reinstate the nominations, knock yourself out. Gimmetrow 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On another note, it's frustrating to take time to review an article, then having another reviewer pop by and "pass" the article with (apparently) nothing more than a skim. Gimmetrow 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kingrock, I invite you to do a review of a Kaypoh article and have your hard work completely ignored. I then invite you to calm down, as there is no real need for incivility here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have three problems with Kaypoh's nominations: (1) The quantity. At one point recently, Kaypoh had 19 articles nominated. (2) Kaypoh is completely unwilling to review any articles. (3) If any concerns are brought up in the GA review, Kaypoh will not work on any of them. The article will sit on hold for one week with none of the concerns addressed. This is most definitely a waste of the reviewer's time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if someone nominates but doesn't review, but having reviewed one of Kaypoh's articles, I can say that I prefer it when an article is nominated by an editor that's contributed to the article and cares about it. If they nominate it themselves, they can prepare for its review and wait on standby (sometimes patiently for weeks) until it's reviewed, then address any concerns. If someone else nominates it for GA straight after a failed attempt at FA, there's no guarantee the editors will address concerns, because maybe they need a break from working on that article, or don't feel ready for another review yet. I think it should be up to them when to nominate the article. Somno (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind someone nominating an article and not reviewing one in return. I didn't review an article until I had nominated five or six articles. I definitely have a problem with someone nominating several dozen articles without reviewing even one in return, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have a real problem with someone who nominates almost 20 articles and does nothing to address the reviewer's comments. It is a waste of a reviewer's time, as they could be reviewing an article where editors will fix the concerns, and it will eventually pass. I know a couple of Kaypoh's noms have been reviewed, but what about the others? There are still several of his/her noms contributing to the current backlog. Nikki311 05:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Kaypoh just returned with two new noms. —97198 talk 12:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this irresponsible? Yes. Is it irritating? Hell yes. Is it jerkish? Maybe. Does it deserve official action? No. Every time someone does something irritating, it doesn't require a restriction, or a ban, or whatever. Some people are going to do things you don't like. Deal with it, work around it, but for the love of God don't try to get rid of everything that annoys you. Ziggy Saw dust 13:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather more than just irresponsible and annoying - when it's happening regularly to an already-backlogged process, those concerned have been notified about the problem they're causing, and they still persist, it verges on wilful disruption. I'd support a move to discourage noms unless they're from an editor actively involved with the article. EyeSerene^talk 14:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured it would be worth pointing potential reviewers of this person's noms to this discussion, so I put notes under their unreviewed ones linking here. FWIW I think Ziggy Sawdust makes a really excellent point, I don't think this is the kind of thing you can enforce. delldot on a public computer talk 09:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Kaypoh's talk page, I cannot help but notice that his reasoning behind not reviewing other articles is that he does not have a good grasp of English. Yet his reasoning for adding nominations is that he reads the articles and believes that they are of GA quality. Is this not contradictory? Would it not be easier to simply tell Kaypoh that if he does not understand English enough to review an article, that it is most likely he does not understand English enough to know if an article is worth nominating?

How many articles nominated by Kaypoh have at least been likely to pass if someone bothered to edit them, or are some of them quick failing? I notice his nomination for Resident Evil 4 was quick failed because it still had editing templates on the article. The359 (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV

I am not sure I should be concerned here or just being over- protective. Grand Theft Auto IV was nominated on 11th May and passed on 13th May. No problem there but as some of you are aware I am trying to learn about GAs by reading others review process, not necessarily to comment on just read and learn. So I go to Talk:Grand Theft Auto IV and not a 1st review, points raised, discussion or a "final report". Surely those are an integral part of a GA review. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 10:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time we have had this issue with user in question; see here (another case of passing a Grand Theft Auto related article, though I forget which one) and here. I am going to leave the user a stern warning asking that they please refrain from passing/failing GA nominations in future without an experienced user (like these guys) giving an opinion first. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note; I have reverted the passing of the GA and put the article back up (in its prior position) at GAN. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think it's highly doubtfull that an article on a high profile game released a mere weeks ago, is going to remain stable and thus a GA. MickMacNee (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The GA nomination for Grand Theft Auto (series) appears to have had the same problem, see Talk:Grand Theft Auto (series)#Successful good article nomination. Leithp 10:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That caused me to raise an eyebrow. No mention of BMG (The original publisher) orRace and Chase (The first incarnation of the game) and only one cursory mention of Dan Jones (The creator of the game). - X201 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict: : I think Talk:Grand Theft Auto (series)#Successful good article nomination does two things: 1) shows that it might be good just to go for a GA sub page so that the history of a GA and previous GAs can be followed, and 2) gives those that think GAs are a waste of time and is a possible harmful to wikipedia another stick to beat us with. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 11:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with (2), but you lost me on (1)...could you explain a bit further please? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry I did not express myself very well. One of the ideas mentioned some time back was to put GA reviews into a sub page of the talk page. In this case by trawling back I found Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_(series)#Good_article_nomination_on_hold and later Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_(series)#Failed_.22good_article.22_nomination followed by Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_(series)#Successful_good_article_nomination. So then using the history of the article I try to see the changes bought about from failed to successful, a long process. A dedicated page for GA linked to the dedicated page of previous GA process if applicable would in my perfect world make things easier. Of course this is reliant on the reviewer writing reports etc so that the process is clear and easy to follow. This may in some ways answer the "GAs are meaningless" lot's concerns. I will say though three things have come to mind, 1) after reading X201 brief critic the editors that did put the work into the article may have been mislead into believing that it is a GA article, 2) been let down by the GA process and in no way ready to go for FA status, look at Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_(series)#Rewrite. I hope a bit clearer now. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 11:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing I know of that stops you doing that now, just put GA related talk messages in a dedicated archive. MickMacNee (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a consensus on this is required first and the GA process should be uniformed as much as possible so that at least it continues to looks like a coherent programme! and I would need to run through the process with someone first, confidence on this particular level of wikidom needs lifting. I do though think it is an excellent idea, with a link to the "talk" page and vice versa Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No need for consensus, moving similar topics of discussion is a standard practice in some articles. Read the guide on archiving, it's no different to creating another talk archive page, but for GA discussions. It's not exactly hidden away. MickMacNee (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

remove indent. see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Improvements_in_GA_process for the previous discussions. And we are now entering into this territory so maybe should move further discussions there if it continues. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I have just reviewed Grand Theft Auto IV and placed it on hold. You can see the output of that review here. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write _Read 10:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination added

Hi - just a heads up that I have listed this article, which is listed as a controversial article. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I think we all know a little about controversy and I'm going to review the article in a few days. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a peer review currently going on for that article, see here with a long list of comments which appear to not of been addressed. I suggest removing the GA nomination. D.M.N. (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd expected that the GA nomination would not be reviewed for a long time (looking at the backlog) so I didn't think the peer review would be a problem, and was a chance to get the article tweaked whilst waiting for a review. You'll notice that all the action items in the review have now been completed, and I apologise for the crossover in processes. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Frank Tudor

This is tagged at Talk:Frank Tudor as a current GA nomination, but I can't see any listing at GAN. It probably failed but its history has not been updated.--Grahame (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the history, the GAN tag was placed on 27th Feb, but it looks like it was never added to WP:GAN. I can find no evidence of a review, ~~so I'll list it with the original nom date~~. Thanks for the note! EyeSerene^talk 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit) Struck the above; I've removed the talk-page template instead. The nominator has been indef-blocked and won't be coming back, making a GA hold (the likely outcome IMO) rather pointless and unproductive... EyeSerene^talk 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by noms, part 2

At FAC, the decision was recently taken to address the same problem by adding to the instructions Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Looks good to me, particularly with the fast edit count. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please let's do this. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The instructions state that "[articles] can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article". This means that if I chance upon an article and feel that it means the GA criteria (assuming I have a sound understanding of the GA criteria), I should not hesitate to nominate it. Last July, I nominated Singapore Dreaming, which I felt met the GA criteria but had never edited until then; the nomination was placed on hold and subsequently passed. I do not mind drive-by nominations if the articles meet (or nearly meet) the GA criteria. Of course, drive-by nominations of poor articles can be quickfailed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest a GA nomination on the article's talk page and the article's editors can nominate it. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Find an article you think should be nominated at GAN. Go to its talk page. Leave a comment saying "hey, I think this should be a GA. You should nominate it at WP:GAN". Wait. If they don't nominate it but you are willing to make changes based on a review, nominate it and note this specifically when nominating. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the "deal with objections during the FAC process" is the most important thing. I'm not opposed to drive-by nominations as a whole, but I am strongly opposed to editors making drive-by nominations if they have no intention of addressing any concerns that may be brought up. I support changing the policy to state: "Articles can be nominated by anyone willing to deal with concerns that may be brought up during the review, and can be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article." I believe that this would solve the most important (and frustrating) problem relating to drive-by nominations. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I like this...but it begs the question; how, short of doing the review, do we know is this problem will occur? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't. Assume good faith, and hope that the kinds of people who nominate articles are also the kind that will address problems raised by reviewers. If the nom won't/can't, then eventually someone else will come along that can improve the article based on the feedback. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to leave a pre-review message on the article talk page, along the lines of "this article will be reviewed shortly; editors may need to be available for the next week or so if I put it on hold; let me know if this is inconvenient & we'll arrange another review date". I find it often elicits a response and is a good indicator of whether or not an article is being actively watched by its editors (and with the backlog and delay in reviewing, it can also help where editors have given up waiting and moved on to other things). It's not foolproof though, and as NickPenguin says, we won't eliminate this problem completely. EyeSerene^talk 09:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Red links in Good Articles

I recently read a review of a Good Article nomination (no personal involvement) where the article was criticised for having too many red links, and the question was whether articles would ever be written on the red linked subjects. Personally I believe red links should be encouraged, as red links are perhaps the best way of prompting new articles. To question whether there would ever be articles on the subject is besides the point, as a red link will promote an article. My guess there are many subjects that are covered today in detail that few ever thought there would be articles on. I think articles should not be criticised for having "too many" red links, as red links are more a comment on the completeness of Wikipedia, and do not reflect on the quality of the article itself. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Except one has to ask if something that is red linked notable enough to have an article in the first place? It something is not likely to meet notability, then it should not have a red link at all. Also keep in mind that there is a Manual of Style regarding linking in articles, and that some things in articles do not necessarily need to be linked, whether they are red or blue. Therefore, red links are not inherently bad, but they should not be encouraged when they are unnecessary. The359 (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Many red links may suggest poor coverage of a certain topic (due to systemic bias) and thus should not be a reason to fail a GA nomination. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He should not criticize it. Red links are not detrimental to the Good quality of an article. --Efe (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Efe, to Hildanknight) If they're actually notable. I agree with The359 (I've been doing a lot this lately!) that we should definitely check if the link is going any good (ie. if it's likely to be created). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree to The359 as well. I criticized one article on FAC and asked to delink those (the editor delinked only those non-notable). But having lots of them should never be a basis of failing nominees. --Efe (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a couple of red link in articles, but if there are a large number, it could be a red flag or an indication that there are issues with the broadness criterion of WP:WIAGA. For example, an editor could be just adding a red link on a topic that needs more details, to fill in, and they're too lazy to put those details into the article where they belong. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More eyes needed please

What do you do with a procedural issue with a GA? I wasn't sure about Subcutaneous emphysema, which was passed by the same person who nominated it (they did it in complete good faith and took pains to be neutral & objective, but I still think it's a good idea to have more people look at it). Should I go to GAR on purely procedural grounds? Or delist and relist? I hate to add to either backlog. I would love it if an experienced reviewer could just look at the article and decide whether to delist or how to deal with it (not that that does anything for the backlog either). If anyone wants to rise to the challenge, there are also critiques of article here. Otherwise please advise on what to do. Thanks much, delldot on a public computer talk 02:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Delist it and put it back into the GAN queue. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks much for the advice. delldot on a public computer talk 02:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects that have 8/9+ articles at GAN

Should we force a restriction on the amount of articles a particular WikiProject may have at GAN. For instance WP:PW has 13 articles at GAN, and I think it is a tad too much. I think we should have a restriction to stop it becoming overloaded. D.M.N. (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW would have less if our articles were ever reviewed. Our articles take over a month to get reviewed. King iMatthew 20 08 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think imposing a limit for all WikiProjects would make sense, as the projects are all different sizes. For example, WP:FILM has 40,000+ articles, so giving them the same limit as WP:TENNIS, which has 1,000 articles, wouldn't be fair. As for a limit specific to WP:PW, please feel free to contribute to the discussion taking place on the project talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Good Article Nominations consensus time). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If a member of WP:PW hasn't contributed to any of the wrestling articles currently up at GAN, there's nothing stopping them reviewing them - if they know the GA criteria of course. And if they are a bit worried about reviewing them, then maybe give it a full review, but ask for a second opinion. I'm sure other reviewers may help out if they see the workload is lessened for them. Peanut4 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. We've tried to avoid giving full reviews to our own articles to avoid accusations of conflict of interest. As for initial reviews, we already do it before nominating the article (they go through pre-GA reviews, where issues relating to the GA criteria are brought up and fixed). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are my exact feelings, but other users seem to disagree. King iMatthew 20 08 23:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It takes more than a month for most articles to get reviewed....sometimes more than two months. I don't mind a member of a WikiProject reviewing articles related to their project, unless they significantly contributed to it. I would recommend reviewers from the WikiProjects to be extra hard on the articles, though, just so nobody can accuse them of easily passing them. Nikki311 23:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that although having members of the same WikiProject review articles is not inherently bad, it is better to have an outside perspective. Someone with an outside perspective is more likely to notice terms or descriptions which, to a member of that project are normal, but to the general public may be confusing. I know that in my most recent review, I covered a sport know nothing about, and I think it helped to increase the readability of the article. The359 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it is probably a good idea to have reviewers from outside of the WikiProject. Wrestling articles sometimes have problems with in-universe writing, and it would be better for someone who has limited knowledge of professional wrestling to review the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we really want to discourage Wikipedians from writing high-quality articles and nominating them at GAN? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Participation in WikiProjects varies so widely, assigning a specific number would be way too arbitrary. If a project has lots of active members and a healthy spirit of collaboration, it stands to reason it would crank out lots of high quality articles, and have lots of people ready to work through holds. An arbitrary restriction would be unnecessary bureaucracy in a case like that. Furthermore, it's individuals, not projects, that nominate articles. It just ain't right to tell one editor they can't nominate, just because too many of their peers have nominated articles. -Pete (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BUT if a certain project tends to nominate a lot of articles, it might be nice to make a friendly request that its members review some articles from other projects to help out with the backlog! -Pete (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Shouldn't every article be a GA? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if at times, when there is a large number of articles from two projects, those two projects could agree to review each other's articles. It may be tough to find those knowledgable enough to review the other Project's articles, but it would help to quickly eliminate a large chunk of backlog, and both groups would get what they want with ease. The359 (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What Pete and The359 said. If you want to backlog to do down, you can help by reviewing another article on which you are more of a "specialist". If you need help, ask here, or one of these guys. Easy! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The backlog currently stands at 200 articles, few of which meet the quick-fail criteria (I quickly checked a few nominations to arrive at this conclusion). That is a good thing; it means that more high-quality articles are being written. Unfortunately, good reviewers are in short supply. As I have said many times, we need better training and resources for new reviewers, both to make things easier for new reviewers and to improve the quality of reviewers and reviews. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page merger?

Looking at some of the comments posted on both WT:GA and WT:GAN, I think we seem to have two separate streams of comments going on regarding GA overall. It might actually help if all comments regarding the GA process in general were on one page. That way, when discussing improvements to the GA process as a whole, we only have one place to go. So I would like to propose merging WT:GA into WT:GAN, and redirecting the page to this one. Any thoughts? Dr. Cash (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to read the banner at the beging of this page. Ruslik (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I regret to say that I think this merge is inevitable. But I'd much rather we redirect reform traffic to WikiProject Good articles, as that's where we should be talking about GA reform... I still would like the GA reviewer of the week stuff (etc.) taking place here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)